Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Comment: Gay Tories: an oxymoron?

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. I have an gay acquaintance who is a Tory Councillor, works for an ultra homophobic Tory MP and is against equal citizenship for gays. It makes no sense at all.

  2. James Incer 28 Sep 2012, 4:20pm

    All utter rubbish. This guy needs to go into the real world and meet people

    1. Sister Mary Clarence 29 Sep 2012, 12:58am

      Utter rubbish sums it up nicely I think …

      Got as far as ‘that Labour allowed gay people to defend their country openly for the first time’ and couldn’t read anymore.

      I take it the author (and I use the term in its absolute loosest form) is about 12 years old, and therefore can be excused for for having not the faintest clue about politics in this country.

      For the record Alex, the UK permitted gays in the military only after the European Court of Human Rights deemed the government’s ban illegal in September 1999. Your memory might be a bit foggy Alex but the Labour government didn’t go down without a fight over the issue.

      In relation to I think its fair to say ‘all’ the other equalities legislation introduced by Labour, I think if you check the requirements of the Treaty of Amsterdam you’ll find that the government had little/no choice but to do so. This wouldn’t have changed whoever was in power – although the speed on introduction would potentially have been an issue.

    2. Sister Mary Clarence 29 Sep 2012, 1:07am

      focusing on the issue of the speed of introduction of equalities legislation, let me further assure you Alex, that the Labour government was anything but a trail blazer in this area.

      Looking at what the Treaty of Amsterdam didn’t require though, it didn’t require marriage equality, and imagine that, we didn’t get it under the last Labour government (although of course now they have thrown away power, they’re absolutely behind it)

      Let’s look also at the repatriation of failed gay asylum seekers to countries where the Labour government knew they faced torture and death. concerned? No it seems not. Rather than use the terms of the UN Convention on Human rights, as employed by many other European countries in this area, the Labour government chose to overlook it and refer back to the 1958 Refugee Act, which 1958 being what is was did not refer explicitly to protecting homosexuals from persecutions, and so they chose not to.

    3. Sister Mary Clarence 29 Sep 2012, 1:09am

      Credit though where credit is due, the Labour party did involve legislation that undoubtedly protects us and enriches our lives, but I very much suspect that whatever government we had at the time would have been in the same position and done the same thing.

      We got the equalities legislation only before Europe required it, and when they did, we didn’t.

      1. Sister Mary Clarence 29 Sep 2012, 12:18pm

        oops ‘did involve legislation’ should read ‘did invoke legislation’

  3. Perhaps Alex Glasner would like to compare Labour’s record with that of the Liberal Democrats, who whilst not currently being flavour of the month have at least been consistent in wanting to treat LGBT people as human beings. Does he forget in criticising the appointment of Maria Miller by the Tories that Blair appointed Opus Dei member Ruth Kelly to the same post? Who voted against gay adoption by the way!

    1. Incredibly easy for the LibDems to talk equality when they’ve never been in power to do anything about it.

      It’s always Labour who actually does all the hard work, not the po-faced Liberal Democrats who whinge from the sidelines.

      1. Most of Labour’s “hard work” was forced on them by Europe. Labour spent taxpayer’s money fighting to keep the ban on people being out in the military, and repealed the ban when they lost the court case. Now they claim it as an achievement. Ditto the Gender Recognition Act, though at least that one didn’t make it to court first.

        The Lib Dems have the longest and proudest record of fighting for equality. If you think it was “incredibly easy” to stand on a gay rights manifesto in the early 70s, you’re deluded. Even Civil Partnerships was a watered-down version of a Lib Dem private members’ bill introduced a year or two previously.

      2. Nick Clegg was the first – by a long shot – of party leaders to come out for gay marriage – and he happens to be Deputy Prime Minister, and not especially popular – how was that ‘incredibly easy’? How come it’s taken Miliband so long to do likewise?

  4. Yet, people as blinkered as you voted for Ken Livingstone, best friend of hate preacher Yousef-Qawadawi who says homosexuals should be executed.

    Which is worse? In the past decades not wanting to mention gay sex in school or, telling the faithful that homosexuals should be killed? Clearly the former. How odd.

    1. Ken Livingstone supported gay rights long before they ever became ‘cool’.

      I appreciate some on here may not be old enough to remember the 1980s, but that doesn’t excuse them denigrating a long standing supporter of the gay community.

      1. But not welcomes clerics who want us dead to London with open arms and openly supports vile homophobic candidates in places like Tower Hamlets. Ken has changed his tune – I don;t think he is homophobic and does support LGBT rights on the whole but campaigning and welcoming extreme homophobes is unforgivable in 2012.

      2. Ken’s just an opportunist.

      3. Ken threw away his legacy by befriending genocidal homophobes

  5. Another Labour party member rewriting history. All three major political parties have had MPs voted against LGBT equality in the past. As Daniel already pointed out the fact that Ruth Kelly a member of Opus Dei was Equalities Minister. Also there is mentality in the LGBT community that you have to be a paid up member of the poltical left and express views that are sanctioned by the Guardian newspaper.

    We have a rainbow coloured flag for a reason, we allow people to be who they are and if they means allowing people to support Conservative view on taxation well let them…..

  6. Chris Auckland 28 Sep 2012, 4:36pm

    As a Tory with a number of gay people in my family I find this utterly disgusting! Tory’s are not intrinsically homophobic, they have a diverse range of members just as any party, which unfortunately comes with a diverse range of opinions. Labour’s record on homosexuality is also shockingly below par, but they aren’t considered inherently anti-gay. This feels to be more like a cheap pop at the Tories from a Labour supporter, then having anything to do with equality in sexuality! I’m surprised that The Pink would be willing to post something like this.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 28 Sep 2012, 4:51pm

      Well, I voted Tory for the first time in my life in 2010, not so sure in 2015 and equal marriage could easily fail without sufficient numbers of Tories voting yes. Yes, there are supporters of us in all parties but I wouldn’t say that the majority of the Tories do, especially regarding equal marriage where they are in the minority. Labour and Liberal Democrats by far outnumber them. Not even a quarter of Tory MPs support equal marriage.

      1. Robert, you do not know that only a quarter of Tory MPs support equal marriage, over half of Tory MPs haven’t even declared where they stand yet so.

        I also voted Tory in 2010 and will not vote Tory in 2015 if less than half vote for equality. I would never vote Labour who are heavily partisan, economically illiterate with some disgusting people as MPs.

        I’ll probably go for Lib Dem but the election is years away yet.

    2. Labour’s record is “shockingly below par”? Then what the hell would that make other parties?

      Labour introduced every single gay equality law going. The LibDems did bugger all (and let’s not forget the infamous Bermondsey by-election won by Simon “Straight Choice” Hughes). And the parasitic Tories tried to halt equality every step of the way, right up until they thought they could win votes after it.

      Just because a few tory boys get upset at what this article said, doesn’t stop it being right. The truth hurts.

      1. Sister Mary Clarence 29 Sep 2012, 12:23pm

        Labour introduced every single gay equality law going …. errr, I think the point has been made already about re-writing history.

        As a signatory to various European Treaties Britain was bounty by its European obligations to introduce a raft of equalities legislation.

        Under Labour it gave us nothing it wasn’t required to do under those treaties – in the case of gays in the military it fought too and nail to prevent that equality and yet we now have Labour harpies trilling on about how we should thank then for doing so.

        Deluded, utterly deluded.

        1. Sister Mary Clarence 30 Sep 2012, 12:20pm

          Sorry spelling pants clearly when my blood is up …

          “Britain was bounty” … “Britain was bound”

  7. charles gormley 28 Sep 2012, 4:36pm

    1. Labour did great work. Bravo.
    2. You should continue to vote for them forever as a mark of thanks.
    3. Anyone who disagrees is clearly homophobic or filled with self loathing.
    4. Anyone who changes their mind or opinion at any point is lying – a homophobe will always be a homophobe even if they publicly now fight for equality.
    5. This has been a party political broadcast by the Labour party.

    1. Spanner1960 28 Sep 2012, 5:27pm

      PS Support our open-door immigration policy, otherwise you are obviously racist.

      1. Next we will be watching Spanner mingling with the locals in a Gipsy camping site, just to show the World how one can be against them and be a cosmopolitan at the same time.

  8. Harry Doodson 28 Sep 2012, 4:42pm

    You are aware Ben Howlett, the Conservate Future Chairman is openly gay? Or are you so deluded as to deny reality? This trash is honestly despicable, especially coming from a party that supported a Mayoral candidate who openly courted vehemently anti-homosexual Muslim clerics. Not in a “I don’t agree with same sex marriage” anti-homosexual way, but rather “We should put them to death”.

    Anyone with even the slightest inclination to read into political parties can see the hopeless twaddle this article is.

  9. Aaron Spence 28 Sep 2012, 4:43pm

    What absolute arrogant self-righteousness.

    I am bisexual and I am a Conservative. I have been an LGBTQ* Officer & Equality Officer for my former SU. I am in no way ignorant of history, having an honours degree in it, or of conservative principles and policies.

    Alex Glasner ought to remember that if you spend too much time being bitter about the past, you’re never going to get to grips with the future. Some of us do not care to blame and hate in the same method of homophobes but seek another way.

    You say our interests are miles apart from the Tories. It’s fascinating that you assume all LGBT people have the same interests. This is most certainly not the case and I reject the notion of being grouped together by my sexuality. So I shall continue to believe in, vote for and practice conservative principles because there is a lot more to me than who I sleep with.

    N.B on Maria Miller; vote on gay adoption was 2002, Miller entered the Commons 2005. Research your facts Mr. Glasner.

    1. “The Tories have given the job of women/equalities minister to Maria Miller, a woman who voted in favour of Nadine Dorries’ attempt to limit abortion and force women to have the ‘impartial’ counselling of church groups”

      Alex Glasner does not imply in his article that Maria Miller casted vote on gay adoption.

  10. Who on earth is this child? The success of the movement to improve life for lesbians and gay men has been at its most successful when it has crossed Party lines. The Age of Consent debate, which took place when this child was still in nappies, was a cross Party campaign that brought together Tory, Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs. When I, as a gay Tory, set up the campaign to lift the ban of gays serving in the military, I did so with the support of Stonewall, and on a cross Party basis. Incidentally it was Labour’s John Reid that failed to deliver on his promise to lift the ban in 1997, and so we took a Labour government to court. John Major lifted the ban on gays in intelligence roles, allowed council tenancies to be transferred and reduced the Age of Consent to 18 from 21. David Cameron’s government committed to allow marriage for same sex couples. This looks like a fatuous piece of politicking by a child on their way to their first Party conference? Ignore.

    1. Well said. The Labour mob love to milk the stereotypes about themselves and the Tories when it suits them and get all properly indignant when it doesnt. Time to lift the veil on the inherited assumptions that labourites are so much nicer, have more integrity and are less bigotted than everyone else. They are not and do not. You only have to examine what the careerist Bliar did; I am not talking about LGBT matters so much (since they would promise anything to win the LGBT and muslim vote; the “natural” labour voters we are told) but their sickening and craven support of the neocon republicans of the Bush administration some of whom are quite simply some of the most sociopathic politicians on the face of the earth. People need to do some reading instead of swallowing the corporate media newsfeed hook, line and sinker.

  11. For f&*Ks sake why can’t you guys work together sometimes.

    At the moment all 3 parties have people for , against and sitting on the fence for SSM. Labour still have tons of MPs sitting there wondering whether it is politically right to says yes to SSM. It’s not a f*&king game and they haven’t come out of the SSM debate smelling
    of roses. We all remember that SSM didn’t even get on labour’s top 10 priority list last yr in the conf and most of us still don’t know their official labour policy on the issue. A conf vote would be more convincing rather than a video from Cooper and Milliband.

    The tories haven’t rolled back LGBT rights and it’s they who started the ball rolling with SSM. Labour didn’t.

    OK I agree I wouldn’t vote Tory (out of the 3 parties they are obviously the most dangerous and homophobic and their past stinks) but I wish the parties could stop point scoring sometimes and get on with SSM which all party leaders appear to want to do.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 28 Sep 2012, 4:55pm

      If Nick Clegg hadn’t been asked to form the coalition government, believe me, David Cameron would NOT have mentioned equal marriage. The Liberal Democrats are the ones we have to thank for starting the ball rolling. If it fails, it will be because of the lack of Tory support to get it through Parliament. That is the reality.

      1. Robert

        That’s not actually correct.

        The commitment to investigate same-sex marriage was already in the Conservative Equalities Manifesto before the election, and therefore before the coalition was formed. It was reported on in the Daily Telegraph before the election:

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7673224/Gay-couples-could-be-allowed-to-marry-under-Tory-election-plans.html

        I don’t think any such commitment was in the Labour or Lib Dem manifesto.

        Credit where credit’s due, please. On this occasion, the credit goes to David Cameron, not Nick Clegg.

        1. “Investigate”, not “support” or “introduce a bill”. I wonder how many Tory MPs would agree with your claim that they were elected on a manifesto to introduce equal marriage…

          1. A manifesto commitment to “investigate” a policy implies an intention to pursue its implementation if it proves viable, i.e. to support it.

            Manifestos do not include commitments to investigate the implementation of policies where there is no intention to support that policy. You wouldn’t see a manifesto commitment to “investigate” capital punishment for parking offences.

            The commitment was in the Conservative Party’s Contract for Equalities Manifesto. It was published before the election and publicised by the Telegraph, and possibly other papers. No MP, or voter, will support everything in a manifesto. Tory MPs opposing it can vote against the bill. Voters opposing it had a chance not to vote Tory.

            Manifestos are not a la carte menus.

        2. “Before the General Election in 2010, Nick Clegg made his position on equal marriage clear: “All couples should be able to make that commitment to one another.” In September 2010, the Liberal Democrat party voted at Conference to support equal marriage and civil partnerships. This made them the first major UK political party, as well as the first party of Government, to support this position.” http://lgbt.libdems.org.uk/en/page/always-been-there-for-you-and-we-always-will..That seems like much more of a commitment to gay marriage than a commitment to ‘investigate’ it…

          1. Mark

            The Lib Dems, and the Liberals before them, have always been very supportive of LGBT rights, at times when it was very unpopular to be supportive, and it is to their great credit that this is the case. Nick Clegg is also obviously passionately committed to LGBT rights and to equal marriage. Although I am a Tory, I would vote for a Lib Dem candidate in preference to a religious homophobic Tory candidate.

            But the 2010 General Election was in May, and the Lib Dems voted in September to support equal marriage. I don’t think that a commitment to equal marriage, or to investigating it, was in their manifesto literature. As surprising as it may seem, it was in the Conservative manifesto literature before the election. That was a big step for the Conservatives, given what has happened in the past. Let’s give credit where it’s due: to the PM for his courageous support, and to Nick Clegg, the Lib Dems and their predecessors for their longstanding and unwavering support.

      2. Matthew Sephton 28 Sep 2012, 9:20pm

        Sorry, but you’ll find that the Conservatives were the ONLY Party of the main three to officially mention equal marriage in their 2010 general election manifesto documents. See page 14 under ‘Civil Partnerships’:

        http://www.conservatives.com/News/News_stories/2010/05/~/media/Files/Downloadable%20Files/Manifesto/Equalities-Manifesto.ashx

        Where it states “We will also consider the case for changing the law to allow civil partnerships to be called and classified as marriage.”

  12. Chris Clarkson 28 Sep 2012, 4:57pm

    What a load of old tripe.
    As a Conservative who happens to be gay I find this utterly offensive.
    Sweeping generalisations made for effect – All three major parties have a chequered past on LGBT issues, the difference is that the Conservatives and Lib Dems don’t believe they ‘own’ the LGBT vote and don’t be come utterly irrational when a gay person votes on something other than their sex life.

    1. If we do not have equal civil rights by the time of the next election you cannot vote Tory.

  13. Michael Hudston 28 Sep 2012, 5:08pm

    It really depends on what you want from the party you vote for. I want low taxes and Gay Marriage.

    The Tory’s are historically the party of low taxes, they are the party that started the process for equalisation of the age of consent, and they have promised Gay Marriage in this parliament.

    Labour and Lib Dems have promised to Hike Taxes!

    1. Conservatives put VAT up to 20% last year…

      1. That increase was also in Labour’s plans.

        1. Indeed labour was planning to increase VAT to 20% and let’s remember Labour left a MASSVE budget deficit, it has to be closed some how and VAT will help.

        2. Yes but the ‘party of low taxes’ put taxes up. #justsayin’ :p

    2. The Lib Dems are cutting income taxes for low and medium earners by raising the lower theshold to £10k over the course of this Parliament, as per their manifesto. The Coalition (which includes the Tories) has raised Capital Gains Tax and lowered the upper income tax threshold so more people are now higher-rate taxpayers.

      1. Is it fair that it’s the coalition when they raise taxes but the liberal democrats (as opposed to the coalition) when they cut them?

        As far I recall, both have been done by the coalition government.

      2. Yes, they’re throwing a few bones out to prove “we’re all in this together”. Welcome bones, but intended to persuade the gullible they are not the “Party of the Wealthy”, because their poll ratings are sinking faster than the Titanic.
        All politicians do it, notice how your local council leaps into action a few months before the local election! Cynical? Me?

  14. I’m a member of Labour, but it can’t be considered good for democracy – or gay rights – if gay people were to have no choice but to vote for left-leaning parties. It’s to be welcomed the Tories have grown up a little.

    1. What have left-leaning parties got to do with Labour? ;)

      1. I really hate snide populism. :P

  15. Spanner1960 28 Sep 2012, 5:25pm

    What a pile of old lefty hogwash.

    Typical Tory bashing in order to deflect the actuality that in 13 years of Labour mismanagement, they did precisely sod all off their own backs.

    If you want to spout the benefits of the Labour party, please do it without having to resort to the American political scumbag policy of attempting to slag off your opposition rather than actually pointing out the merits of your own party.

    1. “please do it without having to resort to the American political scumbag policy of attempting to slag off your opposition rather than actually pointing out the merits of your own party.”
      Agreed, such as using phrases like “lefty hogwash”!!
      Pots & kettles, sir!

  16. Cardinal Capone 28 Sep 2012, 5:26pm

    I vividly remember Margaret Thatcher being broadcast across the channels addressing the Tory conference, and with a poisonous sneer complaining that local authorities were teaching children that it was “ok to be gay”. It takes a lot to even remotely consider voting Tory after that.

    However, David Cameron has begun to earn some trust on gay equality. But it does have to be fully earned by showing progress. Otherwise there’s always the doubt that it’s just window dressing to cover the same old goings on in the City, deals with bankers, privatisation of the NHS etc etc.

    It’s good to have a real choice based on other policies, if they are genuine about gay equality. But whilst I believe David Cameron is genuine, the party has a way to go to earn our trust. Action speaks louder than promises.

    1. Spanner1960 28 Sep 2012, 5:31pm

      Yes, and all the lefties will ensure that isn’t forgotten.
      However, that was over 30 years ago, and a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then. Sure, there is still the Tory “blue-rinse brigade” and “Angry of Tunbridge Wells”, but those stereotypes are gradually disappearing to be replaced by people that realise that one has to be more open minded about the wildly mixed voting electorate out there.

    2. For goodness sake, 30 years ago half the Labour Party was anti-gay too. And in favour of CND, nationalising British industries, and they thought Michael Foot would be a good Prime Minister. And all that not long after they took the UK to the brink of bankruptcy and we needed a massive IMF loan to save the British economy. Oh yeah, maybe not so much has changed after all.

      1. True. People have got short memories. I had a friend at college 20 years ago whose father was the most old school Northern Scargill-esque racist, homophobe you could meet. And he was a local councillor! A lot of the working class traditional Labour voters voted Tory back in the day because they were impressed with Thatch’s “strong goverment”. Now they’re all rewriting history…

  17. I’m a Tory party member. I groan when I read such niave and ignorant articles. But perhaps he would like to explain away the crimes of the Iraq war perpetrated by his party!

  18. What a trumped up, pompous little tit.

    Nuff said.

    1. Spanner1960 29 Sep 2012, 8:02am

      You took the words right out of my mouth.

      1. Can I write the next Comment piece, PN?

        I have a truly inspired heading:-

        Comment:- Alex Glasner: A trumped up, pompous little tit?

        Discuss…

  19. After Ed Miliband’s stuff yesterday I was concerned I was becoming too lenient on Labour.

    Thankfully this sort of waffle from a party whose members (LGBT MPs no less) stood in Parliament in 2004 and argued AGAINST marriage equality makes me remember why I’d never vote Labour.

    Not to say I’d ever vote Tory and my Lib Demmery is on hold at the moment so I guess I’m a floating voter with no way to go. Labour’s not winning me over with these arguments.

  20. I suppose we have to give this Maria Miller person a chance to prove herself, but surely she cannot be as bad as that freaky Labour woman who was a member of Opus Die.

  21. I’ve been involved in LGBT politics for over 30 years. That doesn’t make my opinions any more valid, but it does enable me to draw on memories and experiences that might usefully inform this debate.

    I have some sympathy with the writer of the article, because I remember how callous and ignorant many of the Tories of yore (e.g. Thatcher, Tebbit) were regarding LGBT issues.

    However, you don’t have to go any further back in history to find Labour MPs with very little time or sympathy for LGBT equality. It was a struggle in the 80s to persuade the leadership to accept an equal age of consent.

    The Labour Party has progressed in a very positive way on LGBT issues over the decades. The Conservative Party is on the same journey, but a little behind, probably because of the influence of hard-line religionists in the Party, (compare the US Republicans).

  22. Peter Smallbone 28 Sep 2012, 7:00pm

    An attempt to rehabilitate Labour’s shattered economic credibility, dressed up as lazy stereotyping.

  23. When deciding which political party it is in the best interests of LGBT people to support, it might be worth giving some thought to which party you think will be the one most likely to present forceful opposition to fundamentalist Islamic agitators in the UK who would like to see LGBT people put to death, and terrorise us back into hiding and suicide.

    Similarly, it is worth considering which party you would trust most to maintain our independent nuclear deterrent, so that we could not be held hostage by an Islamofascist nuclear state that would do to us what it does to its own LGBT citizens, i.e. have us hanging by our necks from cranes.

    Which party would you most trust to prevent an Islamofascist and arch-homophobic state developing nuclear weapons, instead of conducting a head-in-the-sand pacifistic policy of appeasement?

    These are all issues that have an important bearing on the essential interests of LGBT people, both here and abroad.

  24. Pavlos Prince of Greece 28 Sep 2012, 7:13pm

    Gay Tories? Its even worse than gay man prostitutes at the Vatican or fans of British monarchy in Ireland.

  25. Comparing the Tories to Iran? The article deserves to have BS called on it for that alone.

    The number of Tories in favour of equal marriage is growing and they should be encouraged. The author seems to care more about Labour’s electoral prospects and perpetuating identity politics and Labour “ownership” of the “gay vote” than he does about getting SSM passed.

    Some people in Labour sound like they’d rather SSM fails to get through so they can carry on scoring points over it.

    1. Some people in Labour sound like they’d rather SSM fails to get through so they can carry on scoring points over it.

      I believe this too. labour are a inward looking political machine who only do anything to win votes.

      1. Indeed. As a Lib Dem, many of my conversations with Labour supporters involve the idea that we should have allowed a minority Tory government in 2010, followed by a second General Election and majority Tory government, just to remind people how “nasty” they are (conveniently ignoring Labour’s “cuts worse than Thatcher” and “there’s no money left”).

        When I tried to point out that allowing the Tories to make £60bn more in cuts than the ~£80bn the Coalition is delivering (again, approximately what Labour pledged) would have a real impact on ordinary peoples’ lives, it was as if they couldn’t see beyond the Commons benches to the world outside…

      2. That I think was also evident when the Labour party allied themselves with the right wing of the Tories to scupper the LibDems attempts to reform the House of Lords. A pity Clegg had no real choice but to play into their hands and withdraw from supporting boundary reform – the Tories really screwed themselves there, but I suppose they wouldn’t mind as long as they kept the possibility of the House of Lords retirement home open for at least some of them…..A nasty business throughout…..

        1. That appalling issue makes me angry with the Labpour party. We could have had a major consititutional reform if the Labour Party had voted for the timetable motion on the House of Lords reform bill rather than seizing a cheap opportunity to embarass the Gocvernment.

  26. Labour haven’t always been in favour of equal marriage, equal age of consent, gay adoption etc…. They may have legislated to allow a few of these to happen but they had not always been in favour of it, therefore, according to this guys logic, we should never look at Labour. Fine by me.

  27. It’s 2012 for god sake! This guy needs to stop living in his own bitter and twisted past, and wake up to how much things have moved on!

    1. Conservatism will always work against progress. That’s at the very root of our problems. It was there in 1850, it was also there in 1950, and it will be there in 2050

  28. There is more to conservative politics than just the issue of SSM, the world doesn’t always fall into such neat “us vs them” categories.
    I do not agree with trying to neatly arrange everyone into just two groups, right and wrong. We risk ending up under the assumption that each person in the ‘wrong’ group is somehow associated with every other person in the ‘wrong’ group.
    The beginnings of bigotry.

  29. I wish the Labour Party would stop lying about allowing gay pele to serve in e Armed Forces. The MoD fought tooth and nail, all the way to Strasbourg, to prevent it. Thanks to the determination of Duncan LustigPrean and others, the government caved in.

    The opening of faith schools and the empowerment of faith lobbyists to open academies has enabled Section 28 to return in many schools, in all but name. On the whole, though, the Blair years will be favourably remembered for LGBT people. The challenge is to ensure LGBT emancipation and tolerant values are adopted by all members of society. A long way to go. Faith schools are a major barrier towards that aim.

    1. As you can see, typing with iPad and its auto correct functions, had made a fool of me, above. Above should read ‘people’, in first line, and ‘the’.

    2. Good point re faith schools, AdrianT.

    3. Thank you… I started the campaign that ended with those cases in Strasbourg after the Labour government refused to lift the ban. And even after they lost the cases, the Labour-run MOD fought every claim for compensation for more than five years. People who had lost their homes, their careers, and their pensions as a result of an illegal anti-gay policy were fighting the Blair government to pay what they were due. Thankfully a number of Tory MPs remained supportive and campaigned for their constituents. This is an idiot feature written by a stupid child. I am sorry that Pink News thought it worth the time of day.

      1. I suggest you or some of you who were involved and know the truth, domain opinion piece, to correct the lazy journalism found in this piece, to restore dignity to those who suffered, and to get an apology from the Labour party. If you don’t, people like the writer of this piece will write the history book for you and airbrush you out!

        1. Would you like to be in the business of writing history Adrian? What would you write about the rise of conservatism in many countries to oppose an increasing demand and need of progress? What would you write about the rise of racism and xenophobia along with many other intolerances too? Would you be able to link them both?

  30. Pompous, inverted snobbery alert! I’d like to know a bit more about the writers of these comments. This one is just propaganda and says more about the writer than politics. Not fond of the patronising tone either. I think we’re all mature enough to decide for ourselves how we vote.

  31. Spanner1960 28 Sep 2012, 9:14pm

    Well 53 comments in, it’s interesting to see that not all the LGBT people out there are dyed-in-the-wool socialists and assume that all Tories eat babies.

    This article is nothing short of lefty Labour tub-thumping bullsh|t and should be treated as such.

    It’s also interesting to note that the usual Neo-Marxist suspects that regularly slag off the incumbent government are decidedly conspicuous by their absence.

    1. ” lefty Labour tub-thumping bullsh|t ” ?
      “the usual Neo-Marxist suspects” ?
      This is one man’s opinion, not the Labour manifesto! There are good and bad members of the Labour Party (yes, I have Labour friends, as well as Tory). Most are decent, moral people who want (what they think to be) the best for this country.
      Some, like Dennis Skinner, are “fundamentalists”, but passionate and would fight to the end for their constituents. Others are time-servers, or just want to get to No.10 at any cost (Brown, Cam, Clegg).
      Sadly, we are bad at sorting the wheat from the chaff, and the chaff usually rises to the top! (Sorry, mixed metaphor!)

  32. Well, considering British Tories are a lot like American Democrats, and there are lots of gay Democrats, it doesn’t seem that unusual.

    (I tried to find a U.K. party that can be compared to American Republicans, but both the far-right BNP and the far-right UKIP are too far to the left of Republicans these days.)

      1. I don’t know enough about them. I’m not from the U.K., so my U.K.-related information comes from friends, news sources and Wikipedia.

    1. Indeed – I voted Conservative in 2010 and would vote Democrat in the USA – wouldn’t dream of voting Republican at the moment. labour voters in the UK supporting Democrats is quite funny – Labour politics wouldn’t be on the radar in the US. Their effectively supporting a Tory in the States.

      1. Funny thing is, I’m very much a soc dem, and that tends not to be on the radar in the U.S. Too many people see no difference between a European or Canadian style social democrat, and a full-blown Marxist-Leninist-Maoist with hammers and sickles. A lot of people on the Fox News teat seem to think most of Europe is a communist hellhole today, and that the Cold War is still going on.

  33. It feels like stepping into an alternative reality to see so much common sense espoused in one thread instead of the usual knee-jerk left-wing pandering rhetoric.

    The Tories are far from perfect, but reassuring to see that most haven’t forgotten how rotten to the core Labour are either.

    Perhaps we just need to accept that the present system is redundant and rigged to the effect that no matter who gets in each time, the same policies are just carried over from the previous government with new ones created for the next one to continue.

    In other words, same sh*t just a different hole, and that’s what people are now realising en masse and why voting day turnouts are so abysmally low and party membership an embarrassment to admit to.

    I sense that the sh*t will hit the fan in a big way in the next few years as people wake up to the agenda of those in the shadows pulling the puppet strings to ensure that ever more power is concentrated into their greedy hands as the poor get ever poorer.

    1. Nice thought, but the people had a chance to change the voting system so politicians would have to pay more attention to what people want, and they fell for the lies about killing babies and soldiers and voted to keep the status quo…

      1. Spanner1960 29 Sep 2012, 8:05am

        That is very true.
        People complain about the two-party system, yet are terrified to change it. God forbid, somebody might even vote BNP.

        1. I wasn’t referring to the voting system, Dave, but the entire political system is thoroughly corrupted and exists to put corporate interests and the rich above all else.

          The expenses scandal in itself was a major clue as to the self-serving nature of most MPs, but when you have corporate lobbyists running loose in Parliament and MPs with conflicting links to the very industries they were appointed to legislate for swanning off into the sunset with plumb directorships for said industries, you know the entire edifice is broken.

          Yet it’s they with their demoralising policies that have broken Britain and all of our once proud institutions.

          And for what reason?

          So that they can sell off the NHS, our schools, our police force, railways, gold, EVERYTHING, to the highest corporate bidder.

          The family silver has been swept away before our eyes and like sheep we accept austerity and allow the same old system to perpetuate.

          Are we all totally mad not to see what politics is really all about?

  34. Alex Glasner seems to miss the difference between someones sexual orientation their political leanings. And the point that their is a difference between being conservative and member of the Conservative Party —I’m neither, but the ‘with us or against us’ stance drawn between the labour party and supporting gay rights is neither useful or up to date stance to hold no matter who you vote for or sleep with.

  35. Benjamin Cohen 29 Sep 2012, 12:27am

    Total nonsense. I think it’s ludicrous to suggest that gay Tories are an oxymoron. Remember it’s the Conservative Liberal Democrat coalition that is legislating for equal marriage, something that Gordon Brown dismissed when in Government

    1. Whilst I respect you Benjamin and always have done but on this issue I don`t agree with you.

      You seriously cannot expect LGBT people to just forget what the Tories once did to LGBT people.

      As for them making same-sex marriage legal i`ll believe it when I see it!

    2. As you say, ludicrous nonsense.

      So… any particular reason why you published this piece? The standard of the comment pieces on PN has been variable. Could you get some better contributors?

      I’ve enjoyed the pieces you’ve published by PN commenters. If you’re short of professional writers, could we have some more of these rather than the musings of earnest students fresh from Debate Soc?

      I don’t think Valksy’s ever done one – her uncompromising style is entertaining even when it’s aggravating. Ditto Spanner1960 – concise and logical, spiced with a hint of “Get off my lawn!” Could you give them 600 words each, please?

  36. Gay conservatives? An anachronism. Low self-steem is at the base of their character when a deep psychological examination is made of their political choice. On a more practical sense, these are people who wouldn’t think much before throwing their brothers and sisters under a bus. It all depends on how much financial reward they could get.

    1. During the Holocaust, there were also gay peeps among those in the web of spies and informants. All in all, we know in times of crisis, even this one being methodically implemented to disguise the fetid rotting of the financial elites, LGBT peeps are also pressured to take positions. Some are playing with fire, and will mostly disappear once the political situation is reversed. The very first lesson, for those who haven’t got still a clue, is to get your dictionaries out and search for the meaning of the word conservatism.

      1. Beberts

        Apart from a very long involvement in LGBT rights campaigning, I ran a national political campaign for several years (while Labour was in power) that was particularly focused on helping very vulnerable people who had been stitched up by a Government quango.

        My experience of how much interest MPs took in vulnerable constituents being driven to despair and contemplation of suicide was an eye-opener. I was really disappointed with most of them, and if anything there was more concern from the Tory MPs. The Labour Govt was actively obstructive to our attempts to expose this appalling quango.

        The “Tory = evil and homophobic” equation does not reflect reality in my experience. The influence of dogmatic religionists in the Tory party has a lot to answer for, but this influence is gradually withering away, and good riddance.

        I would never have supported the Tories under the arch-homophobe Thatcher. But the Conservative Party has moved on. Maybe we should, too.

        1. Have you undusted your dictionary yet Gazza? Go for it and search for the meaning of the word conservatism and what sort of people are attracted to it. That’s the very single essence at the core of that party and behind our struggles with equality. In 2050 it will still be there, always blocking progress. One swallow never makes a summer, remember this.

          1. Beberts

            You are doing exactly what the opponents of equal marriage do. They say, “look in the dictionary, and you will see marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman.” It is the reality we create that is important, not dictionary definitions. And no dictionary definition of Conservatism would do justice to the complex reality that is today’s Conservative Party.

            Conservatism means preserving *the best* in society, while allowing society to improve gradually and organically, rather than by revolution. It does not mean preserving all the status quo for its own sake.

            It is also linked to a tradition of strong defences against potential foreign and internal enemies. Homophobic Islamic fundamentalists and our independent nuclear deterrent come to mind here. As do the turn-a-blind-eye, “cultural sensitivity” and appeasement politics of much of the Left.

          2. Anyone can point to a dictionary, that isn’t our opponets’ monopoly. Not everyone can write one though. In my dictionary marriage has a number of meanings, one being the union of two people who care for each other. When you find a dictionary that says conservatism is synonymous to progress, you can correct me.

          3. You’re finally opening yourself up. If you really let yourself show, what more surprises would we get apart from the Islamic lefty nuclear fundamentalist soup? What a charity basket case …

          4. Beberts,

            So I’m a “charity basket case.” I am disappointed our discussion – pretty civilised so far – has led to you resorting to personal insults. I am not going there. There are already far too many flame wars between strangers on the Internet. That doesn’t make for a compassionate or socially progressive world.

          5. Actually I wasn’t talking about you Gazza, but if the hat fits…

          6. Beberts, you should be ashamed of yourself.

            Gazza has made some perfectly valid points and you resort to crude, snide remarks that are entirely unjustified.

            When you’re pushing for a cause that is bigger than yourself, there’s no room for bitterness/unforgiveness – people change over time and it’s the cause that’s important. Gazza has invested significant energy in this area and should be supported and applauded, not attacked.

          7. Thank you for your kind post, Tim.

          8. Tim, are you in the business of mediation? If you are you better bring your own nuke deterrents, since Gazza has a few of them… and don’t ever try to criticise Gazza’s botched ideas. Gazza will take it personally.

      2. Sister Mary Clarence 30 Sep 2012, 3:15am

        Priceless mate – you have totally shown what a crackpot you are to everyone who didn’t know you were already.

        You have a twisted view of reality, and it bears no relation whatsoever to the truth.

  37. What a short-sighted and simplistic view of life. The aim is for all parties to support gay equality as a matter of course – that’s what we have now and that’s to be celebrated not undermined by blinkered, partisan politicos like this. This guy clearly has no idea of the real world and his schoolboy politics is a step backwards for gay equality into the ghetto-isation on gay people. Out of date and out of touch. No more of this childish rubbish please.

    1. Nothing more childish than ‘gay marriage’. You talk of the real world? You haven’t a clue of the real world. The vast majority of people in the real world do not give a fig for gay marriage or for gay people to express their luurvve… Especially when civil partnerships are perfectly adequate. Too busy worrying about jobs and their families. You are like the pot calling the kettle black. That is the trouble with gay people, though, in the main (of course, some gay people do adopt so they are more grounded), they don’t have those little things called children to worry about so they focus on non-issues like gay marriage. If I were gay, I’d probably worry about trivial stuff, too, so not really a criticism as such.

      1. A very patronising post, sjr.

        We LGBT people may, for the most part, not have children (though many of us do), but we have many of the same concerns to worry about as heterosexual people. We also have job concerns, money worries, family responsibilities (yes, we also have families, and ageing parents), health concerns including depression and anxiety (just like heterosexuals), relationship worries, housing worries, and on top of all this, the damage caused by years of discrimination and ostracm as LGBT children in hiding.

        Do not trivialise our demand for same-sex marriage. It is no less important than black people campaigning to eat in white-only restaurants. Just because you are heterosexual and chose to have children, does not make you superior.

        1. Superiority doesn’t enter into it. To be truthful, I do actually think that those gay people who live in the real world with real problems do not really give a monkey’s whatsit if they are known as married or civilly partnered. I mean who cares? It makes no difference in the UK where the same legal rights as marriage are offered via civil partnerships. I think they should leave things as they are because it’s extra hassle for no gain.
          Gay marriage is trivial. The fact that you compare it to the genuine struggle for black civil rights is offensive.

          There is nothing a white person can do that a black person cannot do. There is something that heterosexuals can do that homosexuals cannot ever possibly do: reproduce children. And that is why the government registers marriage in the first place. Do you really think it cares that two adults love one another?

          1. Here we go again! Civil marriage is NOT about procreation! And there’s no reason why there should be a separate institution (CPs) for people simply because of their sexuality. Separate isn’t equal.

          2. sjr

            It is only “offensive” to you to compare the struggle for black civil rights with the struggle for LGBT rights because you do not value the latter. Your attitude and lack of understanding are what are actually “offensive”.

            People opposing the right of black people to eat in white-only restaurants could have used the same comments as yourself. They could have said that it is a trivial issue most people don’t care about because blacks can eat in their own restaurants. What is wrong about Apartheid is that it is based on a belief that a particular group of citizens is inferior.

            LGBT suicide rates, and depression rates, are significantly higher than for the mainstream. The fight for equal rights is not trivial. And marriage is also for infertile and celibate heterosexual couples. Their marriages have no less validity or value as marriages, and the state recognises this.

          3. sjr: “There is something that heterosexuals can do that homosexuals cannot ever possibly do: reproduce children. And that is why the government registers marriage in the first place.”

            I’ve replied to you about this on another thread but let me repeat – people do not have to be the same to have equality. Equal does NOT mean the same.

            Ignoring the fact that LGBT people are just as fertile as straight people and going with your ‘logic’ – you might aswell have argued that women shouldn’t have the vote because ‘women just aren’t the same as men! Only men have male brains/penises/whatever you will so clearly women shouldn’t be allowed to vote as voting, defined by law, is for men!’

            This is about getting an unfair, unequal situation remedied. Every person should be allowed the option of a civil marriage no matter what their sexuality, race, religion or lack of it. People don’t have to be ‘the same’ to deserve equal treatment.

          4. No marriage is about procreation. As a boy, I knew many couples who were not “blest” as the saying was, there being no IVF back then, who had long, happy lives.
            On the other hand, most family weddings I have attended lately have had the couple’s kids as page boys / bridesmaids.
            The wedding is about love, committment, and other words you would never hear on the Jeremy Kyle Show!

  38. ….and how on earth can he say “Labour made society richer”? Brown led the country to the edge of bankruptcy. Even before the banking crisis (the main causes of which links straight back to him and his botched deregulation) he created a false boom by borrowing money, spending far more that his tax take from 2003-2010 which had to be financed through unprecedented borrowing which created a huge annual deficit and pushed the national debt to levels to that not seen since the war. And then the banking crisis hit to make it even worse,. Generations will suffer as a result of the appalling economic legacy of Blair and Brown. They inherited from the Tories a strong, growing economy with a balanced budget in 1997 and left the country broken and bankrupted. An appalling record of which they should be ashamed and for which everyone – gay and straight – will suffer for many years to come.

    1. When Labour got into government in 1997, the country was broken. Lane after lane of boarded up shops, industries, housing estates, etc etc… you must be too young or suffer from amnesia not to remember that.

      1. … not to mention Section 28… and many other pieces of homophobic trap to influence your life for decades to come. All compliments of the Tory party, bespoke tailored for you.

        1. bertberts – Sec 28 was very wrong and very damaging but it is now 2012, Cameron has apologised and Labour has allowed faith schools to teach that homosexuality is sinful – sec 28 is gone but labour enables this so why are you not campaigning hard to stop this if sec 28 bothered you so much? Politics getting in the way again? that’s the thing with labour – they don’t care about LGBT people, they care about themselves, their own electoral prospects. this is why this disgusting party will never appeal to people like me.

          1. Hopefully he will also personally apologise to you when you lose your house and start sleeping under a bridge… That’s where we are heading… CaMoron hasn’t delivered yet one single iota for the LGBT community, but who am I to criticise you, if you can live with apologies, perhaps you will also feel happy dreaming of apologies under a bridge.

          2. Beberts

            You say that “Countless are being thrown onto the streets,” but I haven’t seen that happening or heard of countless people being thrown onto the streets.

            No-one should be homeless. It is a scandal. All political parties need to wake up to this fact, not only the Tories. The problem is that, if we, the population of the UK, were properly conscious of and empathic towards the misery of other people, and not so preoccupied with our own careers, families, wealth-accrual and status, then politicians would not get away with being so callous towards the vulnerable. Individual citizens are also in a position to help collectively, and not just rely on government to solve the problems. This is what the Big Society concept could motivate.

            As for squatting – imprisonment too draconian, agreed. But none of us would have sympathy for a stranger making us homeless by squatting in our homes.

          3. The person was squatting in an empty social housing.

          4. “that’s the thing with labour – they don’t care about LGBT people, they care about themselves, their own electoral prospects. this is why this disgusting party will never appeal to people like me.”
            If you don’t think that equally applies to the Tories, LimpDems ,UKIP, etc., you are living in cloud cuckoo land. There are a few decent MP’s, from Sajid Javid (Con), to the Beast of Bolsover who seem to have a social conscience, but most are there to climb the “greasy pole” to No. 10.
            Cleggy would have formed a coalition with Edmund Blackadder if it got him a taste of power.

        2. You refer to losing homes and sleeping under bridges. I was involved in campaigning while Labour was in Govt to defend people threatened with homelessness by institutional injustice. At the same time, I did voluntary work for a charity that provided food for the homeless, including people sleeping rough, and young refugees turned away by the official instruments of the Labour government. No way was that a compassionate and progressive Government. No way.

          No-one should be homeless, or hungry, or without money in this society of ours, in any circumstances. All the major parties have a lot to learn here, and the general public are far too indifferent. But please don’t single out the Tories after what I experienced under Labour.

          1. You sure would have a lot of work, now that the Tories usurped power. Demand for your services is increasing, while the money to help poor people is being diverted to help “poor” bankers. Countless are being thrown onto the streets, thanks to Tory rhetoric and policies. Not only that, most recently there has been a case of a squatter being thrown in jail. The Tories aren’t only dispossessing the poorest and most vulnerable members of our society. They are methodically criminalising them too.

      2. Berberts… in 1997 Labour inherited a very strong growing economy for them to destroy it by the time they left office. In 2002 they started to borrow copious amounts of cash and carried on doing this every year way before the banking crash. Youth unemployment started to rise WAY before the financial crisis in 2004, which rose every single year thereafter. This all happened during an economic ‘boom’. labour should be ashamed of themselves. You need to learn what actually happened during the last 13 years of labour government – it was far from rosey – it was a ticking time bomb but labour didn’t care long as they got votes.

        1. Aren’t the Tories also borrowing copious amounts? What World do you live in? All governments borrow to supply goods and services to the population. The difference is that Labour delivers, while the Tories don’t. They are simply destroying all the infra-structure. At the end of their government, what we see is a small number of bloodsuckers with humongous amounts of stolen cash, while the majority has to survive among boarded up houses and companies. That’s the real time-bomb that is ticking right in front of your very own eyes.

          1. The Tories are borrowing a lot of money that is true but it is being reduced each year. labour did not and stll has no plan to decrease the amount it wants to borrow. that is very worrying. what did labour deliver??

            I will tell you what they delievered:

            structural youth unemployment that grew every single year from 2004
            record budget deficit which a structural deficit was created as labour started to borrow from 2002 along before the financial crash
            allowed the banks to literally regulate themselves
            taxed the richest in society the least
            removed the 10p tax rate effectively doubling the tax on the poorest in society
            crippled may british people on benefits so it would be near impossible for them to get a job and support themselves without the support of labour’s big state.
            allowed the housing bubble to get bigger and bigger and gave this too much value
            stated there would be no boom and bust economic cycle only for us to suffer from a very big bust up

          2. Well, now that you agree that all parties borrow copious amounts, you should be demanding an apology also to the Tories. But it isn’t that simple is it? Behind all the money talk, there are policies and rhetoric. The Tories are destroying the NHS, which mostly care for the poorest members of our society. They are destroying many other public services, like the police etc etc, because it doesn’t affect them directly. They know it affects them indirectly though, with the rise of criminality, but they are also building a system of private security companies to protect them and their families. That won’t be available to the plebs.

          3. beberts – the tories destroying the nhs etc a load of bollocks mate. health spending has been increased albiet only in small amounts. labour wanted to cut spending and they started the 20 billion saving regime the nhs is currently going through at the moment. as for the health and social care bill – this is a step up from the reforms labour introduced throughout its 13 years of government – to pretend otherwise is very misguided.

            public services are not being destroyed, stop being so over the top. increases in spending like we have seen in the past are no more because labour left us with a massive budget deficit… this has to be reduced. public services can only be ‘protected’ if their funding is sustainable. before you bark any more, go and loom at the absolute mess of UK PLC’s public finances mate and you’ll understand a bit more why the coalition is doing what it is doing. and btw, the so called cuts are pretty small if any at all to be honest.

          4. Let’s have a closer look at your accounts, shall we?You just said the Tories are spending more money on the NHS and health spending has increased, then on the same paragraph you contradict yourself and say the NHS is currently going through a 20 billion saving regime? Which is which?

          5. Hopefully accountants like you are not working on the financial sector, otherwise we are really f****d.

  39. auntie babs 29 Sep 2012, 8:50am

    I never vote Labour, Tory, Lib-Dem or whatever. I have no time for labels. I vote for the person I think is best for the job. imho the best possible government is the one made up ofthe best people from all parties.

  40. Alex Glasner has written a forceful piece attacking the allegiance of gay Tories. I disagree with most of it, and am aware of a couple of factual errors. But it can be daunting to put one’s views in the public domain as he has, and it is a good thing he has done so. These are his views, right or wrong, and he should have the freedom to express them without vilification. He has also opened up an interesting discussion that may help us all to revise or fine-tune our thinking. Well done to him for that.

    I think we should be much more tolerant of someone attacking Conservative (or Lib Dem, or Labour) policies and philosophies, than of someone attacking the right to be an equal LGBT citizen. LGBT equality is something we can all commit to, regardless of party politics. Whatever our Party, Alex Glasner is on the same side as us in that important respect.

    1. Alex has every right to express his views, and he has done so. Bit if you say something shocking, you have got to take the comments on the chin. (I am sure he is doing) He hasn’t been vilified. His views have been found wanting. Expression is a two way street. ‘publish and be damned’ as they say; I hope Alex grins and bears it, and comes back for more. His article is, after all, now the most discussed this week! :-)

      We should be equally intolerant of all untruths or poor reasoning, wherever it may come from. Otherwise you open the door to double standards, corruption and hypocrisy. There is a nasty strand of leftism for instance, staying silent about homophobia and abuse of women’s rights in the Islamic world for instance. Should we be more tolerant of that, than Section 28?

      1. Adrian

        I’m all for attacking his expressed views. But what I have felt a bit uneasy about is the ad hominem attacks and unpleasantness directed at him personally by some of the posters.

        I’m really quite sick and tired of LGBT Conservatives being attacked by the Left and the religious Right alike, with arguments that don’t stand up to scrutiny.

        I agree with what you say at the end of your post. I also think there are times when we need to attack the perceived character of someone making unjust claims, as is the case when senior churchpeople attack LGBT rights.

        So maybe it is legitimate to move into the ad hominem domain sometimes. I suppose I just felt this young chap was maybe getting a bit too much of a personal battering here.

        1. OK, we kind of agreed I think… I think would encourage Alex, and everyone here, to read Nick Cohen’s essential ‘You Can’t Read This Book’, which highlights a real split within the left in how they address fundamental universal rights and freedom of expression. I’d really like to hear about how the Left, especially the Labour Party will tackle this major impasse.

          I agree about the issue relating to the cuts. LGBT people, vulnerable women, homeless people are most at risk.

          Re Ad hominems: always wrong, but speaking from having posted / published many articles over the last few years, I would say, rise above them. The only thing that matters is the strength of the idea, not who thought it.

    2. Spanner1960 29 Sep 2012, 2:33pm

      “I think we should be much more tolerant of someone attacking Conservative (or Lib Dem, or Labour) policies and philosophies…”

      Why? It is all too easy to rip into other people and show their failings. All this guy is doing is displaying negativity and mudslinging in the style of American party politics.

      If the guy wants to have a rant, fine, but do it by explaining why his party has done so much better.
      With regard to LGBT support, the coalition has still done more in three years than it took labour thirteen to do, and even then that was after severe provocation from the EHCR.

      The bloke hasn’t got a leg to stand on, so he ought to get down off his soapbox before he falls off.

      1. Spanner

        As I’ve noted above, I am really fed up with anti-LGBT Tory attacks from the Left and the Right that don’t stand up to scrutiny. And a robust challenge to such comments is completely appropriate.

        I just had a moment of empathy with the young author of the article, given that, when I was his age, rather hot-headed, and on the hard Left, I too expressed a number of views that I don’t identify with any more. I suppose that now I appreciate the great tolerance and patience that were shown to me by others at the time, and it would have been hypocritical of me not to try to extend and encourage the same towards Alex Glasner.

  41. If Mr Glasner hopes to boost Labour party support and membership by branding anyone that does not agree with him as ‘shameful ignoramuses’ he will never get very far in politics! You don’t win people over to your cause or poltical party by insulting them.

    Like all political activists, he just doesn’t understand that most of the electorate refuse to slavishly follow a single party line and, like donkeys trot to the polling booths and vote for the same party every election.

    We often vote for the party or the individual candidate who at the time comes closest to addressing our particular concerns which may well be gay marriage but also a wide range of other social, and economic issues. This candidate may be Conservative, Labour, Green or LibDem.

    Insulting our intelligence by name-calling and put-downs is more likely to drive us away not win us round.

  42. You do all realise that deep down conservatism doesn’t like gay people, don’t you? The clue is in the name: conservatism. Like turkeys voting for Christmas. That’s what a gay tory is. You can all kid yourselves otherwise, but it is true.

    1. sjr

      Oh, time has moved on a lot since your views were formed. You haven’t kept up.

      Even in the 1980s, a time when the Conservative Party was institutionally homophobic, there were Tory MPs who were quite liberal towards LGBT rights, and some who were very liberal. My own Tory MP then, Steve Norris, was a very strong supporter of LGBT rights.

      For some “conservatives”, both here and in the US, being anti-gay is part of the definition of being a conservative. However, the majority of Conservatives are far more open-minded. And it looks as though the dogmatic religionist homophobes are being increasingly marginalised in UK conservatism, and are probably about to be shown a big boot by the Republicans who increasingly realise their pernicious influence will cost their party, with their hopeless flipflop candidate Mitt Romney, the election.

      As I believe David Cameron said, the first openly LGBT prime Minister will probably be a Conservative.

  43. Personally I’m glad we had a labour govt for 13 yrs. We did progress with regards to LGBT issues and it’s wasn’t only becuase it was forced upon them by the EU. Look at Italy and Greece, they have nothing and the British CP and gay rights here are much better than Germany or France. Right wing parties are never as good as left wing ones for gay rights.

    But to hark on back to the yrs pior to lab and to constantly drag up section28 is tedious. The tories haven’t wound anything back. But to pretend that the Tories are still not instituionally very homophobic is in self denial. They have a long way to go get rid of that label. The greatest rebellion against SSM is still within the Tory ranks. It is them that still have a sizeable chunk who want to roll back the equality laws in favour of “christians”. The tories have changed but there should still be a severe warning sign for gays placed over their party door.

    1. I find interesting you say the Conservative party is ‘institutionally’ homophobic.

      I think it’s limiting to consider a single party, when the party is in fact itself made up of countless local associations. Admittedly, many of these may have institutional homophobia, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the whole does.

      But there are of course also countless associations that are exceedingly progressive when it comes to LGBT issues.

      I’m quite struck by the difference between the comments here and those you’d read on any article about LGBT issues on ConHome. Anti-gay posters there would certainly not agree that the party is ‘institutionally homophobic’ at a time when they are feeling increasingly removed from it because of the government’s (and particularly the PM’s) commitment to marriage equality.

      Parties are broad coalitions of people. There are doubtless still homophobic parts of the Conservative party, but I don’t think it’s as endemic or simple as you suggest.

  44. Mark knight 29 Sep 2012, 2:46pm

    Oxymoron comes from the Greek meaning “sharp dull”. Not a lot of oxy in this article, mostly moron.

  45. IF I were to be equally petty as you, Alex, I could point to Ken Livingstone’s truly abysmal record. That preacher was a homophobic monster, yet he still embraced him.

    Or how about good ol’ Sunny Jim Callaghan, the Labour PM? A man so ignorant of the world around him that he didn’t even know about homosexuality until well into his adult life and even then expressed confusion at how men could be gay when “there were so many pretty girls” around.

    Or perhaps I could say that the only reason why this article has been tossed casually out into cyberspace is because Labour members are anxious that the Tories – YES, THE TORIES – are going to beat them to it and bring in equal civil marriage.

    And why the hell have you dragged other issues like the EMA into an article on gay rights? Why do you conflate the two?

    Petty, partisan, pompous bullsh*t.

  46. Forty years plus a Labour party member & gay (partner of 43 years died 7 years ago) .
    What piece of gay rights legislation did the late Chancellor Mr Gordon Brown ever vote for?
    What did Mr Brown’s Treasury team do to hurry through or hinder the financial provisions of the Civil Partnership Act of November 2004?
    I would propose that there is a very great deal of latent homophobia in the Labour Party especially amongst blue-collar workers and their unions.
    We all know about the homophobia in the establishment probably including the Crown.The attitudes of the Church of England are mixed while there is flagrant homophobic abuse from the leaders of Britain’s Catholics masquerading as “religious belief”.But that is down to the Fascists in soutanes in the Vatican.
    In all sectors of society there is transition in attitudes to gay people but it is foolish to believe that is not homophobia amongst Labour politicians as amongst Tories.

  47. What clinches the deal for me as to Tory Homophobia are my memories of the House of Commons debate on the Civil Partnerships Act in November 2004 – The performance of the Government (Labour) speakers for the Bill was utterly lacklustre ( with the honourable exception of David Borrow – the then Labour member for Preston North).The stars of the debate were two Tories who put down so eloquently the usual homophobic Tory Backwoodsmen – mostly catholic mouthpieces – and these were Charles Hendry(well briefed by Stonewall) and scintillating in the cause,Alan Duncan.
    The Tories are not wholly homophobic no more than Labour is truly homophilic.That is a myth that some silly boys & girls in LGBT and Young Labour like to put about.Life isn’t that simple.

  48. Neil Spring 29 Sep 2012, 3:57pm

    Poorly argued nonsense. How does something like this get published?

  49. Owen Meredith 29 Sep 2012, 4:03pm

    What a waste. Instead of using a comment piece to write something helpful for the cause you claim to want to promote you make a cheap partisan shot which takes a selective view of history.

    Nearly every comment you make of “equality” beyond homosexuality ignore the facts. For example, the Government’s changes to Remploy allow MORE disabled people access to work (see the M&S depot open as a result with 1,000 jobs for disabled people).

    Insulting and inaccurate.

  50. Chris Bailey 29 Sep 2012, 4:29pm

    Oh dear. Alex Glasner really does need to read something other than his own party’s propaganda. No single political party can claim the moral high ground on gay equality; each possesses its own fair share of heroes and bigots.

  51. I’ve one comment – this is utter TOSH. Grow up young man!

  52. thanks for drawing the obvious political conclusions – that gay rits are intimately connected to the state of equality for all… be it gender race or economic status. I am often dissappointed by the unbelievably sexist and stupid remarks that populate the reader comments at pink news. A radical consciousness raising seems to be in order for the privileged young gay males out there who think only of themselves.

    1. SkepChik

      Who are you addressing your post to? Who drew the “obvious political conclusions” you refer to?

      Can you point out the “unbelievably sexist” remarks on this thread, please? I didn’t spot them. I did see some stupid remarks.

      Who are the “privileged young gay males … who think only of themselves” you refer to? Are you referring to any of us posters? If so, do you have some inside information about our age and our privileges? I can’t see that info when I read posts.

      Ah, consciousness raising … We all need that. But one needs someone with a highly developed consciousness to help the development of others. I have experienced some disappointingly unaware self-appointed custodians of consciousness in my time.

  53. theotherone 29 Sep 2012, 9:40pm

    yes let’s compair them…

    labour refused to get rid of historic convictions, move on the blood ban, allow gay marriage, removed rights for trans people and allowed schools to teach homosexuality is evil while the tories…

    1. Let`s compare shall we?

      Labour reduced the age of consent
      Labour allowed same sex adoption
      Labour brought in laws to outlaw gay bashings and removed section 28
      Labour introduced Civil partnerships.
      Labour made the incitement to homophobic hatred an offence the same as race.

      Labour outlawed discrimination in goods and services on the grounds of sexuality.

      Labour brought forward equal employment laws to protect workers suffering discrimination and harassment at work or being sacked because of their sexuality.

      Labour introduced the recording of homophobic hate crimes for the first time.

      All this and more

      1. theotherone 29 Sep 2012, 11:40pm

        1. yes they did
        2. and has this been repealed?
        3. labour voted FOR clause 28 and introduced get outs for attacking trans people
        4. and refused to introduce gay marriage
        5. and that does not have whole hearted support in the community
        6. not for transpeople
        7. not for transpeople, they where excluded for protection.

        did they move on gay marriage? did they move on the blood ban? did they move on historic convictions?

        ed balls presided over the introduction of a law allowing schools to teach that homosexuality was evil.

        1. theotherone 30 Sep 2012, 1:14am

          my point is that the tories have as much claim to this as labour do, that this article is just blatant political bull.

  54. I have to laugh at all those who diss Labour now after being granted rights the Tories would never have introduced had they`d never been voted out in 1997.

    It seems the Tories can do no wrong at the moment people do have very short memories!

    No Labour are not perfect but they did do far more for equality than the Tories have ever done.

  55. Personally, I didn’t think my article was insulting, left, or rude! I’m really sorry people feel this way… I have not tried to say gay Tories don’t exist (that is clearly not true). In fact, I wrote this as a reaction to speaking to a good friend who is a Tory. I was merely, in part, trying to say that there are some good arguments for why gay people should not be Tory.

    Further, I don’t think that this is a backward looking article. I concede I use hackneyed statements about Tories’ commitment to gay rights. But I try to re-frame the argument. I think that we should, all of us, look at what the government is doing to hurt some people and think about them in terms of equality (of opportunity). Having seen first hand experience of some of the difficulty people are facing, I wanted to explain my frustration. I am trying in the article to get the point across that in a more fair and just society is a richer one and one for which we should all strive.

    1. The problem is that you talk about the poor and the vulnerable. The people may have feel “insulted” or think you are rude don’t like them. To make them happy you’d need to present them with a Porsche or a Ferrari. No, actually that would have insulted them as well, since they don’t like “foreigners” either. And these people are gay. What you are dealing with here is a bunch of people who are living an awful dilemma of biblical proportion$$$, i.e. if they carry on supporting the Tories or if they jump ship to support UKIP or the BNP. Go figure …

      1. correction:
        The people may feel “insulted” or think you are rude because they don’t like poor and vulnerable people. They think they are a burden and a nuisance, nothing more than obstacles to their chosen lifestyles.

    2. Actually Author. Having thought long enough, and since the people who felt insulted and are accusing you, and aren’t really willing to be on your side, you should just take the opportunity and rewrite the title of your article. Just take the prefix OXY from the last word and add an $ at the end.

      1. Why not just think carefully through what you are trying to say instead of making a pig’s ear of it each time, Bebs?

        At least I can blame my over-enthsiastic Mac spellchecker for my occasional tongue-tied mishaps!

    3. “I wrote this as a reaction to speaking to a good friend who is a Tory.”

      UNBELIEVABLE!

      A knee-jerk “reactionary” (his wording!) article based on a casual conversation.

      As I said earlier, a trumped up, pompous little tit who just keeps digging and making his hole even bigger…

  56. Unfortunately if you do not have enough money you either have to reduce your expenditure or borrow from someone else.

    At present if you do borrow you have to pay interest at rates that may require you to cut your expenditure even more.

    It is the same for a state.

    You earn money by providing services that other people are willing to pay for – it is productivity not longer hours that make the difference..

    It is the job of politicians to develop policies that keep most of their electorate happy – they have a 5 year horizon and choose those policies most likely to get them returned regardless if that is the most effective policy.

    Such is life!

  57. Yawn, another gay lefty that is still stuck in the section 28 closet.

    1. You can keep yawning darling. Some of us will keep reminding you about Section 28 as well as the pink triangles, so you will never forget, darling.

      1. The gay right will have you beleive that the past is irrelevent. The right always wanted to conform. The non conformists fought at stonewall not the respectable conservative assimilators

        1. Exactly.

        2. And now of course all you good little non-conformists that were are now all good little sheep-like PC leftie Marxist conformists.

          How quaint!

      2. The country should never forget the complete mess Labour left the country in terms of money. Nor will we forget the illegal war in iraq. Any Labour member who voted for them in 2005 has blood on their hands.

    2. You mean instead of a gay right wingy like you who doesn’t care the people he is defending made us stay in the closet – until labour repealed that homophobic tory piece of legislation.

      1. I refer to my other comment. You’re ignorant to assume i am right wing simply because i have no party affiliation.

    3. As Berberts said , You can keep on yawning, I`m proud of being on the centre left because the left has done the most for equality for LGBT since the 1960s not just for LGBT but also for Women and Black people what has the right wing done for these issues? the answer is NOTHING!

      So you can yawn mr right winger you can yawn all you like but you cannot change the facts.

      1. How ignorant and ill informed to assume i am right wing because i do not want to label myself to a certain political affiliation other than the left. Thankfully my voting is determined purely on party manifesto and not simply on my gay card.

        1. Sadly the “labeling” thing happens quite a lot on PN, I like you tend to vote based on the party manifesto, so a typical floating voter. I am often referred to as a PC indoctrinated leftie, which is very inaccurate, but some PN commentators like to use labels / pigeon hole people because they make assumptions based on their own narrow prejudices.

  58. If this site is indicitative of the thoughts of the majority of gay people it makes sense that there is a selfish capitalist/survival of the fittest streak that is now present in the gay “community”.
    It seems that trying to be normal and fit in is the ultimate goal. Nice respectable middle class lives no room for diversity just white men deciding whats best for everyone.

    The rise of the gay right seems complete. Lets see what the next battle will be after marriage.

    It will be against non conformists ie non male white gay people.

    You have been warned conservaties only like conservatives

  59. Have the tories done anything yet for gay rights?

    1. Nope apart from reduce the blood ban I say reduce not removed!

  60. A plague on every main party’s house; they are all different flavours of the same neocon lolly nowadays and all in hoc to the international financial elite. A new social democratic force is essential to the survival of democratic politics now (and I happen to believe in the more sensible and productive forms of capitalism).
    Now that’s off my chest, to the original topic – the past is the past and encouraging LGBT visibility and campaigning in all parties is vital. Assuming that LGBT rights are a ‘left-wing’ preserve had disastrous effects in the 70s and 80s.

  61. As I do not have particularly strong political leanings it seems to me that the real problem we have in our political system is the rise of the Political class / career Politicians.

    These people have been brought up in the Westminster village & do not have a clue about the people they represent. Unelected SPAD’s are running the show & there is too much rhetoric – this Government are all headline & no substance to the policies.

    British Politics is suffering from extremely is weak leadership – the recent Andrew Mitchell situation beggars belief, he should have been sacked, & Ian Duncan Smith should not have been allowed to stay at the DWP in the reshuffle – Cameron needs to grow a pair.

    Gordon Brown was a ditherer & Tony Blair, whilst charismatic developed the idea of sofa style unaccountable Government that we still see today with the ConDems “Quad” at the top.

    The Political Class are ruining our Country, totally shameful.

    1. I think you speak a lot of sense here W6_bloke.

      Alex, the author – is just another idiot who wants to be part of this exclusive Westminster club but hasn’t got a clue what is really happening in the outside world because he has never been there. her seems like a spoilt little brat to be honest. Another champagne socialist.

      1. Thanks Lucas

  62. IT’s no wonder I dislike politicians! They all talk garbage!!

  63. Good to see this tripe getting the trashing it deserves.

    There does seem to be a certain perverse resentment amongst the left that LGBT rights are no longer exclusively ‘their’ issue. It means they can no longer take the LGBT vote for granted and doesn’t suit their ‘us nice people, them nasty people’ style of politics.

  64. What complete drivel. And who is the hell is this twerp.

  65. Methinks we won’t be seeing this wannabee Labour career politician around these parts any time soon.

    Do your country a favour, Alex, and at least try to get ten, preferably twenty years experience living in the real world before being groomed for the role you are clearly destined for…

  66. Ryan Doyle 2 Oct 2012, 11:14am

    I never knew that the Labour Party had bought the Pink Paper and was using it as a propaganda tool now.

    This poorly written article with GCSE standards of vocabulary is nothing but ideological trash. This socialist queen should keep her mouth and shut and leave her vile opinions to the Morning Star or some other form of left-wing propaganda machine. I am a Tory, Gay and Proud of it and I do not like being told who I should vote for just on the basis of my sexuality.

    1. How is it badly written? I’d say your comment is worse written. “keep her mouth”; “left wing” has no hyphen; gay has no capital ‘g’; “whoM I should vote for”, not “WHO”. I could go on. When you next make stupid comments at least substantiate them. I doubt you’d have the guts to write anything like this.

    2. It’s an opinion piece! Clarkson and Kelvin MacKenzie can spout pages of drivel in national newspapers, but one man’s opinion in the Pink Paper evokes the type of hatred and vitriol one would expect from the EDL!
      PP should, ideally, publish a piece by a writer from an opposing viewpoint, but, in the end, Ryan and others, you have the chance, right here, to put a contrary viewpoint, rather than rant about “propaganda tools”.
      It’s called free speech, and some of you are abusing it by posting ad hominem attacks on the writer / Labour politicians rather than intelligent and cogent argument.

  67. It’s quite simple.

    If we do not have marriage equality by the time of the next election, we must not vote Tory.

    It’s that simple

  68. Surely there are more pressing things to worry about. We LGBT folk have full protection under the 2010 Equality Act. Marriage equality should follow as a matter of course, but the priority for this Government should be to reverse the double dip recession the UK economy has suffered since 2010 (a double dip which was predicted by Labour, before anyone accuses me of re-writing history).
    This “Lefties” vs.”Toffs” mud-slinging is wearying.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all