A startling story appeared on the Beeb yesterday, in which the self-confessed sole Tory lesbian suggested gay men should vote blue.
We contacted DELGA, the Lib Dem LGBTQ experts, for a response, and chair Jen Yockney replied:
Margot James’ comments are a mixture of incoherence and reasons to vote Lib Dem rather than Conservative.
At the top of the Tory party there are a few fresh faces and less overt homophobia. But the great swathe of that party is still the same party with the same values that introduced Section 28 twenty years ago, and has fought tooth and nail to block every move toward LGBT equality in the two decades since. It has been hard to get LGBT equality measures through Parliament in the face of Labour’s own blocking and compromise over the last decade. But the Conservative voting record on each and every gay rights issue says that under the Tories things would be even worse.
Margot says gay and lesbian people are net contributors in tax, not getting so much out of education, the NHS and so forth. Yet her party is not the one with serious plans to lower the tax burden on ordinary people on low and middle incomes: the party proposing to do that is the Liberal Democrats.
The logic of her position would be a tick box on your tax forms which would allow gay and lesbian taxpayers to opt out of paying so much for services which are more likely to be used directly by bisexual and straight taxpayers. But I don’t think that living in a society where there is a good education system and a strong health service is something most LGBT people want to opt out of. Even for those of us who do not have children of our own, we have nephews, nieces, children of friends, for whom we want a good education system; we might be fortunate and not need the NHS as much as others, but we still have grandparents or parents for whom we want to know there is a strong health service.
The Lib Dems have, in my view, the best policy for LGBT people in this country. This month’s conference saw us strengthen that further by discussing whether we should be deporting gay people back to countries where gay people get killed by the state. No, came the answer. At the last general election, we had a mini-manifesto with LGBT policy – which you can find extracts from here. And DELGA has recently launched a new network of LGBT candidates called Out to Win – details of that are here.
Ultimately, however, expecting all people of one sexuality to prefer one party – as organisations like TORCHE and Log Cabin Republicans prove – is always doomed to failure. So whatever the arguments for gay people to support the Lib Dems, it’s clear that people will make their own minds up on voting intention, and sexuality will play only a small part in the decision.
(See also.)
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Lib Dems are reviewing policy and strategy says PoliticsHome
From Norman settlement to a civic square
Church Green video
Thinking of standing for election or re-election next year? Helpful questions to consider
Simon Robinson
Tom Arms
Andrew Ducker
David Evans
paul barker
17 Comments
“faith groups which had a problem with the gay agenda”
What absolutely disgusting newspeak.
I agree with the DELGA remarks. They haven’t reformed by and large here in West Kent. We have had to suffer innuendos spread by canvassers about candidates on the doorstep, and face homophobic remarks from Tory tellers at polling stations. Also racist comments at the count. I had to complain to the local Cameronite MP on both occassions.
On the other hand, they managed to recruit two of our local lesbian members, one of whom i had helped promote as a prominent council candidate over recent years, on the promise of a ‘safe’ seat, which has yet to materialise…
“Yet her party is not the one with serious plans to lower the tax burden on ordinary people on low and middle incomes: the party proposing to do that is the Liberal Democrats.”
Oh look – it’s popular! Who’d have thought?
There would have been nothing wrong with this Margot character, whoever she is, promoting the appeal of her party to gay people – her fall is solely in the absolutely bizarre use of the word “duty”.
“…gay people should not just vote Conservative, they have a duty to vote Conservative”
You what?
She’s mad, clearly, and will no doubt fit in well in Westminster.
Gay’s don’t just vote Conservative… anyone that goes to Conservative Party conference will know that the Party is run by the Gay Mafia…
I love the idea of a gay mafia. Their suits would be so well cut, and they’d always clean up beautifully after a hit.
I love the idea of a gay mafia to, but i doubt there involved with the Tory party. And as for the Tory party itself, its clear that they’re not tolerent of homosexuals because of this from May – http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/13/stemcells.medicalresearch
This isnt a party of tolerence, its a party of homophobic intolerance.
Btw Alex thanx for the link 🙂
Having been the victim of a virulent anti transgendered and anti gay local election campaign courtesy of the not very liberal democrats, anythign they say on the subject is in my view hypocrital and crap.
I was once a member of the liberal party, and would sooner eat my arm off rather than have anything to do with the slime today
Bexie,
You say you have been the “the victim of a virulent anti transgendered and anti gay local election campaign courtesy of the not very liberal democrats.” Can you give us some more information, and specifically, some evidence?
‘Gays have a duty to vote conservative’ Whether or not Gays per se should vote conservative is an irrelevant argument – we all have a duty to vote regardless of our sexuality or political persuasion. Having said that however, speaking personally I think it would be very good if all Gay people did vote Conservative as it would mean there’d be a few million more votes against this bloody awful Government, who’ve done nothing for Gay people beyond ‘ some window dressing and a bit of lip service’ whenever they’ve wanted our support.
Bexie if you give us some details then there may be people willing to assist you in complaining to the appropriate people within the party.
I no longer have the material, the election being over 10 years ago, however as the more high profile case of Tatchill vs Highs and the homophobia in that campaign shows, it is not unusual for local parties to stoop the the absolute depths in elections.
It is with good reason that the Lib Dems are known collectively as “the slime” in both labour and Conservative camps.
Can you at least indicate a year and area? Otherwise you’ll have to forgive me then for saying that an isolated incident, possibly down to one person, over 10 years and trying to say it is indicative of the whole party.
Bexie,
Lest we forget:
http://torytroll.blogspot.com/2008/03/alan-duncan-to-wed-gay-lover.html
A bit more relevant & to the point than your pub talk.
Yes. Without evidence or any further information, all you have there is an allegation. And anyone can make one of those.
It was Highbury Quadrant in Islington. One of the candidates ended being barred from a local gay bar after the owner saw some of the literature being distributed, and has gone on to higher office.
Like I said it is not isolated, and I will put the word out to others to post here on just how unpleasent the Lib Dems are in reality
It should come as no surprise that this falls on deaf ears in my household! The point is not how good or bad they now are, but the fact that their previous form on this, together with their message currently about the Human Rights Act, shows that they still believe that rights are divisible, tradeable for votes. They have to do something more than have the odd civil partnershipped gay men on their front bench to prove they do not still think that I am a second class citizen. The worst thing from their point of view is that I don’t know what that something more is, or will ever be (though the thought of Gideon “fagging” for Cameron when they have bedsits next to each other in Downing Street is quite an interesting one, if terribly disturbing!)
After all, it’s not as if when they passed stuff like Section 28 that they did not know gay men within their own ranks, allegedly right in the front rank too. And yet were still willing to allow nasty cows like Janet Young and Jill Knight to push their homophobic agenda. It is only what, four years, since Sandy Bruce-Lockhart wanted to introduce Kent’s very own Section 28 and he was later knighted, made a peer and selected as their man for the head of the LGA.
I’m still quite shocked about these comments from Margot James. Margot is welcome to her opinion, and if she thinks that the entire homosexual community should vote Tory, she is welcome to think and say that (even if she is completely wrong). But to say that someone has a duty to vote for your party isn’t democratic; it’s reminiscent of a dictatorship. Yes you have a civic duty to vote, but your vote is your vote, and you alone get to choose who to vote for, not a politician who claims it’s your ‘duty’ to vote for them.