Would embracing gays cost conservatives votes?

[Richard Hakluyt]

I would say that for many years British politicians of all stripes grossly-overestimated how interested the general public was in homosexuality and homosexuals. It certainly seems to have come as a surprise to them that the various reforms became embedded so quickly in the national psyche.

[Zanza]

The argument was that gays are, as a group, prone to pro-market, pro-low-tax, anti-welfare stances

Does that argument actually have any merit? I have no idea whether it is so, but thinking of gay politicians here, they seem to come in all stripes from conservative to leftist. That obviously doesn't tell anything about gays in general, but it makes me sceptical that their sexuality is actually corelated to political stances other than gay rights.

EDIT: Oh, I missed Gups post. I concur with what he posted.

[Martinus]

The argument was that gays are, as a group, prone to pro-market, pro-low-tax, anti-welfare stances

Does that argument actually have any merit? I have no idea whether it is so, but thinking of gay politicians here, they seem to come in all stripes from conservative to leftist. That obviously doesn't tell anything about gays in general, but it makes me sceptical that their sexuality is actually corelated to political stances other than gay rights.

It's anecdotal, but that's my experience when talking to gay people. But then again, I may be mostly talking to urban middle class gays.

But as I explained it has less to do with sexuality per se, but rather with lifestyle and the fact that most gays have no kids and prefer to live in big cities - this alone can inform their political choices, no?

[Martinus]

I doubt it. Lib Dems only get 10-20% of the general public, why would they get any more than than amongst gays when they have identical policies.

You think that gay people are as obsessed as you are with being gay. Most aren't. They are interested in taxes, pensions, jobs etc and vote accordingly.

This is from a couple of years back

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8131792.stm

"But new research by Jake, a networking organisation for gay professionals, suggests a worrying trend for Labour, with 38% of Jake members who took part saying they would vote Conservative at the next election, 1% higher than the general population, according to an average of recent opinion polls.

Labour came third on 20% behind the Liberal Democrats - even though 86.6% of those surveyed said Labour was the party that had achieved most for gay people and just 4% said the Tories were "gay friendly", compared with 44% for Labour and the Lib Dems"

Not a very good opinion poll but better than nothing.

Can you refrain from personal attacks?

I expressly said that my view is based on the UK GLBT media I read - sure it may be not representative, but this is not about my personal "obsessions".

[Gups]

That wasn't a personal attack, it was an observation. You are obsessed. Surely you don't deny it? There's nothing wrong with it per se, although it's a bit boring for the rest of us, but it does colour how you see the world. You think gay people vote on gay issues but most of them don't. In middle-class London at least being gay is wholly unremarkable and uninteresting.

And don't tell people to refrain from personal attacks when you throw around words like paki and retard around like confetti.

[derspiess]

Once it stops being an issue, being "pro-gay" would be as ridiculous as being "pro-women voting rights" or "pro-black civil rights" i.e. a non-issue.

*Should* be a non-issue, but since we still have women's & black "civil rights" movements, I'm not sure if it will or not.

I would hope that with gays' relative affluence they would drop their aggrieved status at that point, but these types of movements tend to want to go on forever, demanding new things previous generations wouldn't have dreamed of asking for.

[Zanza]

It's anecdotal, but that's my experience when talking to gay people. But then again, I may be mostly talking to urban middle class gays.

But as I explained it has less to do with sexuality per se, but rather with lifestyle and the fact that most gays have no kids and prefer to live in big cities - this alone can inform their political choices, no?

I am sure it will have an influence. However, at least over here, big cities tend left in politics, while smaller, rural places tend right. Not sure whether or not having kids would influence your political choices. It doesn't seem to be very related to being pro-market or not for example.

I just tried to find something on political preferences of homosexuals in Germany, but couldn't find anything. Either it isn't researched well or I just used the wrong search terms.

[garbon]

That wasn't a personal attack, it was an observation. You are obsessed. Surely you don't deny it? There's nothing wrong with it per se, although it's a bit boring for the rest of us, but it does colour how you see the world. You think gay people vote on gay issues but most of them don't. In middle-class London at least being gay is wholly unremarkable and uninteresting.

[Sheilbh]

It's a non-issue in the UK. Happened really quickly too. In 1990 it was an issue (tho' not a big one), by the last election all parties were in favour of civil partnerships. I have no idea whether gays vote for one party more than another now.

I seem to remember reading that gays generally voted for Boris in the Mayoral election.  I think Cameron lost a lot of support with his disastrous Gay Times interview though.  I think before that though the three main parties were level pegging at around 25-30% in gay polls.  I think the Tories were actually winning with young homos, which I imagine is inevitable given that they've less exposure to the Tories as the nasty party introducing section 28 and the like.

[Sheilbh]

I would hope that with gays' relative affluence they would drop their aggrieved status at that point, but these types of movements tend to want to go on forever, demanding new things previous generations wouldn't have dreamed of asking for.

The movement for equal rights for gays has never been about affluence, except in so far as they want inheritance rights and the rest.

[Warspite]

And remember, in Britain, educated homosexuals have always had one final hideout: the Tory Party.

[The Brain]

It's a myth that all Tories are homosexual.

[derspiess]

I would hope that with gays' relative affluence they would drop their aggrieved status at that point, but these types of movements tend to want to go on forever, demanding new things previous generations wouldn't have dreamed of asking for.

The movement for equal rights for gays has never been about affluence, except in so far as they want inheritance rights and the rest.

I know.  I made mention of that since income inequality (whether real or imagined) is a driving force for women's groups and black civil rights groups.

[Sheilbh]

I know.  I made mention of that since income inequality (whether real or imagined) is a driving force for women's groups and black civil rights groups.

But that's because gays have never been economically disadvantaged for generations in everything but love we've been equally advantaged and disadvantaged as anyone else.  Women and blacks have, so of course there's an important economic element there. 

[Malthus]

I would say that for many years British politicians of all stripes grossly-overestimated how interested the general public was in homosexuality and homosexuals. It certainly seems to have come as a surprise to them that the various reforms became embedded so quickly in the national psyche.

Same is true in Canada. A decade ago gay marriage was still a hot topic. Now, pretty well no-one could care less, and those arguing against it look positively antiquated - like that old granny kept locked in the nursing home because she wouldn't shut up about women going outside without gloves on.