Gay people have a “duty” to vote Tory!?!
By Laura Woodhouse | 1 October 2008, 13:39
Prospective Tory parliamentary candidate Margot James yesterday urged all gay people to vote Tory, arguing that:
“Gay people are net contributors to public services through their taxes, because very few of them have children.I think gay people have got more angst on this issue than anybody else because gay people are paying in, through their taxes and actually using far less of the NHS because they tend not to have families, less of the education system for the same reason and all the more reason to be angry with this government for the waste of their taxes.”
James, herself a lesbian, is apparently oblivious to the fact that Tory MPs are generally opposed to enabling gay people to have children in the first place: as part of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill back in May, 144 of them voted for the legal requirement to consider a child’s supposed need for a “mother and a father” when providing IVF treatment, with only 13 voting against and in favour of replacing this stipulation with consideration of “supportive parenting”. The latter, which will make it easier for lesbians to have children through IVF, was only voted through thanks to Lib Dem and Labour.
Similarly, only 14 Tory MPs voted against the proposal that providers of fertility treatment take into account the need for a “father or male role model” in the child’s life, with 143 supporting the motion. Again, this anti-lesbian motion was only rejected thanks to Labour and the Lib Dems.
So I guess it’s back to the drawing board on that one, Margot.
Have your say
In order to keep this blog as a feminist and friendly space, comments will be subject to some rules. We do not seek to censor debate: the beauty of the internet is that anyone can set up their own blog or website to express their views.
- This blog is a safe and friendly space for feminists and feminist allies. Debate and critique are welcome where it is constructive and deepens analysis or understanding. Anti-feminist comments will not be approved. We get to decide what's anti-feminist.
- All comments must be approved by one of the bloggers. For this reason, there may be a delay before your comment appears.
- No sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, classist, ablist comments, comments which make personal attacks on any blogger or commenter, or comments that are otherwise deemed offensive by us will be posted.
- Trolls will be banned from commenting. We get to decide who is a troll.
- No anonymous comments - please feel free to use your real name or make one up, though.
- Be nice.
Feeds
Kate said:
So us queers with children are off the hook, and have no duty to vote Tory. I mean, along with those who don't have children who think free decent education is a right for all children. And who remember Section 28.
Posted on 01 October 2008 at 2:14 PM
Ellie said:
God forbid I should be happy paying my taxes for the greater benefit to society rather than the benefit of me and my own.
Aren't the Tories meant to be going on about how society has gone to shit? How about encouraging a little 'from each according to their means, to each according to their need'.
Posted on 01 October 2008 at 3:02 PM
Cara said:
What?! Ha, that provided a laugh for the day.
But seriously...what?! Taking up on the point about Tories actually being opposed to medical advances enabling gay people to have kids...does she imagine gay people don't want to have children, or just accept that they can't have them "naturally" (whatever that is)? Perhaps she has chosen not to have kids, her choice, but nothing to do with being gay.
Plenty of straight people don't have kids and never want them. Like me. Should we vote Tory too? Hmmm no, because guess what, not everyone is selfish and concerned only with taking home a few quid extra each month by paying less tax.
OK no-one likes tax, but it has a point - to build a fair and equal society which provides the services people need. The Tory policy of sink or swim doesn't work, because you'd have to imagine some people with huge weights around their ankles and some with floats (I mean underpriveleged and priveleged people, respectively).
And should healthy people who rarely even go to their GP vote Tory, because they're paying people who have the temerity to be sick or disabled? Should smokers and the obese pay more tax?
No, of course not, because the point of taxation isn't to get out what you put in, it's about *society* you know, the thing that doesn't exist in Tory world?
And that is because anyone could need public services tomorrow. Perfectly healthy people could be hit by a bus and need a hospital, or educated people can be made redundant and need benefits. Anyone's partner, elderly parents, etc. could become sick and need them to become their carer, meaning they have to give up work and again need benefits. Shit happens.
Tories just don't want to think it could be them.
Posted on 01 October 2008 at 3:40 PM
chem_fem said:
As someone who has never planned to have children it annoys me that some non-parents think they shouldn't have to pay for children.
I benefited from state benefits, health and education when I was a child therefore I owe it to all children to do my bit to pay for them. That they are not my offspring means nothing. Their tax money will pay for my old age (even though I've had a pension since I was 18 and may not need much support).
It's just a selfish attitude.
Posted on 01 October 2008 at 3:45 PM
Laura Woodhouse said:
Couldn't agree more, Cara.
Posted on October 1, 2008 4:24 PM
Shev said:
We have a duty to make sure that we, and only we, make as much money as possible? Is this some new definition of duty that I'm not aware of?
I would say that we have a duty to vote anyone but Tory, as they seem to have a real issue with the fact that we are people, many of whom want children, families and 'normal' lives (I'm not one of these, but I reckon I'm in the minority), and would rather pay a couple of quid out of our wages each months, rather than being whacked with honking great bills for healthcare and education? And hey, we'd like to be afforded rights that straight people take for granted, without fighting every step of the way for them. kthxbai.
Posted on 01 October 2008 at 4:54 PM
Steph Jones said:
Very simply, I will never ever trust the Tories when it comes to women, lesbian, gay, bi or trans issues.
And what happened to the much touted 'LGBTory' group - not heard much from them either?
No thanks, Conservative Party!
Posted on 01 October 2008 at 5:24 PM
Marlow said:
I think James seems to believe that we're all driven by money and greed in this matter. I mean, what does it matter if the Tories are generally opposed to the rights of gay people when they can cut our taxes!
Posted on 01 October 2008 at 10:58 PM
Bee said:
So, gay people (en masse, because they're all the same, of course) consider spending on the NHS and education to be "a waste of their taxes".
Really?!
What a foolish woman.
Even if you accept her premise that people only want to pay taxes for things that benefit them personally, does it not occur to her that gay people also use the NHS, and even those who don't have children may have family members of friends whose education they are concerned about.
I'm thrilled to hear that the Tories think spending on health and education is a waste of people's taxes. That really inspires me to vote for them. Not.
Posted on 02 October 2008 at 9:24 AM
Sarah said:
I can sort of see the logic of it, but only, as people have said, if you assume that everyone is motivated solely by making as much money as they possibly can, and has no concerns about anything else. Which is just not how most people are. I don't have any children myself, but I can think of worse things for my taxes to be spent on than education and health care for 'other people's' children. Because they don't belong to 'other people', they are individual human beings in their own right, and I'd like to think we live in a society where we try to ensure children are well cared for and given educational opportunities, regardless of whether they're 'mine' or not.
Posted on 02 October 2008 at 9:50 AM
Shea said:
So there is a $700 billion dollar vailout being proposed in the US and billions here, forced re-nationalisation of banks due to deregulation of the financial industry during the last conservative government (and Reagan in the US). And which would still happen under the free market loving rhetoric of the Cameron premiership.
But spending money on health and education is a waste? Presumably gay people want well educated doctors, lawyers and accountants available rather than the complete muppets who run the conservative party? There is also an explicit assumption that gay people won't/don't have children (or elderly relatives presumably) which is patently false.
This is so funny, really their descent into comedy should heartily welcolmed.
Posted on 02 October 2008 at 2:29 PM