UK Guardian on the gay vote

[T_i_B]

It's a bit Britishy, but you lot might like it!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1178286,00.html

In advance of the local elections in May 1999, Ledward produced what was in effect a guide to tactical voting for his readers. He identified marginal seats in which gay voters held the balance of power, quizzed the candidates on three key issues (the repeal of section 28, the equalisation of the age of consent and the appointment of a council official to liaise with the gay community), then suggested how his readers should vote in order to support the most gay-friendly candidates.

"We targeted six seats, and Labour lost all six. It wasn't that we were anti-Labour, we were anti the way Labour behaved in Brighton. I wanted to show them that the gay issue was a vote winner, that you can mobilise the gay vote and win - and that's what I did. In those six seats, three LibDems and three Greens got in, and both parties put it down to the fact that gay people voted for them." In the 2003 local elections, he tried similar tactics, with similar results. "When the next elections come, it's our aim to get more gay councillors elected," he says. "We've identified 17 vulnerable seats; there's definitely a gay vote out there to be harnessed."

Is he right? Is there such a thing as an identifiable community of gay voters, ripe for exploitation by keen-eyed, gay-friendly politicians? Ledward's rallying of Brighton's gay vote could be dismissed as the short-term success of just another single-issue pressure group. But it has more resonance than that. With local, European and London mayoral elections looming in June, the parties are eyeing up any possible electoral advantage. And just as the votes of other minorities - Muslims, blacks and the elderly - have been in the past, the gay vote is now being courted as never before. Politicians of all hues are now engaging with issues of importance to gay people: homophobic bullying; the lack of equal pension and benefits rights; and the fact that anti-discrimination legislation does not extend to cover goods and services such as restaurants and holiday companies (Sandals currently bars gay couples from its resorts). If a party promised to act on all these issues, would it land a gay vote en masse?

[xchrom]

1. amazing -- how reasonable

we are out there -- we do make a difference.
this was presented to the powers that be in a great way -- hope it actually went off as good as it reads here.

[Vladimir]

2. Kick

interesting analysis. Its cynical wankering by the Tories of course, but Labour at the moment are just asking to be punched.

V

[T_i_B]

3. Hmmm...

"new" labour's record on gay rights is actually not quite good IMHO. But the tories are in no way credible on gay rights. Micheal Howard was the man who personally pushed through section 28.

[Vladimir]

5. agreed nt

[cheezus]

4. doesn't britian have proportional representation?

that allows many many parties to from coalition governments?

/been a long time since that comparative politics class

[Vladimir]

6. Nope

although its a hotly debated issue at the moment.

V

[T_i_B]

7. Very much no.

We have a first-past-the -post system where the party with the biggest number of parliamentary seats gets the government and their leader in parliament becomes PM.

Many would like PR, such as the greens and inparticular the Liberal Democrats, who have been campaigning for PR as one of the cornerstones of their platform for years. However, I personally don't like PR. The best constitution for a democracy IMHO is America's.

[Vladimir]

8. What do you

think of 1st past the post for the lower chamber and PR for the upper?

V