"your Tory Candidate Is Gay"

[mushroom25]

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/tory-candidate-mike-freer-labour-canvassers-are-telling-orthodox-jews-im-gay-10228322.html

fair canvassing by the labour party?

[joggerjayne]

You're too ugly to be gaaaayyyy ... !!!

[wolf63]

I am stunned that anybody would change their vote on the basis of a person's sexuality.

Stupid move by the Labour canvasser.

Elections seem to bring the worst out in lots of people.,

[jno]

people have been complaining that campaigners have been telling lies. Now they're compaining that campaigners are telling the truth?

[Gromit]

Reminscent of when Peter Tatchell stood for Parliament in the Bermondsey by-election for the Labour Party.
He endured a very sustained and orchestra onslaught of slurs from the Tories and LibDems in what was probably the dirtiest by-election in history.
Ironically he was beaten by then not outed Simon Hughes for the Liberals.

This sort of campaigning is never right, no matter which party does it.

[Gromit]

Orchestrated

[naomi24]

Gromit, it’s only a guess, but my guess is Peter Tatchell wasn’t beaten because other candidates said he was gay.

[sp1814]

Gromit

An 'orchestra onslaught'?

Is that where candidates are threatened with violins?

[Mamyalynne]

They must be exceedingly desperate to even bring it up at all - it isn't even a secret.

Shown themselves up good and proper.

[wolf63]

They are like kids in the playground.

My mum's scarier than your mum.

My dad can crush nuts with a hard stare.


I have voted already. Does it matter who wins? Each party has good and bad points. Whatever the outcome most of the country will be moaning about come Friday.

[ludwig]

I don't see why they shouldn't mention it to be honest. It's not a secret. The problem is the attitude of the nutty religious homophobes.

If the canvassers want to exploit the hatred and prejudice of indoctrinated twits simply to grab a few votes then...err..then...ok maybe they shouldn't bring it up.

[jno]

there's a lot of desperation around. The Mail had a column yesterday comparing Labour to Jimmy Savile. (For some reason, no Mail readers seem to have started a thread about this one.)

[naomi24]

jno, What the Mail actually printed regarding Jimmy Savile was one quote by Richard Littlejohn.

// Trust Labour? I'd rather trust Jimmy Savile to babysit.//

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3068131/Trust-Labour-d-trust-Jimmy-Savile-babysit-writes-RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN.html

… but don't let the facts get in the way of an opportunity to spin.

[jno]

he'd sooner trust Savile than Labour and you're suggesting there was no comparison intended there? I must go and polish my specs.

[DaisyNonna]

What difference does it make?
He makes no secret of it.
If it alienates some so called religious people, their loss.
Credit to Sarah Sackman for her reaction.

[ludwig]

It's not exactly a column comparing Labour to Savile though is it. You're as bad as the Mail jno.

[naomi24]

^What he said.

[sp1814]

Interesting to compare and contrast...

http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question1407635-2.html

[Baldric]

No real comparison is there?

[Gromit]

Naomi,
// Gromit, it’s only a guess, but my guess is Peter Tatchell wasn’t beaten because other candidates said he was gay. //

I suspect you guess wrong. In 1979 Labour won Bermondsey with a 12,000 majority and the Liberals came 3rd. The 1983 by-election was won by the Liberals by over 9,000 votes. Tatchell was smeared by all the Tory rags. Many years later Hughes apologised for the dirty campaign that got him elected.

[naomi24]

Gromit, I’ve checked, and you’re right. Tatchell was subjected to a smear campaign. However, that doesn’t explain why, after 30 years, and the revelation that he is bi-sexual, Hughes still holds the seat. With such an enormous shift, politics must factor in there somewhere. As former Labour voter, I would never have voted for Tatchell – but not because he’s gay.

This is interesting.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/rod-liddle/8848211/happy-memories-of-the-bermondsey-by-election-30-years-ago-2/

//….what smug and epic arrogance on behalf of me, and people like me, in the Labour party at that time. That we knew better what the working class wanted in its representatives, that the Labour party was not primarily about the minimum wage and job creation and better conditions for the very people who set up the party, but was there as a wedge for progressive values which were not remotely shared by the people we were purporting to represent…//

Nothing’s changed. The Labour Party still doesn’t represent the working man.