Would you vote for an openly gay MP to be Prime Minster?

[Cyclone]

We have had women Prime Minsters a few northern men thrown into the mix. At present their are 35 openly gay MP's in all parties. Come an general election would you vote for an openly gay politician to be Prime Minister?

 

The poll questions are odd.

 

Why should sexual orientation matter?

 

I wouldn't vote for them BECAUSE they were gay, nor would I NOT vote for them for that reason. My vote would be entirely down to the politics (not that we vote for a PM, we vote for a local MP).

[I1L2T3]

Its all a bit pointless anyhow. We don't vote for a Prime Minister. The parties decide that.

Over the last few decades there have been rather a lot of Prime Ministers who were not party leaders at the time of a general election.

 

Including Gordon Brown who the Tories reminded practically every week that he had no mandate.

 

Now Theresa May is in the same situation apparently it's OK.

 

The politics behind it is obvious but it's still double standards.

[Robin-H]

I can't believe we agree but we do. Ridiculous thread. Honestly does anyone ever vaguely care about anyone else sexuality these days?

 

Well going by the poll results so far evidently they do. Nearly a 5th of people wouldn't vote for an MP to be PM (ignoring the fact that we don't..) if they were openly gay.

 

Pretty shocking, and hopefully that percentage will go down, but does highlight the point I've made in other threads that homophobia unfortunately is still quite prevalent in this country.

[Hogg]

Very sad that anyone should even be asking the question.

[Robin-H]

Quite telling that (as of now) 6 people have said they wouldn't vote for a gay PM but no-one has dared write a comment declaring such thoughts.

 

I suspect people know that their homophobia makes than seem incredibly ignorant and backwards and so wouldn't want to be labelled as such even on an anonymous forum.

[RonJeremy]

Including Gordon Brown who the Tories reminded practically every week that he had no mandate.

 

Now Theresa May is in the same situation apparently it's OK.

 

The politics behind it is obvious but it's still double standards.

 

Think you'll find labour set the precedent. If it was good for them, it's good for "us". And why not?

[Mister M]

Quite telling that (as of now) 6 people have said they wouldn't vote for a gay PM but no-one has dared write a comment declaring such thoughts.

 

I suspect people know that their homophobia makes than seem incredibly ignorant and backwards and so wouldn't want to be labelled as such even on an anonymous forum.

 

I think it would be better if they felt they could 'come out' and say how they feel, about why they wouldn't want a gay PM

[Robin-H]

I think it would be better if they felt they could 'come out' and say how they feel, about why they wouldn't want a gay PM

 

What possible reason could they have other than pure homophobia?

[Mister M]

What possible reason could they have other than pure homophobia?

 

Envy??? Anyway, whatever it is that motivates them, I think it's better out than in.

[Robin-H]

Think you'll find labour set the precedent. If it was good for them, it's good for "us". And why not?

 

I'm not a Labour vote by any means, but what precedent are Labour meant to have set?

 

Around 50% of PM's over the last 100 years have been 'unelected' so to speak. I think Stanley Baldwin was the first in the 20th Century.

 

I bet Theresa May is pleased this idea of Cameron's didn't go through..

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8641552.stm

 

---------- Post added 18-09-2016 at 18:29 ----------

 

Envy??? Anyway, whatever it is that motivates them, I think it's better out than in.

 

Yes I too would be interested if anyone was willing to share why they selected that option.

 

Like I said, I think it is telling that nobody has done so.