There seems to be a bit more to this (albeit from a partisan source): http://www.torybear.com/2010/04/stacy-defects.html

Seems she left the party for personal reasons as well.

Tory Bear doing damage limitation? You don’t say? And what about David Heathcote? Perhaps Dale will take him down.

Desperate moves by a desperate bunch of goons, hope this gets wider coverage so the Tories can be seen for what they are.

Taken together with the resignation of Adele Douglas from Conservative Future, the thin veneer is starting to look a little damaged on Cameron’s newly polished turd.

According to the Mirror:

“Ms Douglas said she knows of Conservative prospective parliamentary candidates who are racist and sexist behind closed doors – adding “a Tory PPC called me a P***-shagger when I was seeing a man of Asian origin”.”

Same old Tories!!!

@4

Is it that much of a secret though? The clue is in Tory “Bear”‘s name…

At least we now know who wears the pants in the Dale/Cole household

It’s great to see these people leaving the Tories, but disappointing to see them joining Labour, unless they have genuinely changed their Tory spots. Important as gay rights are, there are other important differences between the parties. Have these two Tories had a damascene conversion to the cause of social democracy?

“David Heathcote has also joined Labour after being a Tory supporter for 20 years and becoming an approved parliamentary candidate.”

Good that he’s quitting the Tories, but I mean, what planet did this guy live on?
He must have joined the Tories at the height of Section 28/Age of Consent Tory Talibanism…They were hardly open to LGBT rights back then…and now a stupid coment from Mr Grayling makes him deflect. How does that work?

good old Morrissey lyrics…”Most people keep their brains between their legs”…?

So, further evidence then, that other than on gay rights, Labour and the Conservatives are basically the same.

Otherwise, why would it be so easy to leap from one to the other?

Why do people take these turncoats’ sincerity at face value? As another gay Tory I can tell you there are plenty more of us staying loyal to the modern Conservative Party, and after the election there will be more gays taking their place as Tories in the Commons than any other party.

Is Labour so desperate to hold onto its client votes that it has to trot out two very unimportant individuals to try and make their case that only they can represent Ghetto Gays, wedded to some special interest agenda?

This is terrible. It’ll lose the Tories many millions of votes. There’s weeping and wailing, and a strong sense of betrayal in Scunthorpe – well, and Barnsley.

Not sure what is more damaging. The defection of a junior politician (if someone who is not elected can be called such) and the use by her of an opposed political party; or, the insulting idea that one should vote according to one’s sexuality. I mean, if a straight man (or woman, presumably) defected from the Liberal Democrats to UKIP, I would obviously be unable to vote for the Liberal Democrats ever again (well, ever) because of their clear unsuitablity to govern fairly for straight people. Indeed, imagine the damage the defection of a human being from one party to another could do: no human would ever vote for the defected-from party again!

I do find gay Tories odd and I know there are plenty of them but it is a party with such a repressive and destructive gay rights history, I suppose the idea is to change it from the inside and these two obviously had enough of that.

It is odd how easy it is to make the transition between the two though.

Trofim, why are they weeping in Scunthorpe and Barnsley? Is it because they live in Scunthorpe and Barnsley?

W:

Damaging is the Tories attempting to appear gay friendly and clearly, not being very gay friendly, I think the rest of what it is you’re trying to spin out is a defence of the party. And sexuality, for some people, does play a crucial part in voting, based on the party in questions historical attitudes towards sexuality.

‘And sexuality, for some people, does play a crucial part in voting, based on the party in questions historical attitudes towards sexuality.’

Agree. You can’t make assumptions about people’s views on economic policy, immigration or law and order based on their sexuality but it is rather odd for people to vote with a party that actively opposes something fundamental to their identity.

It’s like black people voting for the BNP, or Jeremy Clarkeson voting Green.

Shatterface,

Daniel explains why some people vote according to sexuality, which I understand (I just doubt it is that important to most gay people who accept none of the major parties will be illiberal enough to discriminate against them any more). But he makes the point historically, you seem to think that the Conservatives still oppose homosexuality. I’d suggest you take a reality check there – the party has changed. Or does Labour still want to nationalise the means of production?

If you’re going to debate an issue, do it in the right tense. Mr Grayling was asserting the right of the individual to act according to their own belief, not anything homophobic (politically unwise, but not anti-Gay). If you believe the Conservatives to be homophobic, show me the policies in question. Otherwise, accept that was a battle the liberals won a while ago and move on to ones that need fighting, such as civil liberties for all.

The Labour Party’s Clause IV says it is a democratic socialist party. (And yes, that is the current version, as rewritten by Blair.) Unless these two Tories are willing to subscribe to socialism, it is very sad that they have been allowed to join.

The party needs all the votes it can get, but even at a time of declining membership, members are another matter – it should do without rightwing members.