X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week. If you receive it, you’ll also find your subscriber number at the top of our weekly highlights email.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.spectator.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050. If you’ve only just subscribed, you may not yet have been issued with a subscriber number. In this case you can use the temporary web ID number, included in your email order confirmation.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

If you have any difficulties creating an account or logging in please take a look at our FAQs page.

Blogs Coffee House

George Osborne’s combination of austerity and social libertarianism is repellent

15 November 2012

10:24 AM

15 November 2012

10:24 AM

George Osborne’s spirited bid in The Times (£) earlier this week  to appropriate the Obama victory for the Tories is a curious mirror image of the Labour Party’s arguments to the same effect. Both ignore the reality that the US is the US, not us, and Obama is Obama; formulas for election success aren’t a peel-off/stick-on tattoo, to be transferred between one body politic and another.

But the article was interesting for what it told us about the Chancellor himself, quite apart from a slightly nerdy obsession with American elections. The fifth and decisive point in his piece was all about how social liberalism plus fiscal conservatism was the key to electoral success. As far as Mr Osborne is concerned, if you make the case for spending cuts plus abortion and gay marriage, well bingo, you’ve got the women voters in the bag and success is yours. As he observed, ‘I wouldn’t change the abortion laws and I strongly support gay marriage on principle.’ Well, foetuses don’t vote; feminists do. Though probably not much for George Osborne.

I’m a woman voter myself and that combination of hardcore austerity and social libertarianism is about as repellent a combination as I can think of. It doesn’t, may I say, take away from the overall impression conveyed by the Chancellor which was mercilessly summed up by Nadine Dorries – yes, yes, I know – when she said he was one of two ‘posh boys who don’t know the price of milk.’ It’s Lord Snooty crossed with the social outlook of Harriet Harman. Especially as the abortion laws that George Osborne supports include the provision for abortion up to birth for foetuses with a serious deformity – cleft palate say. The number of late abortions isn’t small: over a couple of hundred every year.

[Alt-Text]


The thing is, Mr Osborne is onto a loser with this one. He’s chasing after gay voters and feminist voters, but by and large, the people who define themselves primarily as gays or feminists – as opposed to incidental gays or feminists –  are not going to vote Tory. Ever. They may be pushed even to vote LibDem next time.

The only constituency that’s really going to be galvanised by the Chancellor’s display of his liberal conscience is conservative Conservatives. And the effect on them is entirely negative. I spoke to one elderly Tory the other day who said that after the party came out for gay marriage,  he’d still – holding his nose – be paying his subscription but he wouldn’t be giving them anything extra or lifting a finger for them come the election. And there are any number of others who feel that their noses, to adapt a famous phrase, are being rubbed in diversity. It may be pushing it to suggest, as the Daily Mail did in a trenchant report on Mr Osborne’s article, that the Tories could lose a million votes through its support for gay marriage but there are certainly going to be losses as well as gains and the losses may outweigh the gains.

It’s one thing to support these things on principle, as Mr Osborne says he does with gay marriage, but quite another to advance this programme as a cynical electoral calculation. And that’s precisely what he does in his piece. But if people are repelled as well as attracted by gay marriage – not just homophobes but people who feel that marriage has an inherent heterosexual character – then the calculation may simply backfire.

All the Chancellor has done has reinforced his unfitness ever to lead the Tory party because he’s so out of touch with so many of its basic instincts, chiefly those of the church-going, socially-engaged, parish-council sort of Tory. And it follows his telling and unpopular decision to tax child benefit for those earning over £50,000 a year which similarly alienated many in the party who are opposed a) to taxes that fall hardest on families with one earner rather than two and b) complex, means-related tax.

And it was a bit of a nerve for him to quote in his conclusion Margaret Thatcher in her introduction to the 1979 election manifesto: ‘The heart of politics is not political theory, it is people and how they want to live their lives.’ Someone, somewhere, ask Margaret Thatcher just what her view is of gay marriage. And then let the Chancellor know what she says.

Give something clever this Christmas – a year’s subscription to The Spectator for just £75. And we’ll give you a free bottle of champagne. Click here.


Show comments
Close