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.

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.

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'.

Coffee House

Gay marriage vote: where’s Cameron?

5 February 2013

1:31 PM

5 February 2013

1:31 PM

As soon as the government announced plans to bring in gay marriage, it was clear that the press was going to turn the vote on it into a referendum among Tory MPs on Cameroon modernisation. Even, though, it is a ‘free vote’, a failure to secure the support of at least half the parliamentary party for the bill was going to be treated as a blow to Cameron’s authority. But rather than leaning into this fight, Cameron has shied away from it. Absurdly, he isn’t even on the front bench for the opening of today’s debate and one has to go back months for his last major public statement on the issue.

Cameron’s decision to vacate the field is a mistake for several reasons. First, no one explains the Conservative case for gay marriage better than him. His absence has denied Conservative campaigners on this issue their best weapon. If he had led, more Conservatives would have followed and voted yes tonight.

[Alt-Text]


Second, if Cameron had made clear how important he views this issue as more Conservative MPs would have supported it. Certainly, I suspect it would have changed the calculation for a fair few of those MPs who are voting no to keep their constituency associations happy.

Finally, this reticence is all too typical of how the Cameroons back away from a scrap. This failure means that there’s now a peer pressure to rebel in the Conservative parliamentary party. It is, in a dramatic change from the 1980s, loyalist MPs who shrink from going into the tea room or to meetings of the 1922.

Number 10 have made other mistakes on this issue. They should have reassured Tory MPs about their motives by making clear that a marriage tax allowance would be introduced as soon as gay marriage was through; demonstrating that this is about strengthening the institution of marriage rather than just political symbolism.

The result of all this is that those counting the votes for Number 10 now expect that they’ll fail to secure the support of a majority of parliamentary party and that there’s a considerable chance that more Conservative MPs will vote against it than for it.

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