Osborne speaks sense on gay marriage

Gay marriage is right and we must support it if we want to win, Chancellor tells the Tories.

George Osborne has always sat on the socially liberal wing of the Conservative Party, so it is no surprise that he is a strong supporter of gay marriage. But given the extent of opposition to the policy within Tory ranks (it is reportedly the top reason for members resigning from the party), it's still notable that he uses an op-ed (£) in today's Times to signal that the government will press ahead with plans to introduce it.

With an eye to Obama's victory last week, the Chancellor rightly concludes that social liberalism is the only electorally viable position. He notes that the Republicans "lost swathes of voters who were on their side of the economic argument" because of their stances on abortion and equal marriage, adding that he wouldn't change "the current abortion laws" (as his voting record indicates) and that he supports gay marriage "on principle".

But, as ever, Osborne, who is both Chancellor and the Tories' chief election strategist, also has psephological considerations in mind. He believes the Tories should support gay marriage not just because it is the right thing to do but because it will help them win in the future. Osborne slightly overstates his case by writing that a "clear majority of the public support gay marriage" (the polling evidence is more mixed, although polls generally show at least a plurality in favour) but his wider point - that support for gay marriage is only likely to grow with time - is spot-on. In an echo of Tony Blair, who Osborne refers to as "the master" for his election-winning abilities, he writes that "Successful political parties reflect the modern societies they aspire to lead". To this end, the Chancellor confirms that the government will "introduce a Bill to allow gay marriage."

Already, however, his comments have prompted a backlash from Conservatives. Stewart Jackson MP tweets that the Chancellor "should focus less on social liberal obsessions like gay marriage & more on outside M25 priorities like jobs, taxes & growth". It is, of course, possible to do both. What Tories like Jackson really mean when they say the government should "focus" on other issues is that they don't want it to ever introduce gay marriage. So long as the Conservative Party continues to boast such figures in its ranks, many socially liberal Britons will feel unable to vote for it.

George Osborne said the government would "introduce a Bill to allow gay marriage". Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

Don't blame Brexit on working-class anger - it's more worrying than that

White voters who identified as "English not British" backed Brexit.

For those of us who believe that the referendum result in favour of Brexit is an unmitigated disaster, the nominations for culprits are open. Former Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg made a compelling argument in the Financial Times that the blame lies squarely with Cameron and Osborne.

Clegg, who has first-hand experience of Tory duplicity, is scarcely a neutral observer. But that does not make him wrong. No doubt the PM and the Chancellor are the proximate cause, and should be held accountable by their parliamentary constituents, their party, and by the country as a whole - or what’s left of it if Scotland goes its own way.

Yet journalists and historians alike would do well to probe deeper causes of the referendum result. One obvious culprit is the British press, who, at best, failed to scrutinise the Leave Campaign’s claims and at worst actively abetted them. The New York Times has suggested that using the EU as a punching bag has helped sell papers (or at least generate clicks) in what is probably the most challenging climate for traditional journalism in two centuries.  Boris Johnson, it seems, is irresistible clickbait for the fourth estate. And as Nick Cohen has observed on Saturday, Johnson and Gove, both politician-journalists, have elevated mendacity in politics from an occasional vice to a lifestyle choice.

The search for deeper causes of the Brexit vote, however, cannot end with the press. A different electorate could have taken a different view, as they did in Scotland, which voted 2-1 to Remain.  What was the magic sauce?

Too many commentators, especially those on the Left, have blamed working-class anger. It’s all about social class, apparently. Lisa Mckenzie nearly predicted the result on that basis. Others use it simply to criticise Tory austerity politics. Blaming class can be woven into another favourite narrative - this is about lack of educational attainment. Anyone who has lived in Britain for any period of time knows the class system, the town-and-country divide, and intergenerational wealth disparities as important features of British life. 

Another favourite culprit is racism, as the Washington Post wondered on SaturdayOthers had the same thought, and racist attacks are on the rise. Given Nigel Farage’s antics in the weeks before the election, none of this is surprising. Amidst such scary stuff, many have tried to emphasise that most Brexit voters are not racist, but rather disillusioned with the rule of metropolitan elites. Douglas Carswell is one proponent of this argument, but he’s not alone. The Economist, in an effort to avoid talking about race, asserts that this result was about age, region and class.

Still, this kind of analysis is at best naïve and at worst disingenuous. 

As Lord Ashcroft’s polls suggest, it is only the white working class (if by this we mean C2/DE, though many in DE are unemployed) who voted for Brexit. In fact, those describing themselves as "in employment" generally voted to Remain. Those describing themselves as Asian, black or Muslims overwhelmingly voted Remain. By contrast, nearly six in ten white Protestants voted to leave. 

Brexit was a rejection of British multiculturalism. That is the real take-home message of the Ashcroft polls. Of those who see themselves as "English not British", 80 per cent voted to Leave, irrespective of social class. Those who see themselves as "British not English" voted 60 per cent for Remain. Similar patterns (and similar press involvement) can be found in the Quebec referendum of 1995, which failed by a narrower margin than Brexit succeeded.

Of non-Francophone voters in Quebec, 95 per cent voted to remain in Canada. Those who voted to leave, on the other hand, were rejecting Canadian multiculturalism. Quebecois separatism was seen as part of a struggle for cultural survival.  

Whether or not you call those attitudes racist, the advent of white English (and Welsh) nationalism is, for those of us who have taught modern European history, the truly ominous consequence of Brexit. Do not be fooled by the alternatives.

Dr D’Maris Coffman is a Senior Lecturer in Economics of the Built Environment at UCL Bartlett. Before coming to UCL in 2014, she was a Fellow and Director of Studies in History at Newnham College and a holder of a Leverhulme Early Career Fellowship in the Cambridge History Faculty.