You are here:   David Cameron > David Cameron's Difficulties with Girls
 

This suggests that the Prime Minister cares less about the good opinion of female colleagues and voters than he pretends. In other words, he cares more about holding his coalition together than he does about enforcing party unity. If necessary he will sacrifice anyone, male or female, to hold on to power. 

By Newman's definition of a gentleman — "one who never inflicts pain" — David Cameron is no gentleman. By Evelyn Waugh's, on the other hand — "everyone thinks he is a gentleman" and  "draws the line of demarcation immediately below his own heels" — Cameron most certainly is one. Whether or not he privately draws the line at state-educated colleagues, such as Kenneth Clarke, Theresa May, William Hague, and Philip Hammond, they are all (like Cameron's own patron Michael Howard, not to mention Margaret Thatcher herself) paragons of the post-war meritocracy. These grammar school boys and girls, once sneered at by Waugh as "l'école de Butler, the primal men and women of the classless society", have dominated Conservative politics for two generations and their leading role is only now being usurped by Cameron and his generation because the Tories acquiesced in Labour's abolition of the grammar schools. Noblesse oblige is back, and with it a Whiggish aversion to confrontation and other "toxic" aspects of Thatcherism, which were by no means toxic to upwardly mobile families. But Cameron knows he still needs to win back their votes: hence his oxymoronic synthesis of ideologies, "liberal conservatism".

David Cameron's determination to woo women voters was again trumpeted after last month's resignation of Liam Fox as Defence Secretary. The Press dutifully reported that the promotion of two rising stars, Justine Greening and Chloe Smith, over the heads of their male contemporaries proved that, with a quarter of his Cabinet now female, Cameron really does take women seriously. The strange case of Dr Fox and Mr Werritty, however, will have reinforced the impression, perhaps especially among women, that this government is no more principled than that of Gordon Brown. Modernisation apparently means that, instead of Old Boy networks, we now have Best Man networks. For this impression, the Prime Minister bears full responsibility. He should have carpeted his Defence Secretary long before the Werritty affair became public knowledge. The only sympathetic character to emerge was Fox's long-suffering wife, Dr Jesme Baird, who preserved a dignified silence throughout.

David Cameron's pitch to women used to be all about marriage. His government was elected on a promise to recognise marriage in the tax system. Though the mantra was repeated at Manchester, so far he has done nothing about it. Instead, it turns out that the matrimonial reform he had in mind was quite different: the legalisation of gay marriage. It is true that changes in attitudes among women are one of the main reasons why such a    pledge is now possible for a Conservative leader. Homosexual men and heterosexual women often used to regard one another with mutual suspicion, which was only exacerbated by the prevalence of single-sex institutions. Not any more. The phenomenon of the "gay best friend", which every woman is now supposed to have, is matched by the emergence of popular gay celebrities who at any rate appear to prefer the company of women. Polls reflect the rapprochement between the two groups. It is hardly surprising that most women would feel more relaxed with, say, the gay fashion guru Gok Wan, who tells them how they can look good naked, than an "alpha male" like Dominique Strauss-Kahn, who might tell them how good he looks naked. 

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Edwin
November 13th, 2011
3:11 PM
“If legalising gay marriage renders a conflict between church and state likely — at any rate if churches are forced to solemnise such weddings — it renders a confrontation between state and mosque well-nigh inevitable. We know that polygamy is happening on a large scale because multiple "wives" already claim benefits and are entitled to do so, even though bigamy is still a criminal offence. Once gay marriage is legal, Muslims will demand parity.“ I do not follow this argument. Why should churches, mosques or synagogues be “forced” to solemnise any wedding? A Christian vicar would not be expected to officiate at a Jewish wedding any more than he would be expected to officiate at a gay one, unless his church chose to recognize gay marriage. And why would gay marriage inevitably lead to the legalization of polygamy ? As you say bigamy, in the UK , is an offence being gay is not. This whole thing about gay marriage is a storm in a very English tea cup. As you say civil partnership confers most if not all of the legal safeguards and protection of “marriage. I am reminded of Shakespeare’s often quoted line: “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet”

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.