British Prime Minister David Cameron has long been a supporter of gay-marriage and his push towards it’s legalization, along with his able coalition partner Nick Clegg, have made him a vulnerable party leader.
In a November ComRes poll, only 7% said they would be more likely to vote Conservative because of the legalization of gay marriage whilst 18% said they were less likely. Amongst Conservative voters, the numbers are 4% for and 34% against. Given the very real rise of UKIP as an acceptable alternative for Tory voters, one wonders what on earth is driving the Prime Minister’s mind.
What is not clear is if Cameron’s support for the issue is due to principally to personal belief or if he believes it is simply good politics. Given that Chancellor Osborne has argued for the latter, and that Cameron himself has asserted (some would claim incorrectly) that it is a vote booster, one would have to believe that the idea is based at least in part in the concept of winning over new constituencies.
A great weakness of many conservatives is the concept that offering up compromise (and indeed complete surrender) on some issues championed from left field, will lead to a degree of acceptance and even appeasement. In reality this is generally viewed from the other side as a) weakness, b) an acknowledgment that “we were right all along”, and c) and a green light to push towards an even more aggressive agenda.
This I believe is the trap that Cameron has fallen into, along with his dallying on issues such as withdrawal from the EU, and his cozying relationship with President Obama. Cameron believed from the start of his party leadership that the party needed to be reformed and realigned, saying that they needed to change the way they looked, felt, thought and behaved. He has sought to make the brand more attractive to younger and more socially liberal voters. In this, Cameron employs a dichotomy, in first seeking to give people what he thinks they want as a basic right while at the same time assuming a popular position with opposition.
Cameron’s outlook is the “brand name” of conservatism first, with the principles relegated to the back seat. In this he shares the mistake of American Republicans who believe that by giving in on illegal immigration by granting blanket amnesty they will bolster their share of the Hispanic vote.
Consider the plight of the Washington State red apple. In an effort to produce what the consumer wanted, the apple growers of the Pacific Northwest engaged in a little genetic engineering if you like, to make the apples look more appealing. (Essentially a lot redder). At one point in the 80’s these apples garnered 75% of the market share from that area but in less than 15 years the sales had been cut by more than half. What happened? The growers had created an apple that looked great but tasted bland. People stopped buying by colour when reality set in that the taste didn’t live up to expectations.
Alas, the same fate is already creeping up on Mr. Cameron. Conservatives in Britain have had enough of the advocacy of social liberalism from one of their own. Cameron is, in fact, quite similar to Tony Blair, his predecessor once removed. The problem of course being is that Blair was from the opposition party.
Elements of a nation’s electorate can be remarkably fickle. Whilst many understand or at least subscribe consistently to an ideology, a smaller percentage does not. These shift their allegiance with the inconsistency of the British weather – what else can explain changing your vote from Margaret Thatcher to Neil Kinnock. Others who understand their position will nevertheless opt to stay home when uninspired by what their own party has to offer. It is while Cameron tries to be the weatherman that his own party faithful will go off in search of somebody that represents their views.
