Are there votes for Michael Howard on abortion?
March 15th, 2005
Will the Cardinal’s backing help the Tories?
According to the Times this morning the Catholic Church has made “a dramatic entry into the election campaign by backing Michael Howard’s stance on abortion and withdrawing its traditional support for Labour.”
The report says that the Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, ensured that abortion would play a greater part in the coming election than any other by praising the Tory leader’s call for a cut in the legal abortion limit from 24 to 20 weeks.
Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor spoke out after the three main party leaders gave their personal views on abortion — traditionally a matter for conscience rather than party policy — to Cosmopolitan magazine.
-
Mr Howard said he would find parliamentary time for a debate on cutting the legal time limit while Tony Blair said that there was no pressing need for a change, arguing that women would be “criminalised”.
In direct quotes in the report the Cardinal said: “I am very pleased that this has been brought out on to the public agenda and that there is going to be a debate about it, both in the lead-up to and after the next election. It is a key issue. The position is that we are totally opposed to abortion.” Praising Mr Howard’s commitment to reducing the time limit, he said: “This is something we can commend on the way to a full abandonment of abortion.”
In the US, of course, the legality of abortion is a huge issue that many argue helped George Bush to victory last November. The question in the UK election is whether there are votes here that could move on the issue.
Concern over abortion is much broader than just amongst the Roman Catholic community which is said to comprise of 4.1 million people. At each election all candidates are quizzed closely on the issue and their views are circulated right across the religious spectrum.
On the other hand Howard risks alienating in the women’s movements who believe strongly in the right to choose. It could also be that if abortion becomes a big issue then it could help turnout on both sides of the arguments.
A hard call but we think that Howard might be a beneficiary.
MessageSpace Advertising
As a catholic, I regard Howards promises as hardly radical, however, having had 8 years of a deeply christian prime minister (who attended catholic mass with his wife and illicity received catholic holy communion until told to stop by the last cardinal as he’s not catholic) supporting the legality of abortion and faciliating embryo stem cell research, this is really a breath of fresh air. The cardinal giving support to the tories is pretty astounding.
Maybe some votes will move, but not many, I wouldn’t have thought. Surely the bulk of the Catholic vote is in Merseyside and Manchester. I would have thought if some of them shift their vote to the Tories it will help the LDs. Vote Howard, Get Kennedy.
Do you ever go to sleep Graham? You seemed to have the last comments last night and amongst the first this morning!
Your sleep pattern seems to be worse than mine!
As it is I went to bed before the NOP news and I’ve only just got it on.
My advice to the Tories is to stay away from the issue - it will have the reverse effect it does in the U.S.
The Right in this country is not Christian, but abortion is a touch-stone issue for left-wing activists. It would serve to motivate left-wingers rather than right-wingers.
May not win many votes diretly, but it helps add to the impression that is being cultivated in some people’s mind that Tories are moral and have traditional values.
Meanwhile Blair is courting Evangelicals:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,1437235,00.html
1 - I admit that I have never understood how the PM reconciles his Christian beliefs with the way he votes on such issues.
Relax Guido not saying it should be banned totally is he. Most people here and in the states fall into the dead centre, wanting it allowed but controlled you may disagree but there it is. Dems got punished for appearing too much in favour of it. Equally if the Republicans went all out for a totalban would be punished. I think it’s a shrewd pitch by Howard at this uneasy centre ground. Whether it will pick up any votes is aniother question, but they’ve played it very coolly and it’s not running a great risk.
A number of observations. First, the timing of the Cardinal’s announcement so soon after Michael Howard’s statement suggests a degree of collusion. If so, this is an extraordinary political development, which (as Guido Fawkes points out in (4)) could easily backfire.
Second, the Catholic Church is mounting a comprehensive election campaign effort, of which abortion is only a part. The radical Christian webzine Ekklesia reported this Monday that that the Catholic bishops will be issuing an election guide, encouraging Catholics to question parliamentary candidates on a number of ‘key issues’ before deciding how to cast their vote.
Third, is it meaningful to speak in Britain of a ‘Catholic vote’ or a ‘Christian vote’? We know that vocal minorities such as Christian Voice are attempting to create the notion of a coherent voting bloc. However, I doubt that many non-Asian voters, even deeply religious ones, see themselves primarily in terms of their religious affiliation at the ballot box - or is there any polling evidence that suggests otherwise?
Fourth, I find it somewhat bizarre that all three main party leaders have got it into their heads that the way to success in the general election is to win over the religious vote (whatever that is) - see the report in yesterday’s Guardian. The majority of British people no longer practice a religion. Most of those who do regard it as a private matter. It is strange that no leader can see any worth in campaigning for the maintenence of a secular society, which is what a majority of people clearly prefer.
RE 9 Sounds like you in total tune with Mr Aaronvitch’s piece in the Guardian. Campaigning on “secularism” won’t win over those who already are bar a tiny fringe. But as for those who maybe religious in believing and possibly attending once in a while it may win over a few votes, from people who are far more likely to vote. AS for collusion. Put away the conspiracy theory, of course the RCC is trying to put pressure on Blair to folow suit. As any pressure group might it has a right to do so. Too many on the left are happy to cite the Catholic Church when it suits them eg Iraq, attacking Thatcher Govt on Poverty, they have some cheek to then round on it for voicing views they don’t like. Slightly hypocritical perhaps?
David [10] makes a good point. Suppose that “religious” people make up 20% of the whole, but are 90% likely to vote. Then, on a 60% poll, they are 18% of that 60%, i.e. 30%. Whilst they might be conservative on matters of sexual morality, they are probably more liberal than many on immigration/asylum, for example.
11 - re your last point, the end of the Guardian article above [6] mentions the Cardinal advising Catholics “to look specifically at party policies on education, criminal justice, refugees and migrants and the global common good.” Hardly sounds like this will move them en masse to the Tories.
I don’t know the figures, but I expect the place in GB where the Catholic vote goes most strongly to one party is to Labour in Scotland; and I think it’s very unlikely that it will move significantly Conservative and Unionist this time.
I think you are missing the point a little. Good politics is about speaking to all sectors of the community, about the issues that matter to them. This includes the religeous communities. It’s not about winning masses of votes, but it is about talking directly to groups and communites. We are doing it a lot.
@ 9: Collusion between Cormac and Howard? I don’t think so! The Times obviously just rang him up and asked for a quote. They then made the (patently false) claim that the Catholic Church was ‘withdrawing its traditional support for Labour’- the Catholic bishops in England and Wales have never supported any one political party, and Catholic lay people are pretty unlikely to change their normal allegiance on this one, I would think. The Catholic vote is pretty staunchly Labour on communitarian grounds, and if it wants to change, Charles Kennedy is a rather more attractive destination than the party that told us ‘There’s no such thing as society’, I would have thought.
14 - I look forward to Sara vs Sarah J discussions in future - welcome Sara!
14 - indeed: some of the papers seemed to turn a broad preference of Catholic voters for Labour into “the Catholic Church’s support of Labour” - which, you are right, has never been the case.
In my opinion this is just another example of how the Tories are now controlling the media agenda.
and sara - i doubt the idea of banning abortions go down well in with the Lib Dems. On this issue, I can’t see many catholics (if they do change their vote on this issue) changing to them!
I would have thought that anyone for whom abortion is an overriding concern would, if they do vote, vote Conservative. Howard may increase turnout among these people (though I doubt they’d be hugely satisfied simply by a reduction to 20 weeks).
If it is one of several issues a voter wants to balance, as Sara (and I in post 12) pointed out, it’s far from certain s/he’ll switch to the Conservatives.
Although I agree with Rob that it is another example of the Tories controlling the agenda, I agree with Guido it is one area they should have stayed away from. Mixing religion and politics is not popular in the UK we are much more comfortable whne things of this nature are decided in a select committee. You are far more likely to lose votes on this issue than gain them.
I wasn’t suggesting this was a good tactic by MH. Personally I would have stayed out of it altogether. It will probably cause more hastle than good. (unless, of course, Crosby really is as good as he believes he is)
Sara - Do get your facts right love. No one ever said that “There is no such thing as society” (sic)-please don’t regurgitate tedious leftist bilge - or at least the whole quote in context
To be fair that’s irrelevant to her post Sarah (and technically someone did ’say it’ just that wasn’t the whole sentence). All that’s relevant is that people believe that Thatcher said it, which they do
alex - Oh, so the majority of the public think she said it, so we shouldn’t try to educate them so they can get their facts straight? Or should we just leave them be… I mean its obvisouly a a good way of spreading the myth that thatcherism was the worst thing that has ever happened to this country.
I do think that’s an abused quote, and that liberals as well as conservatives need to promote the idea that society is not coterminous with the state. But Sara’s analysis referred to perception-driven voter behaviour and seems to me quite valid and plausible.
Regardless of what the full quote was, Sara’s point stands, unless you’re going to argue that Thatcherism wasn’t about the triumph of agressive individualism over collectivism?
Jim Callaghan didn’t say “Crisis? What crisis?” either…
No-one ever said that “There is no such thing as society”
incorrect, Mrs Thatcher did here -
http://www.margaretthatcher.com/speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=106689
26. ..and it didn’t stop Tories claiming it was true
That was in Woman’s Own? It’s rare to see a politician giving that much space to make a sustained argument in the broadsheets these days!
27 - well, what the quote says is “… and who is society? There is no such thing!”
and then “There is no such thing as society” a few paragraphs further down.
31 - if you look further down, you get the quote verbatim too.
Btw Tabman I finally sent you an email from thatsaid.co.uk at the weekend!
Nice one Andy! But I suppose Sarah J will say that http://www.margretthatcher.com is just ‘regurgitating tedious leftist bilge…’
Placed in its context though, it means the precise opposite of the meaning usually attributed to it.
Sean 34. “There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate.”
I’ve never doubtred it was taken out of context but Sarah was claiming it was never said which isn’t true.
The irony is of course that dear old Maggie did more to promote rights without obligations than anyone else!
If this ‘tapestry’ isn’t what is usually meant by society, what is the distinction? The distinction is that individuals don’t have a DUTY to help each other out, it’s only benificial if they do.
Socialism and, getting back to the point of the thread - Catholicism, believes that there is that duty.
You can, I believe, assert that an ethical duty exists without others having a corresponding right to enforce it: in other words, moral duties are not the same as rightful legal obligations.
Indeed Book Value and you could say that is the difference between Catholicism and Socialism on the issue, the moral power of the Church is considered enough to ensure people carry out their duty.
I wasn’t thinking about it exactly like that, but very good point Will. Though I think you could easily argue that the Thatcher interview postulates a duty to help underprivileged children through more than welfare state means.
Of course Thatcher also came from a Methodist background which has attitudes on self help not to different from Catholicism although of course less hierarchical.
42 - the Labour party owes more to Methodism than Marx: discuss.
Are we allowed a one word answer, Yes.
Re 12 quoting the cardinals exhortation for catholics “to look specifically at party policies on education, criminal justice, refugees and migrants and the global common good”
This is much what seems to have been advises at previous elections by RC bishops but the cardinals comments do seem to me to give more weighting to the abortion issue. Given that Charles Kennedy’s comments were nearer Howards than Blairs, combined with last weeks shenanigans regarding justice and the lib dem policies on the issues in the quote marks, my reading is that the lib dem policies fit the exhortation best.
However I think that RC guidance will be aimed at individual candidates as much as parties, therefore it is not really sensible to apply a uniform national “catholic” voting pattern. Iain Duncan Smith, Ruth Kelly and David Alton would all be broadly compatible with the quotemarks. Certain other MPs of all parties would not.
I attach a link on a Times survey done last Novemebr on attitides to abortion by voting intention. This was carried outin the wake of Bush’s victory. It kind of suggests that if a person is in favour of restrictions they are already more likely to be a conservative supporter.
http://www.populuslimited.com/poll_summaries/2004_11_05_times.htm
Thanks for your comments- I’ve been enjoying reading you all for some time, and this was an issue I wanted to comment on.
Having now seen the BBC clip of Cormac in action, I’m bound to allow that, though the Times headline was ridiculous, he did go slightly further than I had expected in distancing himself from the Labour party. I’d be surprised if anyone changed their mind because of what he said, though. Cardinal Winning did the same thing a couple of years ago in Scotland, by implication in favour of the SNP, but I don’t think it had much effect. I imagine if anything shifts the traditional left-wing Catholic vote away from Labour it will be Iraq, and it won’t go to the Tories, wherever else it goes.
Sara - 46 -”I imagine if anything shifts the traditional left-wing Catholic vote away from Labour it will be Iraq, and it won’t go to the Tories, wherever else it goes.” Which party will be the recipient of this alleged shift?
47: Interesting question, and the answer is I don’t know. Lots of my Catholic friends are pretty fed up with Blair. Some will probably grit their teeth and vote Labour anyway, some of the Scots may go SNP, some may vote LibDem. They probably won’t stay at home, since they generally see voting as a civic duty, and probably won’t vote Green because the Greens are against Catholic schools, or SSP now they’ve collapsed, or Respect because they are too untried. I suspect local issues (’Labour haven’t a hope here’ ‘My local MP is a good man’ etc.) and anti-Tory tactical voting will decide it for many, though not all.
Never had time for Cormac Murphy O’Connor.. oh for the days of Basil Hume, it’s a bloody stupid thing for him to say but he was never up to much, a man who knowingly covers up child abuse within the church is not fit to be a cardinal or indeed hold any rank within the church IMHO… things which bother me about my church are not doctrinal (though don’t get me started on the Marian cult!) but more general, there is a worrying undercurrent of corruption within the church hierarchy, thankfully my parish is very good, very active and very tolerant with a good local priest.
I doubt that these comments will make any impact but any Christian who places abortion (which I oppose) before the great strides Labour has made to relive poverty and improve the lot of the worst off in society is barmy IMHO, I’ve seen the impact this government has had for the better and to ignore it, as I say, is bonkers… that said this is the catholic church after all.
As for the Labour party owing “more to Methodism than Marx” that’s about right, the Labour movement has always been driven by a morality derived from Christianity rather than the humanist concern and secularism of many continental left-wingers infact there are many similarities between the Progressivism that emerged in the late 19th Century US and the Labour Movement as both where largely inspired and driven by Christian morality.
The problem with child abuse on the part of some priests is presumably the willingness of the Catholic Church to accept that if a sinner repents, he should be allowed a second chance. Obviously, I think it was wrong in the case of abusive priests, but I can see where they were coming from.
Ben at 49 - I think it was Non-conformist, tee-total, fundamentalist Christian rather than mainstream, don’t you think ?
A couple of points. Cardinal Hume was indeed a great leader of the Catholic Church. Indeed he nearly became the Pope. He was apparently second behind our current Pope. As for Cardinal Hume, I think he is perfectly right to speak out about abortion, just as he is perfectly right to speak out about poverty etc. He did not endorse the Tories though, just their position on the topic.
Another point, is one of the reasons the Anglican Church is continuing to decline is the fact that the C of E no longer speaks out on these right to life issues. In a sense it became too political.
Andrew 52. Not quite sure about Hume and the papacy but otherwise I broadly agree with you. We now have the spectre of Blair trying to telling us what issues we can and cannot discuss during the election campaign. As usual, it is not the issue but New Labours clumsy reaction to it which is doing them the most damage.
BTW did anyone see any of that bizarre Labour press conference yesterday?
I think Labour supporters need to hope that this isn’t a portent for what we can expect during the campaign proper.
Jane Kennedy is actually right that many traditional Catholics think the economy in Burundi is more important to this election than abortion. (Catholic guilt and left-wing guilt are often pretty similar.) What nobody seems to have said yet is that many of us who are dead against abortion do not think hijacking the political process just before an election is a sensible way to change hearts and minds on the issue- quite the reverse, it makes people feel held to ransom.
As for Cormac and the child abuse thing, I do feel bound to defend him slightly. Sean is right that it took the church a very long time to realise that tendency to child abuse is a condition that can’t just be addressed by a month’s retreat and a promise to do better, but a compulsion that even a truly repentant perpetrator will find it very, very difficult to resist in the wrong circumstances. Cormac made the offender chaplain at Gatwick Airport- it must have seemed at the time like the safest job he could think of! Yes, it was stupid and naive, and seriously negligent- but at least the Church has now seriously addressed this problem, with the Nolan report and measures now taken in every parish with both clerical and lay workers to identify past offenders and prevent any further abuse.
slots America is Rome reincarnate. Like the Roman empire, the American empire is vastly powerful and unfathomably corrupt. Like Rome, America impo
forex market Heh. How it goes? Buy it all. ASAP. Last discount in your live (AAAAA!!!!!). Take a rest.