A right to reply

Following the publication of my post “Has George Osbourne excluded Christians from the Conservative Party?” a Facebook conversation challenged me to give him a right to reply. This same conversation also resulted in a further reflection:

Throughout the speech he claims not to be dividing, for example “We’re not going to get through this as a country if we set one group against another, if we divide, denounce and demonise.” Yet he then goes on to denounce union members (the teacher quote), to denounce those who don’t work until they drop (the corner shop quote and the commuter quote – on the latter he actually suggests that children can have a better life if one parent goes to work before they get up and comes home long after they have gone to bed). Throughout the speech there is a constant claim that the modern Conservatives represent those who work hard, and by implication don’t represent those who don’t.

This is not a political point it is purely a concern about the marginalization of those who have lost hope, who don’t believe they can ever put in, who have long since given up striving. The marginalization of people who are viewed as takers rather than contributors None of this labelling helps. It doesn’t restore dignity, it offers no hope, it simply reinforces despair and apathy.

I’ve taken the challenge and I’ve asked for a clarification of his views and offered him a chance to respond which I will publish as a future blog. The letter to him is as follows:

11 October 2012

George Osborne MP
The Correspondence & Enquiry Unit
HM Treasury
1 Horse Guards Road
London, SW1A 2HQ

Dear Chancellor,

Your speech to the Conservative Party Conference this year caused me to stop and reflect as a Christian on its implications. As a result I wrote a blog under the heading “Has George Osborne excluded Christians from the Conservative Party?” with the conclusion that you in effect had.

A reader of my blog challenged this interpretation resulting in a further reflection that despite saying your party didn’t divide, denounce or demonise you had done precisely that; for example when you differentiated between the teacher whose conscience led them to support their unions actions and the teacher who was “prepared to defy her union”.

My purpose in writing to you is to seek clarification on your views and to give you a chance to respond to my reflection, which I shall publish alongside the original blog and the further reflection.

I have attached a copy of the blog and a copy of the further reflection, and I look forward to hearing from you,

Yours sincerely,

Neil Douglas