Thanks to Truss's first day in offce, the Conservative Party can no longer be perceived as a party of elderly, wealthy, white men

9 Sep 2022

Considered against their parliamentary rivals, the British Conservative party record on both gender and ethnicity is now better than Labour or the Liberal Democrats, whatever the dictates of cognitive dissonance.

Cognitive dissonance is a fascinating psychological phenomenon, whereby individuals suffer distress when deeply held beliefs and prejudices are contradicted by clearly observable and undeniable facts. Often, it leads to the dismissal of factual evidence which does not fit a cherished narrative.

The public image of the British Conservative Party is of an anti-immigrant, nationalistic, inward-looking organisation predominantly populated by white, upper-class, wealthy male ex-public schoolboys.

Yet it is a caricature, as any unbiased observer of Conservative history and the British cabinet can easily see. That was until two days ago, when Liz Truss, the third woman to become British prime minister, appointed three cabinet ministers in the three most senior offices of state who are all black.

The UK chancellor of the exchequer is of Ghanaian descent. The foreign secretary’s mother is from Sierra Leone and the new home secretary’s heritage on both sides is Kenyan.

It was quite a while ago that Theresa May characterised the Conservative Party as the “nasty party”, a term which in itself was unfortunately loaded with probably unintentional historical resonance. Yet even then, she was concerned more with the public’s perception of the party rather than reality.

In recent times, Boris Johnson himself personified that questionable image perhaps more than any other Conservative leader. However, the caricature of the Conservative Party offered can be seen accurately to describe both the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats. I have been a member of both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. The Liberals are well-intentioned, but the Conservatives (for all their faults), have done more to make the UK progressive and inclusive. Who would have thought that possible?

Both main opposition parties at Westminster have their share of white, upper-class, wealthy male ex-public schoolboys among their ranks. Unlike the Conservative Party, however, apart from a brief and undistinguished period during which the Liberal Democrats were led by Jo Swinson, neither have had female party leaders.

The Conservative leadership election, which was concluded on Tuesday, offered the opportunity for its members to elect the first ethnic minority as leader, or (as they did), Britain’s third female Conservative prime minister.

Neither of the main opposition parties has ever produced a leader of comparable origins. This reality has been somewhat obscured by the generally unsavoury nature of the contest itself. Yet the Conservative Party has always welcomed society’s outsiders. Indeed, two of its most influential early thinkers were from what were then considered to be non-establishment social and multicultural backgrounds: Burke and Disraeli.

Visit Daily Maverick's home page for more news, analysis and investigations

Irish political philosopher and politician Edmund Burke essentially defined and codified the principles and philosophy of conservatism before the Conservative Party as such came into being. Although technically a “Whig” and long suspected of harbouring then potentially treasonous Roman Catholic sympathies, Burke’s ideas permeate classic Conservative Party ideology.

Likewise, Benjamin Disraeli’s Jewish origins did not prevent him creating and shaping the nascent Conservative Party at a time when anti-Semitism was rife within the British body politic. Indeed, Disraeli’s one-nation conservatism, in tandem with Burke’s philosophy, was to define the party for over a century.

It is no great exaggeration to state that Disraeli’s preeminence within the Conservative Party demonstrates that the 19th-century Conservative Party had a better record on dealing with anti-Semitism than the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn.

Labour remains the only mainstream political party to have been formally investigated by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) over the issue of anti-Semitism and the only party to have been found guilty of breaches of the Equality Act in relation to anti-Semitism.

The Windrush policy pursued by the lamentable Theresa May, under the premiership of David Cameron, most certainly should have been. This blip in the party’s history was truly disgraceful.

Although the Labour front bench contains several members from ethnic minority backgrounds, it is still less multiculturally diverse than the current Conservative Party cabinet. The Liberal Democrat front bench spokespersons are almost exclusively white. By contrast, the last three Conservative chancellors of the exchequer have been from minority ethnic backgrounds, including Rishi Sunak, recent contender for the party leadership.

So what Liz Truss has achieved on day one in office is something no previous leader did. It is now hardly credible that the Conservative Party can ever now be perceived by the public as being the party of elderly wealthy white men.

Even if it is the case that the Conservative Party membership, as distinct from the parliamentary party, broadly fits that demographic, it is clear from the very presence of ethnic minority Conservatives in parliament that Conservative voters do not consider ethnicity as an issue when voting for Conservative candidates.

Considered against their parliamentary rivals, the Conservative Party record on both gender and ethnicity is now better than Labour or the Liberal Democrats, whatever the dictates of cognitive dissonance.

However, it would be disingenuous to dispute that the Conservative Party in the recent past has contributed to its own negative image. The casual racism and sexism which abounds in the journalism of Boris Johnson has reflected badly on the party, and Johnson’s buffoonish image and personal failings have contributed to snatching personal political defeat from the jaws of resounding electoral victory.

The infighting and intrigue which led to Johnson’s demise and the bitterness and sheer personal nastiness of the campaign to replace him have exposed deep rifts within the party. Sunak’s jibe regarding the Remainer and Liberal Democrat past of Truss was perhaps the nadir of the contest; when candidates stoop to such puerile personal attacks, they can hardly complain when press coverage focuses on personalities rather than policies.

That said, neither seemed credible on the key issue of economic policies, with a campaign characterised by unrealistic promises and screeching u-turns by both Truss and Sunak. Both Sunak and Truss made their pitches to the imagined prejudices of the party membership rather than to the country at large. This is a problem for Truss now. She must make the arithmetic work. Just as well her father is a professor of mathematics.

However, none of this should be allowed to distract from the central reality of the leadership campaign. Within the context of British parliamentary politics generally, which has always been stubbornly white, largely male, and overwhelmingly middle-class, this has changed within the last 48 hours.

However, when it is realised that conservatism is an idea, or ideology, based not on race or gender but on commitment to ideological principles, then the logic behind the leadership choices of the Conservative Party becomes less remarkable and less opaque.

Belief in gradual pragmatic change, a small state and the primacy of the market are simply independent of gender or race. The recent leadership contest reflects that basic truth, regardless of cognitive dissonance. DM

Derek Laud is Honorary Fellow at Cambridge University’s Lucy Cavendish College, a Visiting Professor at London South Bank University and a broadcaster and journalist.

Categories:

World

Tags:

DM is much better if you are signed in...

World