Unlock Editor’s Digest for free
FT editor Roula Khalaf selects her favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.
if he the bookmakers are right The Conservatives are about to elect their first black leader and, ideally, their first major black candidate for prime minister. The prospect of Kemi Badenoch’s victory is causing not-so-quiet laughter among Conservatives as they savor the idea of reaching another diversity milestone against the more progressive Labor Party.
While Labor leaders have remained white and male (apart from two deputy leaders who briefly stepped forward), the Conservatives have secured three female prime ministers and the first British Indian and Hindu leader in Rishi Sunak. They can also claim the first Jewish prime minister and chancellor (although Benjamin Disraeli converted to Christianity), the first woman in parliament, the first black foreign secretary, the first Muslim chancellor and interior minister. In the last parliament alone, holders of the top three jobs below the prime minister included Sajid Javid, Priti Patel, James Cleverly, Nadhim Zahawi, Kwasi Kwarteng and Suella Braverman. All of this underlines what used to be a conservative theme of British (and conservative) multicultural success.
The Labor Party, despite consistently having more female and ethnic minority MPs, has a much less stellar record. It can boast the first female cabinet minister, the first black and openly gay cabinet ministers and now the first black chancellor and foreign secretary, as well as other successes beyond Westminster.
The question (regardless of whether Badenoch wins) is why are the Conservatives so much better at these developments? With such small numbers, there is always a large element of good luck. Winners must be in the winning faction of their match and face the appropriate opponents. However, the conservatives seem much luckier.
The reason is simple: they earn more. Being in power for 32 of the last 50 years offers a better chance of claiming the top positions. Leadership crises also meant that more jobs opened up in the last parliament: three prime ministers, five chancellors and four home secretaries.
Still, it is no coincidence. Despite lagging behind the Labor Party in the number of MPs, the Conservatives have become ruthless in advancing minorities and women. A key moment came with David Cameron’s “A-list” candidates, who were gifted safe seats to present a more diverse and modern face, helping the party attract more successful minority voters.
Cameron’s cohort has largely passed and Conservative attitudes towards immigrants have hardened. In the words of a recent Focaldata report, It remains open whether he can maintain his “esoteric coalition of wealthy minorities and non-graduate whites.”
There is another probable reason. Conservative women and minorities have often subsumed their identity and tried not to be defined by their ethnicity or gender (unless inviting a comparison to Margaret Thatcher). There have also been cynical moments where the Conservatives use non-white ministers to defend hardline immigration policies. Badenoch gains support in the party by campaigning against “woke” identity politics.
A by-product of Cameron’s strategy was that many of those who were hired were high-level people, often financially successful and not particularly representative. Kwasi Kwarteng may have had Ghanaian parents, but he went to Eton and Sunak to Winchester.
Most of these leaders show much less interest in diversity issues and sought not to identify with the cause, although Javid did speak out about Islamophobia within the party. They prefer to focus on the broader conservative agenda and are less willing to view the cause through an economic lens. In fact, their detachment from such struggles leads to criticism and abuse from the left. Sunak and others have been belittled with the racial slur “coconut”. Labor MP Rupa Huq described Kwarteng as “superficially black”. This is complicated territory. Should ethnic minority politicians be denied the right to hold different opinions?
Thatcher was also not interested in women’s agenda, which she distinguished from the issues that matter to them. Nor, unlike Theresa May, did she promote her female colleagues.
There is some evidence to support the conservative view. The Focaldata study suggests that minority voters are not especially likely to reward a focus on identity issues. While minority voters still lean significantly towards the Labor Party (although the Conservatives do slightly better with British Chinese and Hindus), their concerns are much the same as those of the rest of the population, although the divide is more pronounced around immigration. Women are also more motivated by general concerns than by explicitly “women’s issues””.
In contrast, women and minority politicians on the left are much more likely to embrace the cause of equality and may have entered politics specifically for it. But it can lead to them being seen as too focused on sectional issues. Colleagues may worry that they could deter another segment of voters.
The result is that assimilated, traditional conservatives appear less threatening to those voters who fear diversity. The experiences of Ed Miliband (mocked for eating a bacon sandwich) and Sunak (accused of not receiving “our culture”) show that prejudices persist. The unhappy inference is that you have to move away from your identity to be successful.
Activists dismiss conservative wins as superficial. Despite the importance of these firsts, the greatest progress in equality legislation came under Labor governments led by white men. Still, the Labor Party can only simmer as the Conservatives build their own diversity narrative around this totemic and sustained success.