Theresa May has been all too aware of the debates over the years about “detoxifying” or “modernising” the Conservative Party “brand”. She was the Conservative Party Chairman in 2002 in a period of soul-searching after a second landslide defeat to Tony Blair’s all-conquering New Labour. She famously said the Tories were regarded by some as “the nasty party”.
During the Cameron era there were great efforts to disprove the notions that the Conservatives were sexist or racist or homophobic – for instance through an “A-List” of candidates intended to make the Party’s MPs more diverse and media friendly.
But the charge that has the most damaging impact on the Conservatives was overlooked. That is that they only represent the rich.
Given David Cameron’s background – including the “stigma” of having been to Eton College – his leadership tended to confirm the charge. His close association with George Osborne and others in the “Notting Hill set” offered yet more evidence.
May declared on her arrival on the steps of Downing Street this week that she wanted to address the concerns of those who are “only just managing to get by”. She told them: “We won’t entrench advantages of the fortunate few. We will do everything to help you go as far as your talents can take you. We must fight the burning injustices. We must make Britain a country that works for everyone.”
These struck me as worthy but unremarkable sentiments. Of course politicians of all parties want the poor to be richer – whether they have effective policies for doing so is another matter.
Yet after May had finished speaking, BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg told us that such an objective marked a “complete departure” for the Conservative Party – as if to say that Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Iain Duncan Smith, David Cameron and the rest of them had been on a mission to keep the poor downtrodden.
While Kuenssberg’s statement is ludicrous it is widely held in this cynical age where base motives are quickly ascribed to politicians.
That explains why May felt it was important to strike the tone that she did. It also accounts for the ferocious class war we have seen in the last couple of days. The decline of the toffs from the centres of power has been rapid and brutal.
John Whittingdale, the Culture Secretary schooled at Winchester College, cast aside. George Osborne, who went to St Paul’s, chucked out after six years as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
In comes Philip Hammond who was state educated in Essex – Richard Madeley went to the same school and says Hammond was a goth.
Oliver Letwin had been a bright and engaging problem-solver who was Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. But he’s an Old Etonian so out he goes too.
Nicky Morgan didn’t exactly shine as Education Secretary but surely her having been a pupil at an independent school will have been a black mark. Her successor Justine Greening went to a comprehensive school in Rotherham. That’s more like it!
The new Conservative Party Chairman Patrick McLoughlin is a former coal miner while the new Justice Secretary, Liz Truss, went to a comprehensive in Leeds.
Sajid Javid stays in the cabinet – his new job is Communities and Local Government Secretary – his father was a bus driver. Priti Patel is the International Development Secretary – her parents were Ugandan Asians expelled by Idi Amin who became newsagents in Harrow.
Leadership rival Andrea Leadsom was made Environment Secretary. It was a magnanimous decision of May to appoint her – but one May was probably encouraged to take by Leadsom having again been state educated (at a
grammar school in Kent).
Similarly a brief leadership rival Liam Fox comes in as Secretary of State for International Trade – he grew up in a council house in East Kilbride and went on to be an NHS GP.
Damian Green, the Work and Pensions Secretary, went to a grammar school in Reading.
There are exceptions. Amber Rudd, the new Home Secretary, suffers the embarrassment of having been to Cheltenham Ladies College. Then, of course, there is Boris Johnson, the new Foreign Secretary, who went to Eton but whose poshness is forgiven due to his hearty cheerfulness.
What is going on that in the Conservative Party of all places such inverted snobbery has taken hold? It is monstrously unfair to disregard any possible merit in Cameron’s social reforms because of his background.
He presided over a fall in unemployment and the driving up of school standards through the academies and free school programmes. The Troubled Families programme has “turned round” the lives of many who had previously been failed by multiple “interventions” from a bewildering array of state agencies.
Yet in politics perceptions matter. The Conservatives are felt by many to be a bunch of awful snobs only interested in the rich. May has shown a practical determination to change this perception by changing the composition of the cabinet.
Of course policy and ability matter – but it also matters what people look like and what they sound like.
May herself went to a grammar school which became a comprehensive when she was 15.
Tough luck on the toffs. But then Theresa is a bloody difficult woman.