The Feminization of the Conservative Party: Party Members and Party Cohesion

Paper presented to conference on The Conservative Party: Approaching Government? 12 December 2008, Centre for British Politics, University of Nottingham

Dr Sarah Childs Dept of Politics, University of Bristol 10 Priory Road, Bristol, BS8 1TU [email protected] 07950 933371

Prof. Paul Webb Politics and Contemporary European Politics, University of Sussex Falmer, Brighton, BN1 9SJ [email protected] 01273 877796

Dr Sally Marthaler Politics and Contemporary European Politics, University of Sussex Falmer, Brighton, BN1 9SJ [email protected] 01273 678010

Abstract Over the last decade a feminization of British party politics has been observable. Feminization refers to both the integration of women into parties, legislatures and executives and to the integration of women’s concerns into party policy. Thus far, feminization in Westminster politics has been asymmetric, favouring the Labour Party. However, under David Cameron’s leadership reforms have been made to the party’s parliamentary selection procedures and distinct women’s policy have been developed. This paper, based on focus group data with party members, explores attitudes towards feminized change in the Conservative party. In particular, it examines support for measures designed to increase the diversity of Conservative MPs. Broadly, we find that, despite general support for the direction the party is going in and for the principle of greater social diversity among PPCs, members are uncomfortable about the specific measures introduced. This is largely on the grounds that anything approaching ‘positive discrimination’ should be eschewed in favour of meritocratic selection of candidates. Further, the members tend to resent Central Office ‘interference’ in what has traditionally been the domain of local Constituency Associations. The analysis paves the way for a further quantitative stage of investigation.

PRELIMINARY DRAFT: NOT FOR CITATION WITHOUT PERMISSION

Introduction1

Feminization has two dimensions: first, the integration of women into formal political institutions, such as parties, legislatures and executives; and secondly, the integration of women’s concerns and perspectives into political debate, policy and legislation (Lovenduski 2005a). It is often assumed that the former engenders the latter but the two dimensions do not necessarily work in tandem (Young 2000). Feminization is, furthermore, best understood as a process – it is about the relative integration of women and their concerns and perspectives. The observed feminization of British politics over the last decade or so (Childs 2008a; Lovenduski 2005b) has, at least in respect of the first dimension, been very much party-specific – in the post-1997 Parliamentary Labour Party, women have constituted no less than 23 percent; in the Conservative parliamentary party the percentage of women is flat-lining at around 8-9 percent; whilst women on the Liberal Democrat benches constituted 7, 11 and 16 percent in 1997, 2001 and 2005 respectively, albeit on low numbers. Feminist analysis of inter-party competition at the 2005 general election shows all three parties competing over ‘women’s concerns’ (Childs 2005), but once again the Conservative party trails in third place.

Jump forward to David Cameron’s leadership acceptance speech in the autumn of 2005. It was just two minutes into this that Cameron announced that he would act to ‘change the scandalous under-representation of women in the Conservative party’. Since then he has introduced three different sets of reforms to the party’s parliamentary selection procedures and it is likely that the party will more than double the numbers of its women MPs at the next General Election, even if the percentage of women on the Conservative benches is likely to remain at less than twenty percent.2 Cameron has also acted to revive and rejuvenate a number of the Party’s women’s organizations and women’s posts (Childs 2008a). The party looks, in addition, to be routinely raising women’s concerns through statements, press notices and speeches: these were monthly in the autumn of 2007; by February and March 2008 they had become weekly. Perhaps most significantly, in February 2008, the Women’s Policy Group (WPG) published a 36-page

1 This research is funded by the ESRC. (Gender and the Conservative Party ESRC RES-062-23- 0647). The focus groups were undertaken by Ipsos-MORI. We would like to thank the support and assistance of the Conservative Party in facilitating this research, in particular the Party Chairman Caroline Spelman and the Women’s Officer Liz St. Clair. We have also relied on the co-operation of Constituency officers in London and Bristol who informed their members of the Ipsos MORI research and requested their voluntary participation. This paper also draws on a draft report written by Ipsos-MORI for the authors. 2 We would like to thank Michael Thrasher for his assistance in determining this figure.

2 document Women in the World Today (Childs 2008b). In the foreword, Theresa May MP declares that the Report provides ‘a fresh base upon which future Conservative Policy will be built’. The Report highlights: 1) women in the workplace; 2) women in their communities 3) vulnerable women; 4) women and ethnicity; and 5) women in international development. These address, in turn, issues of the gender pay gap and the work/life balance; childcare and caring; homeless women, women prisoners, domestic violence, rape, and human trafficking; forced marriage, female genital mutilation and ‘honour’ killings; and poverty and aid.

It appears, then, that the Cameroonian Conservative party is a more feminized party than its immediate predecessors (Childs et al 2008). The criteria of evaluation look at first sight to be straightforward. How many women are integrated into the contemporary Conservative party, most especially the parliamentary party? And to what extent are women’s concerns integrated into the Party’s policies? In both cases, is this more than before? On closer inspection, each question is revealed to be more complex. Knowing the percentage of women in a particular political party’s parliamentary representation, tells us little about women’s integration, as distinct from their simple, numerical, inclusion; discussions of the inclusion or otherwise of women’s concerns and perspectives meet with debates about what constitutes these, and whether they are, or should be, necessarily defined in a feminist fashion (Celis et al 2008). Over and above these particular qualifications, it remains the case that it is too early to draw strong conclusions about the feminized state of the contemporary Conservative party. Party selections for Westminster are not yet complete - the final number of women elected as Conservative MPs will ultimately reflect the swing to the party and the selection of candidates in those Conservative held-seats that become vacant between now and the general election. Neither is it clear whether the forthcoming general election manifesto will include the policy commitments set out in the WPG report – there are four employment pledges, three relating to rape and eight relating to sex trafficking and prostitution – and whether any additional pledges, such as the widely touted but as yet unspecified ‘tax’ support for families, will also be included.

This paper is part of a three year ESRC funded project which aims to evaluate the feminization of the Conservative Party. Our central research objectives are to seek out evidence of the descriptive and substantive representation of women in Cameron’s party, and to assess how far feminization is consistent with the party’s ideological traditions, and whether it sits well with all sections of the party. We believe that it is unusual, but important, for research into feminization effects to focus on the centre-right. Studies of parties of the (centre-) left are far more normal in this regard, but

3 examination of the (centre-) right tells us whether certain ideological traditions persist for party adherents, or lose their distinctive appeal in the face of broad changes affecting society and politics. The wider project on which we are engaged draws on a number of triangulated methods, including focus groups of party members and floating voters; a quantitative survey of members and parliamentarians; and elite interviews with MPs, peers and party officials. This paper represents an initial analysis of the first of these data sources – focus groups of party members - in respect of the descriptive representation of women, and reflects on the impact of these issues on party cohesion.

Feminization of the Conservative Party If the Conservative party under Cameron is more feminized than before, questions remain about the determinants and dynamics of party change. It might be tempting to date feminization from the moment of Cameron’s leadership and to see it as a top-down leadership effort. Indeed, Cameron opened the door, when other potential leaders might not have (Childs 2008a); he is widely considered to be ‘onside’ and personally committed to ‘gender equality’. It looks too like Cameron recognized the opportunities that feminization offered him following the party’s third general election defeat. Feminization, or at least, the rhetoric of feminization, symbolizes that his is a new and not a ‘nasty’ Conservative Party – one that can attract those voters who have supported New Labour since 1997. Yet to conclude in such a ‘top down’ way would be both to miss the way in which Cameron himself benefited from a gendering of the party leadership election in 2005 and to deny the actions of gender equality activists in the party which predate his leadership. For them the 2005 General Election was a watershed (Childs 2008a). The Conservative Women’s Organization (CWO) fringe meeting at Conservative Conference that year heard calls for positive discrimination to increase the number of Conservative women selected for Parliament and the then chairman of the CWO, Pamela Parker, produced a highly critical report of the Party’s election manifesto whose conclusions were reported in the mainstream media. Moreover, parliamentarians like Theresa May, who had spoken out previously, became more publicly vocal.3 Finally, the establishment of the ginger group, women2win, following the general election defeat, created a new organization to push for feminized party change.

3 For example, May spoke at the launch of the 2005 Hansard Society Report Women at the Top in November 2005.

4 Understanding the feminization of the Conservative party under Cameron as an effect of both the mobilization of party gender equality activists and party leadership accommodation should not, moreover, be taken to suggest that either the reforms to the party’s parliamentary selection processes or the development of specific women’s policy were either inevitable or uncontested. Lacking the profile, resources and dissemination of the six independent policy reviews, the WPG report has received little attention by the public and the media and neither was it sent out to local associations. But in discussing issues such as sex trafficking the Party elite is, at least in some gender equality activists’ views, taking the party onto terrain that it has hitherto not frequented; similarly, pledges on flexible working and commitments to extending maternity leave and pay - currently ahead of Labour’s commitments - are easily conceived as being in tension with business interests, as well as with more traditional views of family and gender roles. As such, efforts to integrate women’s concerns and perspectives into Conservative party policy have the potential to disrupt party unity and create fault lines within the party.

Cameron’s reforms to parliamentary selection have, in contrast, provoked significant hostility already, not least from party members blogging on www.conservativehome.com. There have been three sets of reforms: the first came into play after the May 2006 local elections. These included: 1) a freeze on selection; 2) the creation of a Priority List of candidates of whom, at least 50 per cent would be women, with a ‘significant’ percentage from BME and disabled communities; 3) a three-month progress review; 4) the use of headhunting, mentoring, and guidance of local associations; and 4) the option of holding primaries (either open or closed) and using community panels to select candidates. Vacant Conservative-held and target seats would be ‘expected’ to select from amongst the Priority candidates. If insufficient numbers of candidates from diverse backgrounds were selected (unspecified) further action would be taken. At the time of the review, 32 percent of the newly selected candidates were women, and 9 percent BME. Despite there being no publicly announced target, the review’s conclusion looked to be an admission that the reforms had fallen short.

The second set of selection rules was announced in August 2006 and lasted until January 2008: Constituency Associations with fewer than 300 members were now expected to hold a Primary; where larger Associations chose not to hold a Primary, Association members would draw up a shortlist of three or four candidates from a list of 12-15. The shortlist would be sex balanced: 2 women and 2 men. The final decision would be made by the Executive Committee on the basis of in-depth interviews. Where an EC shortlist was voluntarily ‘all women’, the pre-existing model of

5 selection – where members take the final decision - could be retained. The second set of reforms looked to have been underpinned by an assumption that changing the nature of the selectorate would improve the rate of women’s selection. Primaries take the selectorate beyond party members to either registered Conservatives (in a closed primary) or registered voters (in an open primary).4 The changes to the decision-making moment for members and the EC are similarly premised upon a belief that the EC would be more open to different types of candidates. The one ‘carrot’ in the second set of reforms was the possibility of members holding on to their traditional role in the selection process if they voluntarily implemented AWS, though there was little confidence amongst party gender equality activists that AWS would occur in more than a handful of seats, if at all.

The third set of reforms was announced in January 2007. These permitted Associations to choose from the full list of approved candidates with a requirement that at each stage of the selection process at least 50 percent of the candidates had to be women – the latter would ensure that local Associations considered more women candidates. This relaxation of the rules regarding priority list candidates was, crucially, perceived by some grassroots party members, as well as by the media, as a victory against central party intervention and Cameron’s ‘politically correct’ reforms.

Mapping the feminization of the Conservative party, and acknowledging these observable and, in the case of women’s policy, potential fault lines, it is instructive to garner the views of ordinary party members. The analysis which follows confirms the sense that party rank and file, while welcoming the broad direction of David Cameron’s leadership, are uncomfortable with the specific measures introduced to the process of candidate-selection in order to achieve a more socially representative parliamentary party. This is so in spite of acceptance of the desirability in principle of greater social diversity among Conservative MPs.

4 The potential of primaries to elect greater numbers of women is likely to be more limited than envisaged as it is not clear how many winnable seats would have constituency parties with fewer than 300 members. Moreover, it is not certain that primaries would be more likely to generate women or BME candidates anyway, although the leadership was clearly hoping that a less socially narrow selectorate would have such an effect.

6

Data and Methods

Six focus groups were conducted by Ipsos-MORI in June 2008.5 Three focus groups each were held in London and Bristol. Tables 1 and 2 shows the constituencies from which the sample for the focus groups would be recruited, along with the appropriate local Conservative Associations.

Although Bristol is the largest city in the west of England, the constituencies in the surrounding areas are mainly semi-rural or rural, providing us with a suitable comparative split.

Table 1 London Constituencies

Parliamentary Local Conservative Constituency Association Orpington Orpington Hammersmith Hammersmith Putney Putney (Wandsworth) Wimbledon Wimbledon Kensington Kensington, Chelsea & Fulham Southwark Bermondsey & Old Southwark Vauxhall Vauxhall Battersea Battersea (Wandsworth)

5 Note that 6 further focus groups, three with Conservative supporters (but not party members) in the electorate, and three with voters lacking clear partisan affinities, were conducted in early December. At the time of writing, these still await transcription and analysis.

7 Table 2 Bristol Consituencies

Parliamentary Local Conservative Constituency Association Weston Super Mare Weston Super Mare Woodspring Woodspring Wells Wells Forest of Dean Forest of Dean Bristol West Bristol & South Gloucestershire* Bristol South West Bristol & South Gloucestershire* Bristol North West Bristol & South Gloucestershire* * Bristol and South Gloucestershire constituency association covers three separate Bristol parliamentary constituencies

As the Conservative Party Central Office could not disclose the contact details of constituency party members without their explicit permission, a revision of the proposed methodology was required in order to recruit the focus groups. Party officers were contacted at each of the local associations and asked to circulate an ‘opt-in’ form to their registered members. In seeking support for this, a letter from Caroline Spelman/Liz St Clair was sent to show that Central Office officially recognised the research. Constituency party members who were interested in taking part in the focus groups then filled in the form and returned it directly to Ipsos MORI. Upon receipt of this form their details were logged in a spreadsheet, which was used to recruit for the focus groups.

In order to ensure the focus groups contained participants from a range of backgrounds, quotas were set on sex, age, ethnicity, constituency and level of activism. The sex quota was particularly important; one male, one female and one mixed group would take place in both London and Bristol. By organising the groups in this way we could identify whether attitudes and perceptions towards the subject of descriptive representation would change across different group environments.

Due to difficulties in recruitment (particularly the low number of ‘opt-ins’ from the Bristol constituencies), the quotas on all but sex had to be relaxed. However, where possible they were maintained, and the focus groups still contained a good range of participants. Table 3 outlines the

8 target and actual quotas and table 4 presents attendee data based on the pre-post-questionnaire returns.

In July 2008, when the groups were conducted, all the national opinion polls were showing the

Conservatives with a ample lead over Labour (ranging from 13 to 22 points), enough to ensure a substantial Commons majority at a general election. Conservative confidence was reinforced by having seen the poll leads recently translated into substantive electoral victories, with the best local election results for decades and a first by-election gain for 26 years at Crewe & Nantwich.

This may have had a particularly pronounced effect on party morale in the London groups, Boris

Johnson's election as London Mayor being perhaps the highest profile success: continuing news stories from the new regime at City Hall would have been a constant reminder of this victory.

9 Table 3 Target and Actual Quotas for London and Bristol Focus Groups

Group 1 10 people recruited according to the following quota: 8 attendees Age – younger Gender – mix Constituency – at least three Ethnicity – at least 1 BME Activism – at least 1 constituency officer Group 2 10 people recruited according to the following quota: 9 attendees Age – younger Gender – male Constituency – at least three Ethnicity – at least 1 BME Activism – at least 1 constituency officer Group 3 10 people recruited according to the following quota: 6 attendees Age – older Gender – female Constituency – at least three Ethnicity – at least 1 BME Activism – at least 1 constituency officer Group 4 10 people recruited according to the following quota: 7 attendees Age – older Gender – mix Constituency – at least three Ethnicity – at least 1 BME Activism – at least 1 constituency officer Group 5 10 people recruited according to the following quota: 8 attendees Age – younger Gender – male Constituency – at least three Ethnicity – at least 1 BME Activism – at least 1 constituency officer Group 6 10 people recruited according to the following quota: 5 attendees Age – older Gender – female Constituency – at least three Ethnicity – at least 1 BME Activism – at least 1 constituency officer

10

Table 4. Focus Group Breakdown, Pre-and Post-Questionnaire data Group Group Group Group Group Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 London London London Bristol Bristol Bristol mixed all male all mixed all all female male female Sex Male 5 7 - 5 8 - Female 4 - 6 4 - 5 Not stated - 1 2 - - - Age Under 55 8 6 1 1 1 2 Over 55 1 2 7 7 7 1 Not stated - - - 1 - 2 Officer/Activist Yes 4 4 6 5 7 3 Regularly Yes - 1 - 1 - 1 attend party No 4 3 3 2 1 - meetings Not stated 5 4 5 6 7 4 Ethnic minority Yes - 1 1 1 - - Total 9 8 8 9 8 5 Total 9 8 6 7 8 5 (attendees)

We anticipated three possible sources of variation among our participants: 1) Sex 2) Gender-generation 3) Metropolitan/Provincial

The first expectation reflects existing research on women’s and men’s attitudes, where sex differences, though rarely absolute and often quite small, are found in survey data of mass public opinion (Campbell et al forthcoming; Campbell 2006, 103). The second expectation reflects findings from the voting behaviour literature (Campbell 2006; Norris 2001) which suggests both that younger women have a greater propensity to vote for the Labour party than both younger men, and older women and men, and that ideological gender-generation gaps underpin these, with younger women more left-wing and more feminist (Campbell 2006). Consequently, we might expect younger Conservative women party members to be relatively more left wing and more feminist than older Conservative women, as well as male Conservative party members both

11 young and old. This second expectation also reflects the characterization of Conservative party women members in the 1990s of being of two distinct types (Maguire 1998): first, the traditional woman party member and secondly, the ‘career’ woman who was seeking political office We would expect these types to be from distinct generations, with the latter being younger than the former. The final expectation reflects a concern that a focus on the changes undertaken at the elite level regarding gender may reflect a metropolitian bias which lack support elsewhere in the country. Previous observations (Childs 2008) suggest that many gender equality activists in the party, and the manifestations of these, such as Women2win and the Conservative Women’s Forums, might be considered London-centric and predominantly attract atypical members – most notably, younger and more business-oriented women.

The first two expectations underpinned the decision to hold single-sex and mixed groups. These would permit comparisons between the responses of women and men when they are discussing the issues in single and mixed settings. The moderators were of the opposite sex, so the all-male groups had female moderators and vice versa. This was a deliberate strategy based on the view (and contra some feminist research methods) that in single-sex groups moderators of the opposite sex are more likely to receive more sophisticated responses than moderators of the same sex. This is because focus group participants do not assume that the moderator knows or understands what a particular focus group member means when they speak.

It is important to note that, as with all qualitative research, this work is designed to be illustrative rather than statistically valid. It therefore provides insight but does not allow conclusions to be drawn about the extent to which views are held in any quantitative sense among Conservative Party members overall. A major reason for using focus groups at this stage of the research is that we intend the group discussions to help us formulate and refine the hypotheses that we will test in the subsequent quantitative stage of work. The survey of party members and elites that will run in due course will be shaped in part by the findings of these focus groups.

Findings and analysis

General views of the leader, party direction and inter-party competition

The Conservative Party under Cameron’s leadership is considered by members to be doing ‘quite well’, ‘better than before’, and ‘improving’. It is ‘far more stable’, ‘more successful’, and more ‘confident’. The Tories are ‘winning’ elections. The ‘brand’ is strong. The explanation for these

12 positive assessments is threefold. First, it has to do with David Cameron’s leadership; Secondly, it has do with Labour’s failings – the exit of Tony Blair, Gordon Brown’s personal limitations and the economic downturn; and thirdly, is the ‘time for a change’ hypothesis.

Cameron’s leadership: There is no ‘silver bullet’ to explain the Party’s recent reversal of fortune, ‘apart from perhaps Cameron’s election as leader’, as one London admits. Widely regarded as a ‘very good’ leader, Cameron is regarded as reaching out to ‘all sections of the community’, ‘beyond the core vote’, and is attractive to women and younger people. His personal and political qualities are numerous: he is ‘highly intelligent, highly articulate’ and ‘well organized’. He is a great communicator, to the public and in Parliament during PMQs. He is, moreover, a ‘fantastic media performer’ who can communicate ideas, even those like immigration, that proved problematic for other Tory leaders. In short, his ‘hug a hoodie’ reputation has enabled him to be perceived as a ‘liberal with a small l’, a label that rebuts any accusations that he is a ‘Neanderthal, old style, hang them and flog them type’. Cameron is, furthermore, ‘young’, ‘dynamic’, ‘handsome’, ‘smart’ and a ‘family’ ‘man’ – all this from a London male. He is also: ‘strong’ and ‘personable’; on television he is ‘very comfortable, chatty, relaxed’. For one Bristol woman Cameron’s character is illustrated through his family relationships:

…what I like about Cameron is that he’s a man of character, he’s a good leader, he inspires others to follow him. He’s married, he obviously loves his wife which is obviously also - and I shouldn’t say obviously; I think it’s a good indicator that he’s a good man. If his wife loves him he’s doing something right. I’ve heard he has repeatedly spent nights overnight in hospital with his child which has got a disability, and then goes to Parliament the next day. That takes a man of character - to have a high level position, have a wife that clearly loves him…the fact that he’s embraced - that is to me another indicator that he’s a man of character.

Labour’s Failings: The Conservatives are also considered to be benefiting from Labour being ‘in trouble’. Blair, ‘a winner’, has exited the stage and Brown simply does not have the ‘X factor’. He neither acts like a leader, nor a team player. In any case, the economy ‘has got a lot more difficult’, removing the Labour party’s ‘trump card’. Hence, the opportunity is there for the Conservatives to grasp.

Time for a change: Time has also been ‘a great healer’ for the public’s perception of the Conservative party – Cameron is personally a break from the ‘old garb of Thatcher and Macmillan’ and he is benefiting from the passage of time in a way that William Hague could not.

13 One illustration: the public ‘clap for us’ on BBC’s Question Time! Additionally, the media are perceived to be giving the party its ‘turn’.

So what is the successful direction that the Party is felt to be heading in? The party has ‘broken in a new kind of Conservative’ - more compassionate, and if not actually ‘sharing’, then at least it has a ‘warm’ and ‘caring’ face. Indeed, rather than ‘banging on about immigration’, the party is addressing issues like the ‘environment’ that might appear ‘counter-intuitive’. There is agreement too that society is ‘broken’ and that the family should be supported. The policy groups are ‘coming back with some very sensible suggestions’. Agreeing that the Party is, for the most part, ‘going in the right direction’ does not, of course, pre-empt concerns and qualifications. These are three-fold. First, there are concerns that specific policies have yet to be fully outlined and that consequently the course the party is charting is unclear to both party members and the public. Mostly accepted as a necessary precaution against the Labour government stealing the party’s policies, the absence of clear policies leaves some members uncertain about where Cameron is ‘actually leading’.

Secondly, there are concerns that Cameron’s success (in establishing a clear lead for the Party in opinion poll data at the time of the focus groups) obscures his own limitations and previous policy failings, most notably on the issue of grammar schools. On this the party ‘shot’ itself in the foot - ‘its really easy now to look back and forget what were a really, really awful six months’. Contemporary approval for the Party also takes account of the importance of George Osborne’s announcement relating to reducing inheritance tax in turning the Party’s fortunes around. For the Bristol men’s group this gives rise to a sense that Cameron should not be considered to have been doing ‘particularly well up to that point’; in their view Osborne’s ‘fantastic statement’ has ‘completely transformed things’ since then.

Thirdly, there are contested views about where the party should be going. The emphasis on the environment is questioned – as one London woman put it, she is ‘a bit less inclined to jump on the environmental bandwagon…there is a difference of opinion about just how much global warming is taking place’. There are also concerns that the party will inherit an economy that will not permit a Conservative Chancellor to ‘reduce taxes’, thereby revealing a normative preference for such tax cuts. A debate is also evident amongst Bristol men about whether the Party is reverting to its core constituency or not, with most views suggesting rather that Cameron is ‘deliberately sticking to the middle of the road', keen to ‘be all things to all men at the moment,

14 and women’, and aiming for the ‘floating voter’. Furthermore, ‘core voters have to accept that there’s got to be other people brought on board’. However, one contributor hopes that ‘when he gets through the door he reverts to type’; others agree with a claim by one participant’s sister that Cameron is ‘too left wing now’. The final word, though, is that ‘if we are winning in the polls the right-wing will lump it even if they don’t like it’. On another tack completely in two focus groups individuals mention the possibility of fissure over Europe, although this is generally felt to be less likely than before.

Such concerns over party direction, in turn, beg questions about party unity over strategy . The party might be ‘more cohesive perhaps than the past’ but this is not necessarily the case ‘under the surface’. Indeed, the Bristol men were concerned that ‘old fashioned Conservatives …were very sceptical’ about Cameron’s direction, with its emphasis on the environment. As stated before, it was the inheritance tax announcement that swung them over. Hence there are concerns that Cameron has a ‘certain fragility about him’; they are ‘keeping their fingers crossed’ as to whether he can ‘keep the plates spinning for two years’. One Bristol woman, contra the positive attributes assigned to Cameron, maintains that she does not want a ‘chatty, comfortable, cuddly chap’ but a leader who is ‘hardnosed, incisive, but honest’ (though one contributor thinks he has these qualities). There are also questions raised by men in both London and Bristol about whether Cameron can attract northern voters.

David Cameron might be reassured overall. Party members provide general support for both the party’s direction of travel and for the qualities they see in his leadership. There is widespread acceptance of the necessity of avoiding making detailed policy commitments even if this leaves some slightly unsure of where the party is going. Even so, there is an indication that party members are less than enamoured by Cameron’s emphasis on environmentalism and there is clear support for the party to provide specific commitments to tax cuts. In all this, there is little obvious difference between the focus groups. It is possible that men are slightly more critical than women, as evident in both the mixed and men-only focus groups in both locations. At the same time, there is little evidence that women talk spontaneously either in single-sex or mixed groups about Cameron’s efforts to position the party as ‘women friendly’, even if there are a few general comments across the groups about him being more attractive politically to women.

15 Feminizing the Parliamentary Conservative Party

The under-representation of women

I think the problem is should the Conservative Party seek to look like the land that it represents? Of course it should. Therefore 50% of our MPs should be women. (London male, all-male group)

That the Conservative Party is under-represented by women in the House of Commons is widely accepted by most of the focus group participants, even if most participants are not aware of the actual numbers. Members, both male and female, in London and Bristol, are supportive of the argument in principle that there should be more Conservative women MPs: ‘it’s got to go up, double, treble’. A couple of members are positive that the situation has already improved. Detractors are few in number: one London female in the mixed group relies upon the reductio ad absurdum critique to undermine the case for women’s political presence (Phillips 1995). She talks of representation in terms of ‘supermarket checkout assistants or waitresses or secretaries’. A male colleague in her group draws upon the possibility of ceilings for BME MPs to counter the argument for descriptive representation - an argument that is less likely to be relevant in terms of sex where the ceiling would be 50 percent. Then there is the distinction drawn between good and poor quality MPs. Labour’s women MPs – identified as ‘Blair’s Babes’ – are regarded as the manifestation of the latter. Indeed, one attempt to draw a distinction between ‘quota women’ and Labour women selected in open selections. Named Labour women MPs felt to be of poor quality include: Jacqui Smith and Hazel Blears (according to a woman in the mixed Bristol group), and Ruth Kelly and Harriet Harman (by the all-male Bristol). Of these, only Smith was actually selected on an AWS.

The arguments articulated in support of greater numbers of women are varied: they include symbolic representation - ‘candidates that people can relate to’ - and substantive representation - ‘a different outlook on certain issues’, although there was less discussion of the reasons for women’s representation than might have been expected. Support for the principle of greater numbers of women did not necessarily translate into support for doing anything to ‘fix it’ which would, for one participant, be to pander to the media. Although one woman in the Bristol group was clear:

And by comparison to other parties that is exceptionally poor…something’s got to give…the way that the Labour party addressed it was through their positive

16 discrimination…which OK, we could argue well that’s not the way to go and so on…has actually worked, and it did give them enormous popularity as well with the voters…I don’t know how we are to do it, but we have get far more women interested in politics.

Very Similar sentiments were expressed by some of the women in the mixed London group. Any notion that there might be a link between increased votes and higher numbers of women MPs is directly rejected by the all-male Bristol group.

The under-representation of women in the Conservative Parliamentary Party is most extensively discussed by the all-women groups in London and Bristol: some saw an incompatibility between politics as ‘set up in the House of Commons’ and women’s family responsibilities. One woman drew the analogy to changes in junior doctors’ practices and lamented the failure of, and resistance to, reforms of the House of Commons hours and procedures. There were perceptions too that women were bullied, subject to ‘a lot of sexist rubbish’, had to ‘play games’, and needed to be ‘aggressive’. Others, however, countered these claims by stating that the women ‘knew the conditions’ when they decided to enter politics. One contended that ‘you can’t have a part-time MP can you?’ and held that ‘some women are aggressive’. Good Conservative women MPs were named: Theresa Villiers, Theresa May and Caroline Spelman, although May received less favourable comment from the Bristol women’s group. There was a concern that the ‘nasty party’ tag has ‘stayed in people’s memories’, even if May did not claim the party was nasty, as one contribution makes clear; for another May fares unfavourably in comparison to Spelman, who is a ‘proper woman’ even if she is ‘broken’ at the moment (a reference to financial mismanagement charges)

Widdecombe vs May To further probe participants’ views on descriptive representation the focus groups were given handouts containing the following two quotes by May and Ann Widdecombe:

Looking at its elected representatives, you will see a predominantly white, male party. Given that we now see an ethnically diverse society, where women increasingly play a major role, the Conservative Party just doesn’t look like the people that it is claiming to represent. Theresa May

I don't think it matters if you're a man, woman, young or old - all that matters is that whoever is in charge has got there on their own merit. Ann Widdecombe

17 We would offer two main observations about the participants’ responses to these prompts. The first observation is the tendency to question the implied incompatibility of the two positions. This was the case for men – in both the mixed London group and all-male London and Bristol groups - and for men and women in the mixed Bristol group. Even so, , participants were inclined to reiterate the importance of the distinction between good and poor quality MPs, with the implication that May’s position supports the election of women MPs who are not up to the job (while one participant claimed that Widdecombe had herself been over-promoted and should have remained a junior minister!) It was also suggested that quota women suffer from a lack of confidence in their own abilities, having got their position ‘automatically, without having to work for it’. One contributor in the Bristol all-women group turned to the position of BME women candidates and contends that ‘it could take five more years before we have enough, say, coloured women who have achieved, or are brought up abreast the idea that they have a part to play in public life’ and that, like the Labour Party, the Conservative party should appoint BME women into the Lords in the first instance.

The second main response to the May/Widdecombe quotes is to put a generational and modernization take on them. According to women in the mixed London group, ‘Ann’s is the old Conservative Party and Theresa is the new Conservative party’; ‘the older members of the party tend to all to agree with Ann Widdecombe and the young people agree more with Theresa May’. A man in the all male Bristol group concurs, asking, ‘how old is Ann Widdecombe and how old is Theresa May?’ Another way of distinguishing the comments was to describe them as pragmatic (Widdecombe) and idealistic (May), and to suggest that ‘at the top [of the party] its Theresa May, but down on the ground its Ann Widdecombe’. Amongst the all-women London group, there were differences of opinion. One intervention – possibly a sceptical aside - questioned whether the House of Commons should be one side female and one side male,whilst another contributor argued that the party should make it easier for women to be elected – not least because ‘government wants to benefit from having more women in it’. This link between descriptive and substantive representation is countered by a further claim that the House would only be more concerned about ‘shoes’ – a direct, albeit, implicit criticism of May. In the Bristol all-male group contributors, whilst preferring Widdecombe’s position, recognized that May’s position might reflect what the ‘middle ground of the electorate’ think, and perhaps should therefore be taken more seriously by the party and themselves.

18 Supply and demand-side explanations The under-representation of women on the Conservative benches is, overall, best understood by party members as reflecting both demand and supply-side factors, though primarily the latter.6 Women are simply not coming forward in the same numbers as men to seek selection as parliamentary candidates. There are not ‘many frustrated women’ or ‘frustrated ethnic minority candidates, not really’. One London woman illustrated this by claiming that the aspirant candidates ‘circling’ her constituency, where the Conservative MP is retiring, are all ‘young men’. Biological as well as social causes are identified by women and men: women give birth and care for children, they are less interested in politics and think differently. As one London woman put it: ‘women have children, in the nature of things, and I think an awful lot of them actually want to look after their children when they’re really young’. Women’s increasing tendency to delay motherhood means that fewer women will be in a position to enter politics at a relatively young age, when their children are teenagers. A brief discussion in the mixed Bristol group about the negative impact of combining motherhood and being an MP ridicules Margaret Thatcher’s children – one says she has ‘no comment on them’. This suggests that combining the two roles has deleterious effects on the children. At the same time there is also recognition that recent experience of women MPs having children whilst they are in Parliament ‘seems to work’ and that the public see such women as more ‘worldly’.

In addition to childcare responsibilities, women lack the ‘tunnel vision’ and the ‘thought processes’ of men – they might ‘have an ambition when they’re young’ but they ‘don’t really bother afterwards’. Men can say ‘sod the kids, I’m going to a meeting’ or ‘shut the doors’ and not be ‘bothered’ by anybody. Men will also prepare differently for a selection – women are ‘more creative’ less likely to give a ‘learned speech’, at least according to one Bristol woman. Alongside an acknowledgement that the party is dominated by women at the local level (an issue returned to below) and that women are active in local and/or social politics, the stark question ‘do they [women] want to do it?’ is raised. The answer, according to the Bristol men, is that women are less persistent in selections, having ‘better things to do’. Men, in contrast, ‘will do it at any age’. Indeed, men, or rather middle class males, are able to participate in politics because they have already built up their business and can therefore enter politics because ‘they’ve got somebody in to manage it’.

6 A general supply side factor not discussed in gendered terms is identified as the cost of selection. There are also concerns about the parachuting in of favoured sons although this is not discussed in gendered terms.

19

Supplementing the claim that fewer women seek selection is the related question of the quality of aspirant women candidates. Women must be promoted ‘on their own merits’. Here Labour’s women are again identified as examples of ‘people who simply weren’t up to the job’. Women candidates would, consequently, benefit from training and support. Women also need encouragement to seek selection – akin to the Liberal Democrats’ perceived efforts in recruiting women. The party should, therefore, ‘talent-spot’ younger women who may ‘not be prepared to stand for 10 or 12 years’, though for one London male this should not go so far as ‘dragging them off the street’. The dangers of so doing would be to select inexperienced and hence poor quality candidates. One contribution from the London all-male group suggested that if the Conservative Party had insufficient numbers of men then the party would ‘surely’ ‘go out and find’ them.

The only rule the party should follow in candidate selection is, then, that the best person should get the job. This is about merit, and whilst there is some discussion about the criteria by which to judge this (the mixed Bristol group questions whether being a chairman of the cricket club should count, and one woman asks why women ‘aren’t respected’, and there is some discussion about whether relying on a ‘big speech’ to judge between aspirant candidates is appropriate), contributors’ statements mostly presume that merit is an objective criterion in itself. What makes a good MP for these party members? Not somebody who has moved seamlessly from university to Central Office to Parliament – there is a strong hostility towards the professional politician and for lawyer politicians. The preference is for candidates who have had a ‘proper job’, with ‘business’ and ‘commercial’ experience. For some (Bristol men) local candidates should matter more. The London focus group were influenced by what might be termed the ‘Sean Bailey’ effect. Bailey is the BME male candidate selected for the new constituency of Hammersmith.

I think everyone in the room was thinking that they knew the local community; they were thinking ‘you’re white, male, barrister, banker chap, who was absolutely great, really, really switched on’, and you just thought, ‘you’re not going to work here, you’re not going to work.’

I think everyone in the room had a real feel of what the local community was, we all live there, and I think they would have a much better feel for what would work on the doorstop…I think the white male banker would’ve been an absolute dream in some candidate seat.

Support for Bailey in the all-male London group was rooted in his ability to ‘reach out to all sections of the community’. But his selection was also considered a ‘real strength’ in that as a

20 BME candidate he ‘can say the most outrageous (Thatcherite) stuff’ and ‘they can’t touch him’. Because he’s black, ‘he’s bullet proof’; ‘no-one who is white can say this stuff’. In contrast, the all-women London group’s discussion of race was more characterized by a general discussion about whether ethnicity matters as a dimension of descriptive representation.

Sex does not seem to matter much, although one London woman in the mixed group felt women MPs would be more diligent. Another contribution suggested that women would make the party look less nasty. Overall, the feeling is that good women candidates – like Margaret Thatcher – will get through on their merit; those who do not get through are not, by definition, up to the job. There is, though, acknowledgement that some parts of the country, such as Yorkshire, have selected very few women, though no reasons to explain this are proffered.

Most party members do not subscribe to the charge of selectorate discrimination against women, even if some women do. However, one male Bristol contribution recounts experience of undertaking short-listing where one does not know the name and sex of the applicant in local government and concludes it ‘really was quite an eye-opener’- a position which suggests some sympathy with the selectorate discrimination thesis. Nevertheless, the issue, as stated before, is overwhelmingly considered to be one of supply and not demand. Furthermore, many party members state that local associations are dominated by women and so, their logic goes, there can not be discrimination against women.7 Yet despite the large number of explicit statements refuting selectorate discrimination there is widespread support for the view that women, especially older women, discriminate against women candidates – at which point the focus group members’ argument starts to unravel. Take, for example, the following statement: ‘I conducted countless selection processes and the only people who were prejudiced against women, from what I could see were women’. Such hostility is acknowledged to have dogged Margaret Thatcher’s own selection tribulations.

The basis for discrimination against women candidates is predominantly located in women party’ members fear of sexual relationships developing between a woman MP and their husbands:

They want a man because they view that it should be a man…they don’t particularly want to have a woman, particularly because if she’s fairly attractive

7 For one woman in the mixed Bristol group any discrimination against candidates goes the other way – white men are currently finding it difficult to be selected.

21 they don’t want her spending, her husband spending large amounts of time with them’ (all-male London).

they’re [women members] are a bit suspicious of women who are too political because they think maybe they’re after their men…just interested in stealing their husbands or something (mixed Bristol, woman).

It is also located in women’s criticism of the women candidate’s dress sense:

The women - by the end of it they admitted it themselves - they were far more critical of the other women candidates. And the men weren’t interested whether the woman candidate was wearing a black dress or a blue dress, but the women on the selection committee were very interested (all-male London).

Other reasons include assumptions about voter discrimination - ‘they tend to go for men because they thought they would be more electable’ – and traditional views of gender roles - ‘older women think women should, you know, be in the home’. If women are the discriminating sex, the solution is, at least for one Bristol man, to have more men on the selection committees.

Equality rhetoric, equality promotion and equality guarantees Unsurprisingly, party members - male and female across both locations - are more comfortable with equality rhetoric and equality promotion rather than equality guarantees (Lovenduski 2005a; Campbell et al 2006). The party should, therefore, ‘announce very firmly that…you’re fully supportive of women candidates’ and go ‘out and bring women in from student groups’. Any ‘perceived underlying prejudices’ should be removed and training provided, though there is debate about whether training should be provided for women only or for all candidates, with both women and men preferring the latter. When it comes to financial support, there are claims from the all-male London group that a) the party is making money available; b) such money should not be available because (to paraphrase) the job is a calling and people should be ‘prepared to up their lives’, although this begs questions about whether the financial costs of standing permit only rich MPs; and c) that women would use any financial support for a ‘dress allowance’.

There is no support for All Women Shortlists amongst the party members, although one woman from London comes closest, admitting that she is ‘ not too against that’. This woman is at some distance from her colleagues both male and female in her mixed focus group. She makes a number of interventions: citing selectorate discrimination against women; claiming that there are ‘fantastic women out there’ and that selecting greater numbers of women has to be ‘made a much bigger issue within the party’ so that selectorates’ attitudes change. She adds, to qualify her

22 position and to refute, in anticipation, the reductio ad absurdum critique, that she is not asking for women to be chosen ‘because they’ve got one leg’. She also makes it clear that she is not advocating positive discrimination, not least because she recognizes that this invites the charge that a woman ‘only got selected’ because of her sex and ‘she’s not that good really’. The woman also raises the question of whether one would want to force particular measures on local associations: ‘you see, I’m not too against that, but I’m not sure in what context you would use it, whether we want to force that on a constituency’. The men in her group counter her position with concerns about justice, political correctness and, once again, the issue of the quality of the candidate. Some support for this London woman’s perspective is, however, forthcoming in the Bristol all-women group – though not from all the women in that group. One intervention is concerned that the party’s efforts are not ‘tackling’ the underlying issues of the selection committees, the grass roots who do ‘the actual voting’.

Elsewhere, from men and women, opposition to equality guarantees is unequivocal – ‘it’s a no, no’. Even the A List, which falls short of being an equality guarantee, comes under fire - ‘dreadful…completely and emphatically. Once again, the classic reductio ad absurdum critique is aired: ‘I don’t like this idea of a shortlist completely of women, or…of dwarves’. There is also much discussion about the concept of merit and the quality or otherwise of women (and other fast-tracked) candidates: they lack ‘experience’, and are ‘ill-prepared’ – just look at ‘Blair’s Babes’.

I wouldn’t mind if that 50% of women were the same quality of men…the women are of insufficient quality…the women I know who are nowehere near as good’ (London male, all-male group)

So any A-listers, it just can’t be women or black women or disabled or whatever, they’ve got to be equally qualified.

Here the opposition to the Priority List is presented as being about the women not being good enough, rather than the mechanism itself.

And then there is criticism of top down imposition and local autonomy. One London male asks if the party might be ‘using a sledgehammer to crack a nut’ in its reforms to parliamentary candidate selection procedure – in part this has to do with the belief that the problem is one of supply rather than of demand. Another contribution regards the leadership as having been ‘pretty heavy handed’. Bristol men in the all-male group do not, in particular, pull their punches: the new

23 selection procedures are ‘completely undemocratic’, an ‘absolute disgrace’, its ‘politically correct, it’s bloody Labour’; and in any case the selection process is ‘already in favour of women and ethnic minorities’. And does the party really want to impose ‘100 women on 100 constituencies? That’s the problem’. They also question whether women ‘want’ such measures.

The effect of Central Office imposing women and BME candidates on constituencies is felt to be negative and numerous by both women and men, although to a greater extent by the men, in the all-male groups and the mixed London groups: in the first instance, it will ‘kill off the grassroots’, and reduce campaigning as members will not do ‘that extra bit’; it will also ‘kill off your fundraising’ and create a backlash. ‘White middle aged men might get a bit shirty’ and there could be a legal challenge. It might also negatively affect turnout amongst core voters, and more generally men, who ‘do feel a bit drummed down at the moment’. The party must not look like it has succumbed to political correctness. A member of an inner-city London seat has a slightly different argument. He contends that constituencies like his were more likely to have a centrally imposed candidate as a consequence of other stronger seats not having selected sufficient numbers of women and BME candidates. This would, he felt, mean his seat would receive a ‘not particularly brilliant’ candidate who would not ‘work’ the constituency. In short, there was widespread support for the view that ‘local members’ should have the final say:

Because the one thing that the Conservative Party doesn’t like and local parties don’t like is being dictated to by the centre all the time on issues which have always been up to the local parties to decide’ (London all-male)

Feminizing the parliamentary party: sex differences Party members’ views on candidate selection are, then, mostly shared across the focus groups. Women as well as men rely on biological and cultural factors to explain away the differences in the numbers of women and men Conservative MPs; women and men agree that the ‘best person for the job’ should be selected. Even so, there are some subtle sex differences. Some women, particularly younger women, offer more critical viewpoints. For example, one London woman contests a male participants’ view that men’s dominance as parliamentary representatives reflects the fact that they are able to let their businesses be managed by others, by suggesting that it is a woman who will make sure that such men get to work on time. Here, there is the implication of a gendered critique of the sexual division of labour and the public/private split; men’s ability to do politics is dependent upon women’s domestic labour. Furthermore, it is the difficulties of women

24 establishing their own business – ‘you’ve worked really hard for that’ - that means that, unlike men, they are less likely to engage in politics.

Women’s unequal domestic responsibilities also influence suggestions by London women that women candidates and MPs require the fulsome support of their partners in ways that male candidates do not. Women, for example, are likely to need familial support for childcare (as one London male also admits). The mixed Bristol group also discuss the necessary support of husbands for women candidates without making any similar claim for men candidates, although the all-women Bristol group contends that being an MP is a family commitment ‘whether that’s the husband or the wife’.

The sexes have different views of Margaret Thatcher for the most part too. For the Bristol men (and one Bristol woman in the all-women group) she proves that a good woman will win through and by implication that women who are not selected are objectively not good enough: she ‘opened the door’ and was a ‘real role model’. Indeed, other ‘dominating’ and ‘scary’ women are also identified by these men to bolster this argument. But members of the Bristol all-women group were more likely to see her has having ‘put’ women in Parliament back, because she ‘scared’ the party who would be henceforward more hesitant about selecting women.

The all-women London group also offer a more lengthy discussion of merit, even if there is disagreement amongst the women. One woman neatly outlines the critical perspective:

[meritocracy] only works up to a point, because how do you know that’s the best person if, in fact, they’ve had far more opportunities and perhaps working there, there’s some even better person that didn’t manage to fight their way into a position to become a candidate or whatever, because its just been too difficult?

There are also assertions that for ‘any woman wanting to get ahead on her own abilities she’s got to be probably twice as well qualified as a lot of men’.

Basically they have to be very assertive and almost aggressive to get to those positions. There are a lot of good women who might be equally good, who are less aggressive, that fall by the wayside…nobody goes and recognizes their qualities; they’ve actually got to push themselves forward to be recognized and they’re going to be put down by men anyway, to a large extent.

Another contribution notes that there are ‘a lot of good women around…on boards too’, although her argument is that women do not, therefore, need special treatment. It is only women in the

25 mixed London group who identify ‘politics as male’ - ‘shockingly awful’; ‘cut throat…full of testosterone’ (although one woman retorts that she rather enjoys this style of politics. Similarly, the all women Bristol group raise the issue of whether women and men have different styles of politics. And it is the all women Bristol group who raise the possibility that the quality of the male candidates is not necessarily without dispute – ‘they are not necessarily top notch’

In respect of selectorate discrimination, a Bristol woman who had been for selection recounted her experience of having been asked ‘completely different questions’ and asked about how she would ‘manage’ her childcare. Such discrimination she sees as specific to the Conservative Party which ‘does not accommodate’ women. She notes too that the ‘majority of the room is filled with older people…and older women don’t like to see a woman in politics’. Central Office needs more women too. One London woman in the mixed group concurs: ‘I’ve been involved in the Conservative Party for 25 years, since I was a child, and its still run for, no offence, white middle aged men…the (female) candidates are being selected - they’re on councils, but that’s as far as women go’.

Thus far the women’s contributions - where they are different to the men’s - look to be on the more progressive side of the argument about women’s descriptive representation. But some women focus group members also subscribed to more explicitly traditional views of gender and of politics. The London women’s focus group briefly discussed the issue of how women MPs with children manage their childcare responsibilities. This slips into a more general discussion of the role of nannies. The employment of ‘another woman’ to enable women to be ‘free’ to undertake paid work is considered to be ‘very odd’ and ‘really funny’, although one older woman recognises that her views are ‘old fashioned’. The Bristol women’s group discuss the illegality of asking women about their childcare arrangements. ‘If you’re interviewing a woman who’s got young children, you’re going to want to know that’. One woman claims that that her male partner would feel ‘dreadfully upset if he…wasn’t asked about how he would deal with the children because he also…takes a share of the role with me’. Another woman summarizes the situation: ‘I think sometimes as women we can’t have everything’. It is the women too in the mixed groups that contest some of the more old-fashioned claims (though once again this position is not unanimous amongst the women). For example, in the mixed Bristol group it is a woman who questions assertions about whether women who go into politics should be having children.

26 Pre- and Post-Questionnaire Analysis Note that the impressions gained from this qualitative analysis of focus groups are generally confirmed by the results of the pre- and post-discussion questionnaires which participants completed. In these questionnaires participants were asked about their views on a range of issues, designed to get a sense of their stances on: social morality (libertarian or traditional- authoritarian?); the left-right state versus market dimension (as revealed by preferences on taxation and public spending); power within the party (regarding policy-making and leadership selection); and candidate-selection processes. The last of these is the most directly significant for the question of the descriptive representation of women in the party, whereas the previous three sets of questions are helpful in locating participants more generally in a political sense. Basic descriptive statistics for all the pre-group questionnaire items are reported in Tables 1-4, and all post-group questionnaire items are reported in Table 5, below.

In brief, analysis of simple descriptive statistics reveals that:

Our participants were centrist on issues of social inequality and gender equality (Table 1) Were centre-right on issues such as ethnic minorities and faith schools (Table 1) Were more clearly right-wing on the need for private provision of public services, on gay rights, and on single women’s access to IVF treatment8 (Table 1) Were clearly right-wing on issues of taxation and expenditure (Table 2) Felt that the party’s policy-making and leadership-selection procedures were democratic, fair and efficient, if somewhat complicated and not entirely transparent (Table 3)

On the key issues of concern in this paper concerning the processes of candidate-selection, these are regarded by party members as democratic, efficient, fair, not overly complex and reasonably transparent, but while they broadly approve of primaries and training programmes for aspiring women and BME candidates, they are not especially keen on the ‘A’ List, and not at all keen on All-Women Shortlists (See Table 4). The process of group discussion does not appear to alter these views greatly, though it renders support for primaries and training programmes slightly stronger, and antipathy to the A List and AWS slightly greater (Table 5). Interestingly, there appears to be a feeling that the leadership has too much influence on candidate-selection, and this

8 Note that IVF treatment for single women is the only issue on a which a statistically significant different between men and women emerged, with women being more hostile to the idea.

27 perception was slightly strengthened by process of discussion as well. Note too that our participants did perceive that the pursuit of greater representation of women in politics could generate tension within the party.

There is little in the focus group participants’ responses to questions about equality promotion for Cameron and other gender equality activists to feel reassured by, then. Not only were many of the party members not keen on such measures to begin with, it looks as though the discussion itself engendered greater antipathy, at least in respect of the stronger forms of equality promotion. Moreover, the strength of hostility towards these measures suggests that the potential for intra- party tension - such as that evident since 2005 on www.conservativehome.com - remains. Although the quantitative analysis is too based on such small numbers that it is virtually impossible to detect significant sex or metropolitan/provincial differences, the actual group discussions did hint at the potential for possible fault-lies. More detailed survey analysis will enable to us to assess this more systematically.

Conclusion

Since becoming leader, David Cameron has clearly signalled the symbolic importance of fashioning a modern Conservative Party which, among other things, is made more in the image of British society as a whole. Specifically, this implies the need to recruit and return to Parliament more women and ethnic minority candidates. To that end he has introduced various reforms of candidate-selection procedure since 2005. The focus group analysis set out in this paper reveals a number of insights about the attitudes of party members to these developments.

First, they are generally very positive about the direction in which the party appears to be heading (even if they are a little uncertain as to where this might be in terms of policy specifics) and about Cameron’s leadership. This is hardly surprising in the context of the large and sustained opinion poll leads that the party currently holds over Labour. Second, the party members are also willing to concede in principle to the desirability of a more socially representative parliamentary party. However, they do not regard this as a high priority for the party, and by and large do not welcome the candidate-selection reforms which have been introduced in recent years. This is partly because of an instinctive aversion to anything which smacks of ‘political correctness’ or positive discrimination (even if all of Cameron’s measures fall short of such equality guarantees), and they are particularly insistent on the need for strictly ‘meritocratic’ recruitment of PPCs. They

28 specifically dislike the Priority List and quotas for women on short-lists, though they are open to the promotion of women candidates through training and awareness-raising initiatives. This is broadly consistent with their feeling that the low number of women MPs in the party owes mainly to the poor supply of women putting themselves forward to become candidates, though there is some recognition of discrimination by selectorates, and particularly women on the selection boards.

While this summarises the overall picture, closer examination of the focus group discussion reveals a number of interesting nuances and suggestions of difference of opinion between the sexes, generations and regions. This is important initial confirmation of our working hypothesis that the attempt to change the social and substantive representation of women in the party may generate tensions among different Conservative actors. As such, it helps establish the ground for the next stage of investigation. This will entail a survey and quantitative analysis, which will enable us to examine more systematically and precisely the differences that might exist between party strata (ie, parliamentary elites and members), sexes, and generations. This analysis should ultimately enable us to understand how far issues of the descriptive and substantive representation of women create fault-lines between or within British political parties today.

29

Bibliography

Campbell, Rosie (2006) Gender and the Vote in Britain (Colchester, Essex: ECPR Press). Campbell, R., Childs, S. and Lovenduski, J. (forthcoming) ‘Do Women Need Women MPs? A Comparison of Mass and Elite Attitudes’, The British Journal of Political Science. Campbell, R., Childs, S, and Lovenduski, J. (2006) ‘Equality Guarantees and the Conservative party’, Political Quarterly, 7, 1. Celis, K., Childs, S., Kantola, J., and Krook, M.L. (2008) ‘Rethinking Women’s Substantive Representation’, Representation, 44, 2. Childs, S. (2008a) Women and British Party Politics (London: Routledge). Childs, S. (2008b) ‘Feminizing the Cameroonian Conservative Party: Women in the World Today’, unpublished paper presented at Gender and Politics Workshop, University of Manchester July. Childs, Sarah (2005) ‘Feminizing British Politics: Sex and Gender in the 2005 General Election’ in, Geddes, A. and Tonge, J. (eds) Britain Decides: The UK General Election 2005 (Basingstoke: Palgrave). Childs, S., Webb, P. and Marthaler, S. (2008) ‘Constituting and Substantively Representing Women: Conservative Party Manifestos 1992-2005, unpublished paper under consideration by Political Studies. Lovenduski, J. (2005a) Feminizing Politics (Cambridge: Polity). Lovenduski, J. (2005b) State Feminism and the Political Representation of Women (Cambridge: CUP). Norris, Pippa (2001) ‘The gender gap: Old challenges, new approaches’ in S. Carroll (ed) Women and American Politics: Agenda Setting for the 21st Century (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Young, L. (2000) Feminists and Party Politics (British Columbia: University of Br Columbia Press)

30 TABLE 1 Pre-Focus Group Questionnaire Descriptive Statistics: Respondent’s Political Attitudes on Social Issues

For each of the following issues can you tick the box indicating the extent that you think change has gone too far, not far enough, or is about right?

N Min Max Mean Std. Deviation Reducing absolute inequality between rich 34 1 5 2.53 1.161 and poor The availability of abortion on the NHS 38 3 5 3.53 .725 Ensuring that the gap between the percentages of working class and middle class children 35 1 5 3.09 1.095 going to University is reduced Giving equal opportunities to women in 40 1 5 3.00 .877 Britain Giving equal opportunities to ethnic minorities 40 1 5 3.28 1.086 in Britain Giving equal opportunities to lesbian, gay, 38 2 5 3.45 .921 bisexual and transgendered people in Britain The expansion of state funded faith schools 39 1 5 3.26 1.093 Private sector involvement in the provision of 37 1 5 2.54 1.016 public services Single women's right to IVF (In-Vitro 36 2 5 3.67 .894 Fertilisation) treatment

Note: 1 = Not nearly far enough, 5 = Much too far.

31

TABLE 2 Pre-Focus Group Questionnaire Descriptive Statistics: Perceptions of Party and Respondent Locations on Taxing and Spending

N Min Max Mean Std. Deviation Some people feel that government should cut taxes a lot and spend much less on things like health and social services. Generally speaking, 40 1 5 3.13 1.285 to what extent do you agree or disagree this is...your own view? (0= cut taxes/spending, 10 = increase taxes/spending) Some people feel that government should cut taxes a lot and spend much less on things like health and social services. Generally speaking, 34 1 5 3.21 1.008 to what extent do you agree or disagree this is..your parliamentary party's view?. Some people feel that government should cut taxes a lot and spend much less on things like health and social services. Generally speaking, 35 1 4 3.00 .970 to what extent do you agree or disagree this is...your party leader's view? Some people feel that government should cut taxes a lot and spend much less on things like health and social services. Generally speaking, 34 1 5 3.53 1.187 to what extent do you agree or disagree this is...your party voters' view?

32 TABLE 3 Pre-Focus Group Questionnaire Descriptive Statistics: Policy-making and leadership selection procedures

N Min Max Mean Std. Deviation To what extent do you agree or disagree that the procedures used for determining your party policy in the Conservative Party 36 1 5 3.14 1.150 are...democratic? (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree) To what extent do you agree or disagree that the procedures used for determining your party policy in the Conservative Party are...efficient? 35 1 5 3.20 1.158 (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree) In your view, to what extent do you agree or disagree that the procedures used for determining your party policy in the 35 1 5 3.14 .912 Conservative Party are...complicated? (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree) To what extent do you agree or disagree that the procedures used for determining your party policy in the Conservative Party are...fair? 35 2 5 3.37 1.003 (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree) To what extent do you agree or disagree that the procedures used for determining your party policy in the Conservative Party 34 1 5 2.94 1.229 are...transparent? (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree) In your view, to what extent do you agree or disagree that the procedures used in electing the Party leader for the Conservative Party 35 1 5 4.17 .857 are...democratic? (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree) To what extent do you agree or disagree that the procedures used in electing the Party leader for the Conservative Party are...efficient? 35 2 5 3.89 .963 (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree) To what extent do you agree or disagree that the procedures used in electing the Party leader for the Conservative Party are...complicated? 34 1 5 2.76 1.046 (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree) To what extent do you agree or disagree that the procedures used in electing the Party leader for the Conservative Party are...fair? 35 3 5 4.03 .568 (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree)

33 To what extent do you agree or disagree that the procedures used in electing the Party leader for the Conservative Party are...transparent? 34 2 5 3.85 .958 (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree)

TABLE 4 Pre-Focus Group Questionnaire Descriptive Statistics: View on Selection of PPCs

N Min Max Mean Std. Deviation To what extent do you agree or disagree that the procedures used in selecting parliamentary candidates for the Conservative Party 38 1 5 3.37 1.076 are...democratic? (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree) To what extent do you agree or disagree that the procedures used in selecting parliamentary candidates for the Conservative Party 36 2 5 3.44 1.081 are...efficient? (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree) To what extent do you agree or disagree that the procedures used in selecting parliamentary candidates for the Conservative Party 35 2 5 3.06 .938 are...complicated? (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree) To what extent do you agree or disagree that the procedures used in selecting parliamentary candidates for the Conservative Party 36 1 5 3.14 1.175 are...fair? (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree) To what extent do you agree or disagree that the procedures used in selecting parliamentary candidates for the Conservative Party 36 1 5 3.00 1.146 are...transparent? (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree) Do you think that the Party leadership has too much, not enough, or about the right amount 33 1 3 2.30 .585 of influence in the candidate selection process? (1= not enough, 3=too much) To what extent do you approve or disapprove of the creation of a 'Priority List' of 37 1 5 2.73 1.262 candidates? (1= strongly disapprove, 5 = strongly approve) To what extent do you approve or disapprove of primaries in which candidates go through a series of public votes to win the nomination? 38 1 5 3.68 1.093 (1= strongly disapprove, 5 = strongly approve)

34 To what extent do you approve or disapprove of compulsory minimum numbers of women at the short-listing stage? (1= strongly 39 1 5 2.10 1.119 disapprove, 5 = strongly approve) To what extent do you approve or disapprove of party training programmes for females, black and ethnic minority candidates? (1= 38 1 5 3.29 1.393 strongly disapprove, 5 = strongly approve)

35 TABLE 5 Post-Focus Group Descriptive Statistics: Candidate selection procedures

Std. N Min Max Mean Deviation To what extent do you approve or disapprove of the creation of a 'Priority List' of candidates? (1= strongly 41 1 5 2.59 1.245 disapprove, 5 = strongly approve) To what extent do you approve or disapprove of primaries in which candidates go through a series of 39 1 5 3.85 1.089 public votes to win the nomination? (1= strongly disapprove, 5 = strongly approve) To what extent do you approve or disapprove of compulsory minimum numbers of women at the short 42 1 5 2.19 1.234 listing stage? (1= strongly disapprove, 5 = strongly approve) To what extent do you approve or disapprove of party training programmes for females, black and ethnic 42 1 5 3.45 1.292 minority candidates (1= strongly disapprove, 5 = strongly approve) Do you think that the Party leadership has too much, not enough, or about the right amount of influence in the 39 1 3 2.44 .598 candidate selection process? (1= not enough, 3=too much) To what extent do you agree or disagree that increasing the proportion of women MPs has caused tensions within 40 1 5 3.65 .864 the Conservative Party? (1=disagree strongly, 5=agree strongly)

36