'It is Not About Political Correctness; it's About Being Politically ...

‘It is Not About Political Correctness; it’s About Being Politically Effective’; the Feminization of the Conservative Party under David Cameron

Rosie Campbell, Sarah Childs & Joni Lovenduski Paper presented at the PSA Annual Conference 2007, University of Bath

THIS IS A DRAFT PAPER PLEASE DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Copyright PSA 2007

Abstract The increasing importance of gender to contemporary British party politics, not least in terms of inter-party competition over women’s descriptive and substantive representation, is highlighted by the emphasis given by the Conservative’s new leader, David Cameron. Within the first few months of his leadership Cameron made several attempts to present himself and his party as pro-women. Indeed, he addressed the low levels of women in his parliamentary party as part of his leadership acceptance speech. Cameron has since broached issues of work/life balance, maternity pay/leave, and repeatedly made reference to marriage tax allowance. It would seem, then, that the new Conservative leader perceives that the feminization of the Conservative party – the integration of women and women’s concerns – is a necessary part of party modernization and one that, akin to Labour’s feminization in the 1990s, might just reward his party with a return to Government. Drawing on interview data and data from the 2005 British Representation Study this paper measures the support for women’s descriptive representation amongst the party and more specifically, support for equality guarantees. It also considers women’s substantive representation, exploring Conservative MPs and candidates’ attitudes to gender equality, more generally. In providing analysis of Conservative party change we contend that the gender transformation under Cameron’s leadership is best explained by acknowledging the twin dynamics of women’s mobilization and leadership accommodation. At the same time, we note that the feminization of the Conservative party is not, as yet, assured: it will only be when the Tories’ have selected candidates for their vacant-held and winnable seats that the numbers of likely Conservative women MPs in the next Parliament will be come clear – the party’s new selection procedures stop short of equality guarantees; similarly, only when the Review Groups report, and the Party adopts policy positions, will we know the extent to which the Conservative party is advancing ‘women’s concerns’, and, importantly, whether these can be considered feminist, neutral or anti-feminist. Introduction Recent developments in British politics underline the increasing importance of gender in party politics: with rising party competition over women’s descriptive and substantive representation, together with women’s enhanced participation in parties at the elite level, it is likely that gender will become an even more, rather than less notable, feature of our party systems. Gender effects are present in individual parties’ ideologies, policy, organizational structures and norms as well as in the overarching party system (Lovenduski 2005). In the absence of mainstream political science acknowledging gender effects (Webb 2000; Ware 2003; Lovenduski 2005), there is a clear need for systematic examination of British political parties in respect of the two dimensions of feminization. Feminization refers to both the integration of women and the integration of women’s concerns (Lovenduski 2005). It is best understood as a process. Analytically, the integration of women and women’s concerns is distinct from the integration of feminist women and feminist understandings of women’s concerns (Celis et al. 2007). It is also the case that feminization may occur in respect of one, but not the other dimension

2 Copyright PSA 2007

(Young 2000), although whether the integration of women is easier – less disruptive of existing intra-party and gendered power relations – than the integration of women’s concerns is contested (Russell 2005, 96). In understanding feminized party change, gender and politics research notes the endogenous and exogenous factors that are influential – party ideology, party organization and culture, and inter-party competition and party systems (Young 2000; Russell 2005; Kittlison 2006). Just as was true in the Labour party in the 1990s (Russell 2005), the contention here is that selecting a greater number of women parliamentary candidates, or at least the rhetoric of seeking to do so, as well as targeting policies at women, can symbolize party modernization and make the Conservative party more electorally attractive. To be sure, the Conservative party needs to win back those voters that departed them in 1997, not least women voters, who from that election onwards, the party could no longer take for granted (Norris 1999; Campbell 2004; Campbell and Lovenduski 2005; Campbell 2006). Winning elections is also about party organization (Alderman and Carter 2002; Kelly 2002). The Conservative Party has experienced considerable organizational change in recent years which has given rise to extensive debate about intra-party democracy and the centralization of power (Seyd 1999; Kelly 2002; Cowley and Green 2005). These debates feed directly into the first dimension of feminization; questions about who selects parliamentary candidates, including of course, selectorate demand for women candidates. They also feed into the second dimension; the extent to which the different parts of the party are more or less comfortable with including women’s concerns, whether in feminist, neutral or anti-feminist direction, as part of its package of policies. The feminization of the Conservative Party has been a key signifier of David Cameron’s leadership. In a speech to the Equal Opportunities Commission he said it was the Conservative’s goal to make ‘gender inequality history’ by increasing the number of Conservative women MPs, tackling the gender pay gap and addressing childcare issues. 1 And it was just two minutes into his leadership acceptance speech when he decried: ‘9 out of 10 Conservative MPs, like me, are white men and we need to change the scandalous under-representation of women in the Conservative party and we’ll do that’. Since then three sets of reforms have transformed the party’s parliamentary selection processes. All, however, stop short of equality guarantees. Equality guarantees are those measures, such as Labour’s All Women Shortlists (AWS), that guarantee, all other things being equal, women’s election to Parliament. There has also been greater attention to ‘women’s concerns’ under Cameron (the second dimension of feminization), at least, compared to the Party’s poor positioning at the 2005 General Election (Childs 2005). Cameron has repeatedly broached issues of work/life balance and maternity pay/leave. In what may well become a dividing line at the next general election, Cameron also appears to be very keen on marriage tax allowance (which might not be considered a feminist position), a policy he favoured even before he came party leader. Even so, the apparent feminization of the Conservative party, is, as yet, neither complete nor necessarily secure. Cameron’s Policy Review Groups have yet to report. Moreover, 1

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4801634.stm


women in the party have little formal role in these – there are no formal requirements for the Policy Review Groups to contact, listen or respond to either the Women’s Policy Group, or the Shadow Minister for Women. Similarly, the Conservative Women’s Organization (CWO), which in the 1990s was considered by some in the Party as an outdated and redundant body, athough now reinvigorated, relies mostly upon informal relations with the Party hierarchy. With regard to parliamentary selection, and despite women constituting 40 percent of newly selected candidates (as of March 2007), it remains unclear how many of the Tories’ vacant-held and winnable seats will be contested by women at the time of the next general election. It is also the case that critics of Cameron’s leadership have been vocal, not least via the PSA award winning, www.conservativehome.com. Against such a backdrop the latest reforms to parliamentary selection, which ‘open up’ the candidate list beyond the priority list of candidates, can only look like a concession. Using interview data along-side data from the 2005 British Representation Study – a study of candidates and MPs at the 2005 General Election – this paper measures support for women’s descriptive representation, as well as, more specifically, support for equality promotion and equality guarantees. Equality promotion refers to a range of activities and measures that aim to provide women with the necessary resources to successfully compete in the political recruitment processes (Lovenduski 2005). The paper also examines attitudes towards gender equality more generally. In providing a narrative of Conservative party change we contend that the gender transformation under Cameron’s leadership is best explained by acknowledging the twin dynamics of women’s mobilization and leadership accommodation (Kittilson 2006). David Cameron opened the door where another leader might not have, arguably driven by electoral opportunism – as his quote which titles this paper suggests. With regard to the first dimension of feminization, those responsible for candidates under previous leaders, Parliamentary women, such as Theresa May, and the Chairman and the President of the Conservative Women’s Organizations - have been knocking on the Conservative party door for some time. By the 2005 General Election they were increasingly vocal, in both public and private, and seemingly no longer prepared to walk away, as the public statements by leading Conservative women and the launching of the ginger group Women2Win, prior to the leadership contest in 2006, suggests. Compared to their activity vis a vis parliamentary selection, the feminization of Conservative party policy, we acknowledge, is a process that is much less advanced. Arguably, this reflects the differences in the mobilization of the party’s gender equality activists, their’s, and the party’s quasiwomen’s policy agencies’ structural positions within the party organization, not least relative to the policy review process, as well as the longer time frame envisaged for the policy review. Methods Using the recent changes within the Conservative party as its case study, this paper employs a two-pronged research strategy. First, an analysis of the nature and process of feminization of the Conservative party is conducted using interview data, speeches and policy documents. Second, we seek to triangulate these findings using data from the


British Representation Study Series (BRS). 2 In so doing, we explore the extent to which party changes reflect or are ahead of, attitudes towards feminization amongst the party’s MPs and candidates; whether there are sex differences in support of feminization (in respect of both dimensions), and if so in what direction (pro-feminist, neutral or antifeminist); and whether, and to what extent, feminization is likely to constitute a site of intra-party contestation. The BRS data is used here as a proxy for the attitudes of party elites; the respondents to the BRS are candidates and MPs at the time of general elections. The BRS enables us to access the views of party members who seek to become or have already become MPs. They are therefore highly actively and involved with party debates. In this way they give us an indication of the current ‘mood’ of the party. Gender and the Contemporary Conservative Party: Descriptive Representation in Parliament Put baldly, the Conservative party at the 2005 general election was, in terms of women’s descriptive representation, in third placed and flat-lining. Hence, there is little point in trying to determine how many years or elections it would take before there is sex parity in the Conservative parliamentary party. In percentage terms, Labour women MPs constitute 27.5 percent of their parliamentary party, the Liberal Democrats’ 16 percent and the Conservatives’ 9 percent In absolute terms, the last three elections saw Labour return 101, 95 and 98 women MPs, the Liberal Democrats 3, 6 and 10, and the Tories 13, 14 and 17 and (1997, 2001 and 2005 respectively). The percentage of women MPs increased from the post-war average of roughly 4 percent in 1992, before reaching 18.2 percent in 1997, 17.9 in 2001, and 19.8 percent in 2005. Any talk of the enhanced descriptive representation of women at Westminster over the last decade, owes almost everything to Labour, and masks significant and continuing inter-party differences (Childs, Lovenduski and Campbell 2005). If Labour were to lose a large number of seats at the next election, the Conservatives would have to step up to the plate to ensure that there was no overall decline in the numbers of women MPs. Knowing what we know about the determinants of women’s political recruitment, this requires a demand for women candidates amongst the Conservative party, not least, in a largely devolved selection process, amongst local party selectorates (Childs, Lovenduski and Campbell 2005; Norris and Lovenduski 2005). The right to select candidates for Westminster is widely recognized as an incentive that party members value and one which they will robustly defend. At the same time, the party leadership has good reasons to try to limit their autonomy - parliamentary candidates are the public face of the party. A modernized party can not, in this view, 2

The BRS 2005 was conducted by Professor Joni Lovenduski, Dr Sarah Childs and Dr Rosie Campbell and was funded by Nuffield Foundation (SGS/01180/G). Research assistance was provided by Cristina Rowley (Bristol University), Paivi Paavola and Rainbow Murray (Birkbeck). The 1992, 1997 & 2001 BRSs were conducted by Professor Joni Lovenduski and Professor Pippa Norris.


present only a handful to the electorate. Despite substantial reforms initiated from the centre (such as competency tests for aspiring candidates), that took place between 20012005, the power of Conservative local associations in the selection of parliamentary candidates remains relatively undiminished (Childs, Lovenduski and Campbell 2005). Irrespective of whether they are open (where anyone in the constituency who registered could participate) or closed (where only Conservative members could participate), the selectorate extends beyond the normal party selectorate in primaries. Yet, only a handful of American style primaries were used for the 2005 general election. Similarly, the Party’s City Seats Initiative (CSI) - where groups of would-be MPs were selected by Victoria Street to undertake city-wide campaigning, only to be subsequently selected by local associations for individual constituencies - were employed in areas where local associations were small and the seat unlikely to be won. Beyond these pilot schemes, and relying on equality rhetoric and equality promotion, the centre’s impotency was evident. When the local party was left to make its own choices the local selectorates are more likely to choose the same old candidate type – white, middle-class and male (Childs, Lovenduski and Campbell 2005). Reforms to Parliamentary Selection Under Cameron 1st Reforms (December 2005): 1. Freeze on selection 2. Priority list: Conservative-held and target seats will be expected to select their candidates from this priority list; at least half will be women, there will be a significant proportion from black and minority ethnic communities and people with disabilities 3. 3 month progress check review 4. Headhunting and mentoring 5. Community involvement: Conservative-held and target seats will be expected to involve non-Party members in the selection process either through: Community panels: or Primaries 2nd Reforms (August 2006) 1. Constituencies Associations with fewer than 300 members are expected to hold a primary; 2. Associations choosing not to employ the primary model: Members will draw up a shortlist of 3 or 4 candidates from a list of 12-15. The shortlist is sex balanced: 2 women and 2 men; the final decision is made by the EC on the basis of in-depth interviews. 3. The existing model of selection [short-listing by EC, final choice by members] can be retained if the EC shortlists an AWS. 3rd Reforms (January 2007) 1. An association may choose to select from the full list of approved Conservative Candidates. In this case there will be a requirement that at each stage of the selection process at least 50% of the candidates being considered are women


2. A constituency remains free to choose to interview Priority candidates. As Cameron was proud to admit, his new Conservative selection measures stop short of equality guarantees, or in his own words ‘positive discrimination’. The measures, to be sure, made it more likely that local associations would consider greater numbers of women. Party HQ believed that local parties would recognize that all aspirant candidates on the priority list were of an equal and high standard, irrespective of their sex and hence that more women would be selected. The involvement of local community representatives and the use of primaries (the party was confident that primaries would be more popular this time than they proved to be in 2005) also meant that a broader range of people were party to the selection process, albeit in the former model only in an advisory capacity. Cameron’s first set of procedures did not last beyond the review: evidently insufficient numbers of women had been selected. Indeed, the impact of the proviso that Cameron had included regarding the addition of ‘local candidates’ proved highly problematic in practice. By the summer of 2006 it became clear that there were rather a lot of ‘exceptional’ local men seeking selection in particular constituencies. In such cases, selection manifestly became a question of local party autonomy versus central party control. Furthermore, in a context of party campaigning that makes much of local versus non-local candidates (and both Labour and the Conservatives admit how the Liberal Democrats make much of candidates’ localness), this taps into a rich seam of support for the idea that a local candidate is always and inherently better than a non-local one. 3 Neither was the strategy of primaries as popular as had been envisaged either – there was not a single primary in the first few months. Apparently, local constituencies were fearful that they were expensive to hold and that they gave the power to select the candidate to non-party members, and in open primaries, perhaps even to non-conservative voters. The second set of reforms, Cameron argued, would speed up the process of making the Conservatives more descriptively representative. That these new procedures would guarantee a higher percentage of women and BME candidates was no more likely than before. Introducing a sex quota at shortlisting stage of selection ensures that more women are considered as candidates, but this does not mean that they will be selected - both the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party have employed sex quotas at this stage at previous elections with little or even negative impacts (Childs 2004). Similarly, reversing the role of EC and party members is underpinned by upon an assumption that members of the EC are more likely to look fairly on women candidates than ordinary party members. Only the newly emphasized possibility of an AWS – sweetened by local associations being allowed to keep to the existing role for party members in selection – directly addresses the lack of party demand. But there is little confidence amongst party gender equality activists that AWS will occur in more than a handful of seats, if at all. 3

As Philip Cowley suggests, such a claim begs all sorts of normative and empirical

questions (private conversation).


Cameron’s announcement of the third reforms – reforms which permit associations to choose form the full list of approved candidates with the requirement that at each stage of the selection process at least 50 percent of the candidates had to be women – were, whatever Party HQ says to the contrary, perceived in the media and by party opponents, as the abandonment of Priority candidates and therefore a victory for those in the party opposed to either women’s greater descriptive representation in principle, or Cameron’s efforts to engineer such an outcome.

Gender and the Contemporary Conservative Party: Tory Quasi Women’s Policy Agencies and the Integration of Women’s Concerns Under David Cameron’s leadership, the Conservative party is currently undergoing an extensive period of policy review. Six policy reviews have been set up: 1) competitive challenge; 2) quality of life challenge; 3) public services challenge; 4) our security challenge; 5) social justice challenge; and 6) globalization and global challenge. Each group will report in 2007. At that time – although the process has yet to be announced – the leadership will decide which of the policy recommendations to accept as party policy for the next general election. Of interest here, is the extent to which the Conservative Party’s policy review process includes women’s concerns as part of their remit, and the extent to which Conservative women play a part in the policy review process. There are three quasi women’s policy agencies: the Conservative Women’s Organization (CWO), the Vice Chairman for Women and the Shadow Minister for Women. 4 Conservative Women’s Organization Inter alia, the CWO seeks to ensure that ‘Party policy takes women's views into account’. 5 Organizationally it operates at the constituency level; its Executive meets three times a year; and it hosts a ‘top-down education’ model annual conference (Russell 2005). Members’ views are gathered through questionnaires and via the Regional structure. 6 Formally, the CWO links with the mainstream Party through the National Convention. This body of over 800, of whom 42 are CWO members and co-optees, is, however, considered too large to constitute a robust body. Otherwise the CWO acts largely through informal means. In addition to member survey, which are sometimes undertaken at the best of parliamentary spokespeople, reports from the CWO Annual Conference are sent to the relevant Shadow Ministers, placed on the CWO website and relevant parliamentary spokespeople attend the conference. The most extensive – in the sense of day to day - links are with the Shadow Minister for Women, Eleanor Laing MP, Theresa May, Shadow Leader of the House who also has responsibility for candidates, and with Margot James, Vice-Chairman for Women (see below). Even so, the effect of 4

Women2win is not included here as it exists as an independent albeit associated pressure group on the Party. 5 Conservative Party, ‘Conservative Women’s Organisation’, Conservative Party Website, http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=party.useful.link.page&ref=cwnc, accessed 1st June 2006. 6 CWO, ‘Forum’, http://www.conservativewomen.org.uk/forum/, accessed 1st June 2006.


the CWO is heavily dependent upon good personal relations with others inhabiting key party posts - it is only very recently that ‘abrasive’ relations with other parts of the party, including relations with parliamentary women, have begun to be emolliated. The CWO is currently undergoing a period of renewal and playing a more significant role within the party, and one more focused on policy. Following the 2005 general election the, then, chairman of the CWO, Pamela Parker, produced a highly critical report of the Party’s general election manifesto. This, she strongly believed had lost the Party the women’s vote. More recent efforts on policy include the Conservative Women’s Forums, which engage with women who are not necessarily members of the CWO or the party, and which have considered childcare, ‘attachment theory’, Charities, and Stalking; a series of Summits which engage with outside organizations; and the establishment of a Conservative Women’s Muslim Group. It is worth noting however, that, the CWO perceives that it is more likely to be listened to as a supportive organization than as a troublesome one; it is, in short, ‘100%’ behind David Cameron. Vice Chairman for Women The position of Vice Chairman for Women was revived in December 2005 following its abandonment at the time of party reforms under William Hague (Party leader 19972001). The VC for Women has two responsibilities: to support the process of getting more women selected for parliament and to ensure that Conservative policies have ‘women’s interests and concerns upper most’, although the latter takes up two-thirds of her time. As VC for Women, Margot James has formed two groups: 1) the Women’s Overview Group and 2) the Women’s Policy Review Group. The former consists of all those in the party who focus on women. The Women’s Policy Group (WPG) is chaired by Eleanor Laing, MP (Shadow Minister for Women). An agenda setting policy document, is to be published in Spring 2007. This will focus on security, domestic violence, welfare and family policy, equal opportunities and education and employment, health, and women prisoners. This report will be directly reported to David Cameron and the Party Chairman, Francis Maude, having been first presented to each of the six Policy Review Groups, whose ‘sensible’ responses will be incorporated in a final draft. Shadow Minister for Women In terms of her role in policy development (rather than her parliamentary brief), the Shadow Minister for Women saw all the chairs of the Policy Review Groups in 2006 to ask them to consider women’s perspectives from the very beginning of the policy review process. She made it clear to them that this is not about how many women members a particular review group has (descriptive representation) but is about taking into account women’s different concerns and perspectives (substantive representation). A second round of meetings, between Eleanor Laing and Margot James, VC for Women and the six policy chairs will take place later in Spring 2007. Gender Equality Activists’ Mobilization and Leadership Accommodation For a long time, women in the Conservative party appeared happy to settle with what they had - wary of feminist strategies they preferred to operate within the conventions of


party behaviour (Campbell, Childs and Lovenduski 2006). Reflecting a considerably longer and less public mobilization, there is evidence, over the last few of years, of a greater collective organization of Conservative gender equality activists demanding women’s descriptive and substantive representation. These include women MPs and Peers, women in the professional party, in the Quasi Women’s Policy Agencies (QWPAs) and ordinary women members, as well as some men. Together they have emphasized their party’s failure to recognize gendered (although not necessarily feminist) perspectives and to integrate them into their election manifestos, as indicated above; they also directly challenge the meritocratic basis of Conservative party selection procedures and, in so doing, publicly acknowledge feminist and not just traditional conservative understandings of gender difference (May 2004). The mobilization of Conservative gender equality activists is most evident in respect of the first dimension of feminization: the integration of women. Here the establishment of Women2win, an independent ‘ginger group’, with the ‘single aim’ of electing more Conservative women MPs is emblematic. Set up crucially in advance of, and precisely to, gender the party leadership contest, Women2win has in just over a year, hosted regular networking and training events for women in London and around the country and created a data base of over 1200 women interested in participating in the Conservative party and seeking election. Crucially, women from all parts of the Conservative Party are represented within Women2win – this is no marginal body. At its launch there were women MPs – newly elected ones, such as Maria Miller, MP for Basingstoke, and more senior ones such as Theresa May (who has a responsibility for candidates), Eleanor Laing and Caroline Spelman. Women from the professional and volunteer party centrally involved include Fiona Hodgson, Chairman of the CWO), Shireen Ritchie (Chairman of the Candidates Committee), and Lady Trish Morris, previously Vice- Chairman for Candidates. Turning to the second dimension of feminization, the mobilization of gender equality activists is, at this point, less obvious. In particular, there is no public statement of what the party’s gender equality activists will put to the Policy Review Groups. Much of what is going on is going on behind the scenes. Even so, the party’s QWPA have no formal nor corporate representation on the Policy Review Groups. Neither is there any formal line of accountability between the Shadow Minister nor the VC for Women and the Policy Review Groups; if the latter decide to ignore any submissions, or even not to meet with the women, they are free to do so. Of course, on paper, the Policy Review Groups are accountable to the party leader who could hold the chairman to account if they deliver non-gendered analysis. The self-appointed responsibility for the gendering of these policy review groups rests with, first, Eleanor Laing MP, as Shadow Minister for Women and secondly, the Women’s Policy Group, which includes the chairman of the CWO amongst its number. There is plenty of confidence that women’s input will be considered – that they can make their case successfully through lobbying and persuasion; the Shadow Women’s Minister’s reception by the Review Groups’ chairman in initial meetings was said to have been favourable. But this is no guarantee.


David Cameron has, thus far, appeared supportive of the feminization of the Conservative party. He seems convinced that feminization of his parliamentary party (or at least a rhetoric of feminization) symbolizes to the electorate that his is a new and not a ‘nasty’ Conservative party. He is widely considered by leading Conservative gender equality activists to be ‘onside’ and personally committed to gender equality. This is not to say that gender equality activists in the Conservative Party can rest on their laurels in respect of either dimension. As stated already, there is little hard evidence, in spring 2007, of the integration of women’s concerns, nor whether these concerns will be addressed in feminist, neutral or anti-feminist terms. Some indications are available: in his party leadership interview on Radio 4 Woman’s Hour, Cameron was the ‘more feminist’ of the ‘two Davids’, although his comment about his membership of the all male club where he has lunch with his father was less reassuring. Ditto his frequent comments about marriage tax relief, which privileges particular relationships over others. Turning to women’s descriptive representation, it seems that despite the efforts to persuade the Conservative party to select greater numbers of women – and these should not be underestimated - Cameron does not want candidate selection to be his ‘clause 4 moment’. His reforms to party selection, and the review of the first set of procedures, fall short of ‘picking a fight with the party’. According to one gender equality activists Cameron is very much trying to avoid this, something which she thinks is mistaken and a lost opportunity. Furthermore, his third reforms, as previously stated, look in the face of vocal opposition, like a concession, even if the party was always going to open up the selection process beyond priority candidates in its later stages and for the unwinnable seats. Ultimately the test of Cameron’s resolve will be what happens in the run up to the general election; the numbers of women selected for the party’s vacant held and winnable seats. At this point he might just have to take on his opponents and follow the logic that leads to equality guarantees (Campbell, Childs and Lovenduski 2006). Quantitative Analysis Having considered the recent developments within the Conservative party and established that there is an active group of, mainly women, gender equality activists demanding the feminization of the party we now move to triangulate the findings using survey data. The BRS is a survey of all candidates and MPs conducted prior to each general election since 1997. The survey is an invaluable resource for comparing party change over time, sex differences within parties and differences in attitudes between parties. Thus, we can use the BRS series to evaluate whether Conservative MPs and candidates have become more or less likely to support equality promotion and equality guarantees and more or less in favour of gender equality. We can also assess whether the push for equality we see particularly from women gender equality activists in respect of descriptive representation, from the interview data, is supported by the survey data. In respect of the second dimension of feminisation, the interview data suggests that some women are seeking to integrate women’s concerns into the policy review process. However, we cannot assess from this whether the direction is pro-feminist, neutral or anti-feminist. The BRS data should give us some insight into the feminist or non-feminist attitudes of the party elite.


The BRS data is used to test five hypotheses. • • • •

H1: Over time, there has been an increase in support for measures to increase the numbers of women in Parliament among Conservative candidates and MPs H2: Over time, there has been an increase in support for gender equality among Conservative candidates and MPs. H3: There remains a gap between the Conservative party’s and other parties’ support for measures to increase the representation of women and for gender equality. H4: Women members of the Conservative party are more in favour the increased representation of women in Parliament, and more in favour of gender equality than men.

Table 1 allows us to test Hypothesis 1. Overall, it would seem that support for equality promotion has increased, with Conservative candidates and MPs 10% more likely to strongly approve of party training programmes for women in 2005 than in 2001. Although Conservative candidates and MPs remain more hostile to equality guarantees than equality promotion, this hostility has fallen, with 20% fewer Conservative respondents strongly disapproving of AWS in 2005 compared with 1997. This pattern is mirrored in attitudes to financial support for women candidates, sex quotas and reserved seats for women; overall, candidates and MPs continue to disapprove of these measures but to do so less strongly. There has been, then, a softening in attitudes over time, even if the Conservative party elite remain against the introduction of such mechanisms. This finding shows that the environment in which gender equality activists are operating is one where there continues to be hostility towards equality promotion and equality guarantee measures, albeit less vociferously so, than previously. Table 1: Attitudes to Equality Promotion, Rhetoric and Guarantees of Conservative party candidates and MPs, 1997, 2001 & 2005 BRS Statement

Survey Year

Party training programmes for women** (n=831) All-women shortlists*** (n=842) Quotas or compulsory minimum numbers of women** (n=838) Financial support for women candidates*** (n=830)

Strongly Approve %

Approve %

Disapprove %

Total %

.3

1.2 5.6 2.2 7.4

24.3 15.1 13.4 17.1 22.4 31.2 24.7 25.1

Strongly Disapprove % 6.4 11.1 6.0 82.9 75.8 62.4 73.0 67.2

1997 2001 2005 1997 2001 2005 1997 2001 2005

21.0 26.8 31.0

48.3 47.0 49.6

.6 .9

.9

6.4

34.3

58.4

100.0

1997 2001 2005

.8 .9

2.6 4.7

35.3 34.4

61.3 59.9

100.0 100.0

2.2

10.6

41.4

45.8

100.0

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


Reserved seats for women** (n=837)

1997 2001 .3 2005 .4 *** Significant at the 0.001 level, chi square test ** Significant at the 0.01 level, chi square test

.4 1.5 1.7

16.5 18.9 31.5

83.1 79.4 66.4

100.0 100.0 100.0

The evidence presented in Table 2 allows us to assess Hypothesis 2. It shows that the change in attitudes to gender equality amongst the Conservative party elite has been less pronounced than the change in attitudes towards women’s greater descriptive representation. Overall, we see only a small movement in a pro-feminist direction: approximately 11% more respondents in 2005 than in 1997 disagreed strongly with the statements ‘most men are better suited to politics than most women’ and ‘a husband’s job is to earn the money; a wife’s job is to look after the home and family’. There was little significant change in attitudes to whether family life suffers when a woman is employed and whether being a housewife is as fulfilling as working for pay. Table 2: Attitudes to Gender Equality of Conservative Party Candidates and MPs, 1997, 2001 & 2005 BRS Statement

Survey Year

disagree strongly 19.1 24.0

disagree Most men are 1997 40.6 better suited 2001 43.2 emotionally to 2005 politics than most 31.0 40.5 women* (n=853) All in all, family 1997 10.3 25.5 life suffers when 2001 7.5 34.5 the woman has a 2005 full-time job* 11.5 35.2 (n=842) Being a housewife 1997 2.2 15.8 is just as fulfilling 2001 3.6 16.7 as working for pay 2005 2.4 17.3 (n=792) A husband's job is 1997 21.4 36.3 to earn money; a 2001 28.0 42.8 wife's job is to look 2005 after the home and 33.6 40.9 family*** (n=845) *** Significant at the 0.001 level, chi square test * Significant at the 0.05 level, chi square test

agree strongly 2.5 1.2

Total

neither 24.4 20.7

agree 13.4 10.9

16.8

11.6

21.6 23.7

36.9 32.1

5.7 2.1

100.0 100.0

20.7

30.0

2.6

100.0

27.7 22.5

43.2 46.1

11.2 11.1

100.0 100.0

26.4

40.9

13.0

100.0

27.0 21.4

13.5 7.5

1.8 .3

100.0 100.0

20.7

4.7

100.0 100.0 100.0

100.0

Hypotheses 1 & 2 are therefore confirmed with evidence that there is increased support for equality promotion, a weakening of hostility toward equality guarantees and a moderate increase in support for gender equality. Examination of Table 3 provides evidence in favour of Hypothesis 3; although the Conservative party has become less hostile to equality promotion and guarantees it remains far less pro-feminist in its attitudes to the descriptive representation of women than the Labour party. The strength of the party differences, which are evident within


each of the election years, show that party is still the most important predictor of attitudes to the representation of women in Parliament. Overall, 40% more Labour candidates and MPs strongly approved of party training programmes for women (equality promotion) than Conservative respondents. Members of the Labour party elite were also considerably more likely to approve of financial support for women candidates (equality promotion), AWS, quotas and reserved seats for women than Conservative party respondents (equality guarantees); figures range from 8% to 28% party difference in strong approval. Table 3: Attitudes to Equality Promotion, Rhetoric and Guarantees by Party Candidates and MPs, 2005 BRS 7 Statement

Party

Party training programmes for women*** (n=717) All-women short-lists*** (n=715)

Conservative Labour Lib Dem

Quotas or compulsory minimum numbers of women*** (n=705) Financial support for women candidates*** (n=697) Reserved seats for women*** (n=703)

Conservative Labour Lib Dem Conservative Labour Lib Dem

Conservative Labour Lib Dem

Strongly Approve % 31.0 71.0

Approve %

Disapprove %

Strongly Disapprove % 6.0

Total %

49.6 25.6

13.4 3.4

68.6

27.8

2.3

1.3

100.0

.9 29.0 3.9 .9 19.0

5.6 35.2 10.8 6.4 31.6

31.2 23.9 49.8 34.3 36.8

62.4 11.9 35.4 58.4 12.6

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

7.4

23.8

41.3

27.5

100.0

2.2 15.3

10.6 25.3

41.4 45.9

45.8 13.5

100.0 100.0

13.7

26.3

48.7

11.3

100.0

1.7 8.8 3.7

31.5 59.1 48.7

66.4 23.4 46.0

100.0 100.0 100.0

Conservative .4 Labour 8.8 Lib Dem 1.7 *** Significant at the 0.001 level, chi square test

100.0 100.0

Table 4 also addresses Hypothesis 3; again, we see that the Conservative party leadership’s recent attention to women’s concerns masks continuing stark differences relating to gender equality between the parties at the level of the political elite. Labour party candidates and MPs remain more feminist in their attitudes to gender equality than the Conservative party elite, with 21% more Labour respondents strongly disagreeing with the statement ‘most men are better suited emotionally to politics than most women’. Similar differences are evident within responses to the three items about women’s paid employment. Conservative respondents were 28% more likely than Labour respondents to agree that being a housewife is just as fulfilling as working for pay. Table 4: Attitudes to Gender Equality by Party 2005 BRS 7

The differences between the parties are evident within all of the election years.


Statement

Party

disagree strongly 31.0 52.7 48.1 11.5 27.8 20.5 2.4 9.6 6.3 33.6 80.7

Most men are better suited Conservative emotionally to politics than Labour most women*** (n=696) Lib Dem All in all, family life suffers Conservative when the woman has a fullLabour time job*** (n=689) Lib Dem Being a housewife is just as Conservative fulfilling as working for Labour pay*** (n=635) Lib Dem A husband's job is to earn Conservative money; a wife's job is to look Labour after the home and family*** Lib Dem 63.8 (n=701) *** Significant at the 0.001 level, chi square test

disagree 40.5 29.6 39.3 35.2 33.1 42.7 17.3 28.7 25.2 40.9 17.0

neither 16.8 12.4 8.5 20.7 23.1 20.5 26.4 35.7 31.9 20.7 2.3

agree 11.6 5.3 3.4 30.0 13.6 15.7 40.9 21.0 27.4 4.7

27.5

7.0

1.3

agree strongly

Total

.7 2.6 2.4 .7 13.0 5.1 9.3

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

.3

100.0

Finally, Table 5 allows us to weigh up the evidence for Hypothesis 4. This hypothesis asks whether women members of the Conservative party elite are more in favour of measures to increase the numbers of women MPs and more in favour gender equality than men. Regression analysis is the most appropriate way to test this hypothesis because any sex difference found in a simple bivariate relationship might result from the fact that Conservative women candidates and MPs are, on average, younger than their male colleagues (there are more men in the older cohorts). In order to undertake the regression analysis the items need to be combined together to make scales. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted which produced two factors with Eigen values above 1, thus the items are measuring two separate dimensions. The first factor had higher loadings for the items included in tables 1 & 3 (the descriptive representation of women) and the second had higher loadings for the items in tables 2 & 4 (gender equality). Reliability tests were conducted for both sets of items. The Cronbach’s alpha for the items relating to the representation for women was 0.884, indicating high internal reliability. Thus, these five items were simply combined together into a scale ranging from 5 (totally opposed to equality promotion and guarantees) to 20 (totally in support of equality promotion and guarantees). The Cronbach’s alpha for the items relating to gender equality was 0.666 indicating a good level of internal reliability. The items were also combined together into a scale, ranging from 4 (anti-feminist) to 20 (pro-feminist). In order to assess the evidence for hypothesis five a simple OLS regression analysis was conducted upon both scores for Conservative respondents with sex, survey year and age included as independent variables. The regression analysis does not attempt to provide a good explanation of the variance in the attitudes but instead simply seeks to test hypothesis 5, thus we are only interested in the relationship between sex and Conservative respondent’s attitudes.


Table 5: OLS Regression of Attitudes to Equality Promotion & Guarantees and Gender Equality, Conservative Candidates and MPs, 1997. 2001 & 2005 BRS 8 Dependent Variable Attitudes to equality promotion and guarantees (n=794) General attitudes to gender equality (n=772)

Independent Variables Women Survey Year Age

Model 1 B SE 1.70***

R²

0.073

Women Survey Year Age

2.35***

R²

0.098

Beta .213

.271

Model 2 B SE 1.56*** .122***

Beta .212 .025

.249 .167

0.101 .256

.314

2.25*** .082**

0.107

Model 3 B SE 1.56*** .178*** .000

Beta .216 .048 .000

.248 .241 .079

.262 .061 .000

.303 .037 -.059

0.106 .257 .030

.301 .092

2.28*** .033 .000

0.109

*** Significant at the 0.001 level ** Significant at the 0.01 level * Significant at the 0.05 level Table 5 confirms Hypothesis 5; women Conservative candidates and MPs are more in favour of equality promotion and guarantees than men and they are also more profeminist. These differences remain after age and survey year are controlled for, demonstrating the women’s attitudes are not simply the result of their younger age and political generation. This suggests that support for the feminization of the Conservative party in both dimensions is greater amongst women in the party elite than men. Conclusion Party change, especially in respect of feminization, has been little studied by mainstream political science. Gender and politics research notes the endogenous and exogenous factors that influence party change – party ideology, party organization and culture, and inter-party competition and party systems (Young 2000; Russell 2005; Kittlison 2006). This paper offers a preliminary discussion of the feminization of the Conservative Party. Making reference to the more conducive political context at this time – with increased party competition over women’s descriptive and substantive representation and changes in party organization and culture offered by David Cameron’s leadership - we identify the essential role played by party gender equality activists (Kittilson 2006). Only weak conclusions can be drawn about the efforts of the party’s gender equality activists in respect of the second dimension of feminization – the integration of women’s concerns where we await further developments in party policy and indicators of the ‘direction’ of the gender equality activists’ input. Stronger conclusions can, however, be drawn in respect of the first dimension – the integration of women. Mostly women, the party’s gender equality activists have been seeking the greater selection of women as parliamentary candidates for at least a decade. Although in the past they were less public and probably less confident and single-minded, post-2005, they have played a much more collective, public and strategic role, not least in gendering the very leadership election of 8

There is no evidence of serious multicollinearity.


which Cameron was the beneficiary. They have also hardened up their demands, even if these stop short, for most but not all of them, of equality guarantees. Triangulating our conclusions drawn from party interviews and documentary evidence, with data from the BRS, permits secondary evaluation of our claim that the feminization of the Conservative party reflects the mobilization of women gender equality activists, which is then accommodated by the party leader (Kittilson 2006). We find that Conservative women MPs and candidates are more likely to be supportive of measures to improve the number of women in Parliament and more in favour of gender equality than men MPs and candidates. The gender difference in attitudes among the Conservative party elite suggests that women are key drivers of pro-feminist change. These findings beg further questions that directly relate to women’s descriptive and substantive representation. In the case of both dimensions there is a potential for a sex split within the Conservative party: with women and men mobilizing against each other and creating intra-party tension if not conflict. This in turn has the potential to affect the perception which Cameron seeks of his party as a modern (read electable) Conservative Party. The BRS data also demonstrate that for all the feminization of the Conservative party thus far, it remains much less favourably disposed to feminization than the other two main political parties. More specifically, and in respect of the integration of women, analysis of the BRS suggests that efforts to introduce stronger equality promotion measures, if not equality guarantees, will receive lesser support from MPs than would be the case if there was sex parity in the Conservative parliamentary party. Similarly, with fewer women than men candidates, there will also be lesser support for such measures amongst candidates, who might be expected to be active in the party, especially at the local level. Accordingly, Cameron’s support base for his reforms to parliamentary selection may be less than secure. In respect of the substantive representation of women, the lack of sex parity amongst MPs means that the parliamentary party has fewer MPs who hold more feminist gender equality attitudes than they would if women and men were equally present (Campbell, Childs and Lovenduski 2007). In the absence of these ‘missing’ women MPs, and unless individual women become ‘critical actors’ championing gender equality (Childs and Krook 2006), the party’s policies may be less likely to reflect women’s concerns and gender equality than they otherwise would (and its worth noting here the lack of corporate representation on Cameron’s Policy Review Groups). It would seem that the recent feminisation of the Conservative party results from a combination of the mobilisation of gender equality activists (particularly women) and leadership accommodation. However, the feminisation is by no means complete and is also at this stage rather shallow (especially with regard to the second dimension) our research highlights that the party is still relatively anti-feminist compared to Labour and that there is potential for a anti-feminist significant backlash within the party elite.


Bibliography Alderman, Keith and Neil Carter (2002). "The Conservative Party Leadership Election of 2001." Parliamentary Affairs 55(3): 569-85. Campbell, Rosie (2004). "Gender, ideology and issue preference: Is there such a thing as a political women's interest in Britain?" British Journal of Politics and International Relations 6: 20-46. Campbell, Rosie (2006). Gender and the Vote in Britain. Colchester, Essex, ECPR Press. Campbell, Rosie, Sarah Childs and Joni Lovenduski (2006). "Women's equality guarantees and the Conservative party." Political Quarterly 77(1): 18-27. Campbell, Rosie, Sarah Childs and Joni Lovenduski (2007). Do Women Need Women MPs? ECPR Joint Sessions, Helsinki. Campbell, Rosie and Joni Lovenduski (2005). "Winning Women's Votes? The Incremental Track to Equality." Parliamentary Affairs 58(4): 837-853. Celis, Karen, Sarah Childs, Johanna Kantola and Mona Krook (2007). Rethinking Women's Substantive Representation. Paper presented at the 2007 ECPR Joint Sessions. Helsinki. Childs, Sarah (2004). New Labour's Women MPs: Women Representing Women. London, Routledge. Childs, Sarah (2005). "Feminising British Politics: Sex and Gender in the 2005 General Election". Britain Decides: The UK General Election 2005. A. Geddes and J. Tonge. Basingstoke, Palgrave. Childs, Sarah and Mona Krook (2006). "Should Feminists Give up on Critical Mass? A contingent 'Yes'." Politics and Gender 2(4): PAGE NUMBERS. Childs, Sarah, Joni Lovenduski and Rosie Campbell (2005). Women at The Top. London, Hansard. Cowley, Philip and Jane Green (2005). "New Leaders, Same Problems". Britain Decides: The UK General Election 2005. A. Geddes and J. Tonge. Basingstoke, Palgrave. Kelly, Richard (2002). "The Party Didn't Work." Political Quarterly 72(1): 38-43. Kittlison, Miki Caul (2006). Challenging Parties, Changing Parliaments. Columbus, Ohio State University Press. Lovenduski, Joni (2005). Feminising Politics. Cambridge, Polity Press. Norris, Pippa (1999). "Gender: a gender-generation gap?" Critical Elections: British Parties and Voters in Long-Term Perspective. G. Evans and P. Norris. London, Sage. Norris, Pippa and Joni Lovenduski (2005). Political Recruitment. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Russell, Meg (2005). Building New Labour. Basingstoke, Palgrave. Seyd, Patrick (1999). "New Parties/New Politics." Party Politics 5(3): 383-406. Ware, Alan (2003). "Book Reviews." Party Politics 9(4): 523-525. Webb, Paul (2000). The Modern British Party System. London, Sage. Young, Lisa (2000). Feminists and Party Politics. Vancouver, University of British Columbia Press.
