If power was just about office, then Britain’s ethnic minorities would appear to have nothing to worry about. Rishi Sunak sits in Downing Street. Humza Yousaf heads Scotland’s devolved government. When Vaughan Gething takes over as the first minister in Wales, he will become the first black leader of a European nation. But the success of the three political leaders should not be seen as a repudiation of the existence of racism itself. Its current toxic persistence has been made obvious by the racist comments about Britain’s first black female parliamentarian, Diane Abbott, by the Tories’ biggest donor.
The difference between the current crop of leaders and the trailblazers of the past is the extent to which they represent a generational shift in the opportunities open to non-white politicians. Parties want to be seen as part of the future, not the past. Having ethnic minorities in top political positions helps convey that message. Mr Yousaf, Mr Gething and Mr Sunak not only express support for change but also embody it. Elected by MPs or members, these three have yet to face the voting public.
The question is whether this diversity at the very top is about presentation or something more substantial. It is telling that Mr Sunak took a day to figure out that the abuse levelled at Ms Abbott was racist. He only did the right thing after his black female cabinet colleague named the bigotry. By not returning the substantial donation, it seems like money is more important than morals to the prime minister. This is a bad look. The optics matter for Tories. They have done ever since the Windrush scandal exposed a ministerial failure to care about racism in a cabinet criticised for its lack of diversity.
Conservatives find it ideologically congenial to hear how non-white people defied the odds to succeed. Meanwhile, they often contribute to reducing the chances for the success of other non-white people. The Tories have created an economy dependent on migrant labour and a politics dependent on xenophobic rhetoric. Despite peddling the idea of self-improvement, they have cut budgets in the public sector that make such improvement possible.
It is no surprise, therefore, that politics lags behind society. The House of Commons library produced a report last year which noted that while 16% of the UK population was from a minority ethnic background, only about a tenth of MPs were. While Labour supplies most of the MPs from under-represented groups, it has not put them in leadership roles. Labourism is conservative in nature, resisting the power dynamics that enable advancement.
Labour, however, had nearly double the number of ethnic minority MPs the Tories had. The difference between collectivism and individualism explains the gap in racial representation between Labour and the Tories. In the former, the pace of any individual’s advancement depends on the demands of the collective. Labour politicians are expected to speak for a broader set of interests than just personal advancement. Individuals in the Conservative party are not expected to prioritise concerns about historical inequalities or the present lack of opportunities. Non-white Tories can rise in a way their Labour peers cannot, as they are freed from obligations to history or community. The paradox is that Labour, and especially its left, has created the conditions for women and minorities to progress – and on the right many are taking the opportunity to do so.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
