Conservative leadership elections tend not to be predictable. It is said that the favourite never wins or that the party favours outsiders.
The latter is often true, but history shows there are three, very different, ways to be an outsider.
- A leader may be a social outsider, remote from the ruling elite
- They may be an ideological outside, challenging the Parry’s ideological mainstream
- They could be of maverick temperament, or eccentric in behaviour
The first social outsider Tory Prime Minister was George Canning in 1827. The Whig grandee Earl Grey had declared could Canning never lead the country as he was the “son of an actress.” A reminder that the Whigs, not the Tories, were the truly grand and rich aristocrats.
The definitive outsider was Benjamin Disraeli, who became leader in 1868. He was not an aristocrat, was of Jewish heritage, and with a “flamboyant” style. Ideologically Disraeli brought the party over to social reform and working class voting. He did however live his life with one big mission: to become an insider. He firmly believed in the principle of aristocratic rule and sought to be part of it. In the early 20th century the Party selected the Canadian-born Bonar Law, the first genuine businessman to lead. Ideologically though he was in the party mainstream as a firm supporter of Tariff Reform.
In contrast, aristocratic party leaders could be intellectually unorthodox. Lord Salisbury, leader in the late nineteenth century, was from one of the grandest families in Britain, but was sympathetic to women voting, and full of ideas for social reform. He was, in the manner of the true intellectual, simultaneously sceptical of these ideas.
Aristocrats could also be prone to eccentric behaviour. Randolph Churchill was the son of a Duke but successfully posed as an outsider. He was a maverick in Cabinet and lively public speaker. Ideologically, he championed the working man against the Whig aristocrats. The depth of his conviction is unclear. When asked if he had any actual ideas to improve working class life he replied “No, but Salisbury has.” Randolph was never leader but his son of course was. Winston could be as mercurial as his father but was far more constructive in office. Ideologically he meandered, but his outsider status through much of his career reflected his buccaneering temperament as much as ideological differences with other Conservative politicians.
Stanley Baldwin, leader from 1923-37, had a traditional background and low-key political style but was fascinated by ideas. Baldwin’s political life was initially unremarkable. He came from a rich business family, essentially inherited his seat in Parliament at 40 and was not made a Minister for another 8 years. As Prime Minister he developed a consensual style but had a strong vision of social cohesion in inter-war Britain. However, he put a lot of effort in to masking this passion for ideas, occasionally by mocking his own.
Harold Macmillan similarly hid his intellectual curiosity in order to become leader. As an Old Etonian married to the daughter of the Duke of Devonshire he seemed the archetype of the union of aristocratic and commercial wealth dominating the early twentieth century Conservative party. He was though an ideological rebel with his calls for a Middle Way and more state intervention in the economy.
He was also a sensitive, often eccentric figure, he once sang Rule Britannia in the Commons Chamber for example. Macmillan did not thrive at first. Alliance with Churchill advanced his career. He developed a calm, fake-Edwardian persona, his ideas became more mainstream, and he became Prime Minister. It was a remarkable transformation. Intellectually however, MacMillan never quite stood still. Even in the 1960s, when he was thought laughably old-fashioned, he was still hungry for new ideas on economic modernisation. His Edwardian persona was an ironic joke to him, but eventually seemed to confirm his insider status to the public.
From 1965 the Conservative Party leadership became open to those of less privileged backgrounds, and by 1990, being a social insider was a crippling drawback for Old Etonian Douglas Hurd. Heath (1965) and Major (1990) were not dissimilar leaders. They had unprivileged backgrounds, but neither were ideological or stylistic risktakers.
Margaret Thatcher, as a woman, was an outsider in a whole new way. She offered ideological clarity, which was popular with Party members but not, initially with many Conservative MPs. In terms of communications Thatcher’s style always remained distinctive. Even today her broadcast footage is challenging, original and sometimes surprising. She combined authority with a hint of outsider originality.
21st century Conservative leaders failed to match this combination. Hague, Howard, IDS and May were all from inoffensive middle class background but never developed a compelling media persona or noteworthy ideological position. May has undoubtedly wanted to innovate ideologically, but Brexit has proved too much of a distraction.
David Cameron, the most successful 21st century Tory leader, desperately sought to play down his insider social status. Ideologically, he challenged the party on some, but not all issues. In terms of style he regularly let us see hints of real personality and sense of humour, although whilst still maintaining as much authority as seems possible in this undeferential age.
So what next? How will social, ideological and behavioural outsider traits shape the next Conservative leader?
Social origin will be interesting but not decisive in the leadership election. Candidates who are women, from an ethnic minority or a humble background will offer potential electoral benefits to the party, but ultimately others factors will prove more important in choosing a leader. The Party has been agnostic on outsider social status for 200 years, and will continue to be.
On the issue of Brexit the next leader will need to be with the party mainstream and a firm Leaver. On other issues though a lot is up for grabs, both in terms of the role of the state in the economy, and whether the party seeks to appeal more to the values of older or younger voters. Conservative party members get a lot of criticism, but the trend over the past 20 years has been a willingness to compromise on every issue except Europe. A candidate who offers interesting ideas could do well.
What about candidates with an unorthodox style? In a social media age this is more advantageous than ever. It makes a politician more human, enables their communications to cut-through, and makes them more memorable and compelling. History shows though, that successful leaders never take eccentricity too far and combine it with a sense of authority and competence.