Esther McVey has announced she will be entering the forthcoming Conservative Party leadership contest, and that she now has the necessary number of backers to put herself forward (admittedly only two MPs are needed). As one of the backbenchers openly stating that Theresa May should leave office soon, albeit more politely than some, McVey does not need to be as discrete as many of her eventual Cabinet competitors must.
McVey is an outside candidate, with fewer than eight years in Parliament and less than a year of uninspired Cabinet experience, which included having to apologise to Parliament for misleading them over the conclusions of a National Audit Office report. She is well known as a hard(ish) Brexiter, but perhaps not so well known for her opposition to same sex marriage, in which she consistently voted against one of David Cameron’s main attempts at modernising the Tory party (and the law).
But McVey’s main problem, which has yet to receive much prominence, is her choice of long-term partner and now fiancée, fellow Conservative backbencher, Philip Davies, MP for Shipley. Davies is a controversial character, and a self-proclaimed men’s rights campaigner – although that seems to extend primarily to opposing legislation, most of it cross-party, into stopping violence against women. Among his Parliamentary achievements are attempting to block the passage of the Preventing and Combating Violence Bill through filibustering (he was unsuccessful and became the only MP to vote against), filibustering a government attempt to remove the term “honour crime” from official publications, opposing the existence of the Select Committee on Women and Equalities, and using his position as an MP to waste the time of the Equality and Human Rights Commission with endless absurd complaints, including asking why blacking up your face was considered offensive.
This is not in the past: only last month Davies was in the news for agreeing to speak at a US conference on men’s rights, alongside a white supremacist, the Ukip candidate who “wouldn’t even rape” Labour MP Jess Phillips, and many who openly proclaim male superiority and promote violence against women. Davies’ “defence” to concerns about his attendance was to state that he did not agree with all the views of all of those who were speaking.
Practically speaking, McVey’s forthcoming very heterosexual marriage will make her leadership bid less likely to succeed and will continue to plague her and the Tory party if it does. It is difficult to see how as leader she could make fair decisions about whether he should continue to hold the Parliamentary whip, for example. Electorally, the Tories already have a substantial women problem, which Davies is only going to make worse. The ageing Tory men who make up the Conservative Party might be attracted to Davies’ Trumpian brand of politics, but across the country in a general election campaign they would seriously harm to Tory prospects.
It might seem anti-feminist to blame a woman for her partner’s politics and brings back unfortunate memories of how Hilary Clinton’s battle for the US Presidency was harmed by her husband’s conduct in the past. This is different though: Davies’ conduct is not 20 years ago, he is in Parliament now, and is using his elected position to further his bizarre pet cause. Also, there is a fundamental difference between private behaviour which is objectionable and being a politician in your own right and behaving in such a repeatedly juvenile way, whilst linked to such extremist and frequently offensive views.
In these unusual circumstances, McVey should and must be judged on her choice of partner.
Far from being welcomed as a possible third female prime minister, that McVey is willing to have a relationship with a man like that has to raise serious concerns about her attitudes towards women, and feminists and women at large should worry at the prospect, fortunately not high, of a McVey premiership.
For now, women need to oppose McVey getting the leadership, because allowing views like Davies’ into No10 by any means would provide them with a legitimacy that will set back women’s rights for years.