Oliver Letwin’s remarks aren’t just a product of their time, they’re a product of the Conservative Party

The recently released memo revealing Conservative MP Oliver Letwin’s remarks and attitudes on the black community are not a good reflection of the Conservative Party. And certainly of Letwin himself. Although while they may have been made thirty years ago, how much can we assume has actually changed about the views of Letwin and many within the Conservative Party? Well, relatively speaking, thirty years isn’t that long and given the old boys club that is the Conservative Party, probably not very much.

Letwin’s views aren’t just racist, they show the class prejudice that is at the centre of the Conservative Party. Thus, they characterise the party and its attitudes. In response to the memo, Trevor Philips said “I don’t think these remarks would have raised a single eyebrow at the time” and amongst all the mainstream parties, perhaps they wouldn’t have. What stands out though is how they could easily be the content of Conservative Party policy discussions today.

Just consider what was put forward by Letwin (along with Hartley Booth, another Tory MP at the time) regarding the Broadwater Farm riots and others that occurred at the time. It wouldn’t be amiss today from the same party it emanated from thirty years ago ­­–

"The root of social malaise is not poor housing, or youth 'alienation' or the lack of a middle class....Lower-class, unemployed white people lived for years in appalling slums without a breakdown of public order on anything like the present scale; in the midst of the depression, people in Brixton went out, leaving their grocery money in a bag at the front door, and expecting to see groceries there when they got back...Riots, criminality and social disintegration are caused solely by individual characters and attitudes. So long as bad moral attitudes remain, all efforts to improve the inner cities will founder...Riots, criminality and social disintegration are caused solely by individual characters and attitudes. So long as bad moral attitudes remain, all efforts to improve the inner cities will founder...[Lord] Young’s new entrepreneurs will set up in the disco and drug trade; Kenneth Baker’s refurbished council blocks will decay through vandalism combined with neglect; and people will graduate from temporary training or employment programmes into unemployment or crime."

If in years to come released papers showing policy discussions around the England riots in 2011 (which started in Tottenham, the location of Broadwater Farm) have the same sentiments, I wouldn’t be surprised. Furthermore, it would show just how little attitudes in the Conservative Party haven’t changed within contemporary history.

The undertones of racism have long been present in mainstream British politics but especially within the Conservative Party. During post-war immigration to the UK, all British political parties exhibited xenophobia but none more so than the Tories. Indeed, I’m often flummoxed by the short memories of many ethnic minority supporters of the Tory Party, who feel that the Tories will protect and further their social mobility, when they fail to reflect on the party’s history of policies and attitudes that smack of racism. After all, Margaret Thatcher, subsequent leader of the Conservative Party, referred to Enoch Powell’s 1968 Rivers of Blood speech as “strong meat”; not merely highly inflammatory racism. I doubt the many East African Asians and other immigrants arriving in the UK in the same year would have considered it in the same terms. Yet some subsequent generations of said communities are today Tories who ignorantly feel the party reflects their middle class status.

To be clear, I don’t think all Tories are racist. While I’m clearly not a Tory myself, I know many people who are and they’re undoubtedly committed to equality and positive race relations. Ideologically we just don’t agree on everything while somethings we do. I do, however, think that the party machinery of the Conservative Party hasn’t rid itself of racism, nor do I think it’s made much effort to either.

The image of the ‘nasty party’ is one that publically, the Tories have seemed to want to dispel. But returning to Letwin’s remarks, they pretty much support that perception. Letwin may have apologised, albeit with no real contrition. At the time of writing, David Cameron, as Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative Party, has made no comment let alone shown reproach in reference to the utterances of a senior and influential member of the party. And he certainly hasn’t condemned Letwin, retrospectively or otherwise. Unsurprisingly really from a man who shows little understanding of the racist and prejudiced rhetoric that has long existed within his party and indeed British history.

The right-wing media too has had little vitriol for Letwin and his remarks and there is a disheartening lack of public outcry with the same effect. Though as a figure of public life, I feel Letwin should resign. If Cameron sincerely wanted to rid his party of the tag of the nasty party, and show his commitment to leading a government where racist views had no place whatsoever, he would have requested Letwin’s resignation himself. Alas, the ‘nasty party’ image probably appeals to the section of the electorate, British society and business whose favour Cameron is keen to court.

The Letwin story should be huge news. A senior, high profile and influential member of the Conservative Party who’s made these remarks, and who is currently serving in the Cabinet, should be met with widespread censure. But as he’s a Tory, perhaps it doesn’t seem so out of place. That and his comments are directed at black and ‘lower class’ communities, groups who are seen by many as inferior to others within British society. Indeed, had comments been revealed with such prejudice toward other communities and minority groups such as the Jewish Diaspora, women or the disabled, would the response have been so lukewarm, even after thirty years? I doubt it and rightly so. Similarly, I doubt Letwin and other high profile Tories have completely rid themselves of such views either.

The Conservative Party may have tried to modernise and appeal to a broader section of British society. Nonetheless for many, they’ll continue to be the nasty party that Cameron et al have at times sought to refute. The lack of distance between Letwin’s thirty-year old remarks and many of the attitudes that are still present in the Conservative Party and some of its supporters today, proves just that.

The vulnerability of relationships

Without exception, my friends and family consider my partner to be a great person. And albeit biased, I’d wholeheartedly agree. I’m frequently told what a marvellous person she is and given constant compliments on her excellent character. All of the above is irrefutable. However, what about the side of her that others rarely, if ever, see as it’s contained within our relationship? The increasingly loud and relentless person in an argument who fails to see logic when it doesn’t support her perspective? Or her infuriatingly stubborn streak (even to her own detriment)? Not to mention the unrelenting ‘reminders’ to do something I’ve already been asked, even while I’m in the middle of doing something else? I can imagine many men and women are nodding their heads while reading this as they recognise the aforementioned in their own relationships.

I still maintain my partner’s an amazing person but it’s fair to say that her ‘less desirable’ traits are less likely to rear their head outside of our relationship. And the same is undoubtedly applicable to me. This doesn’t make either of us duplicitous or disingenuous and this experience is almost certainly reflected in every relationship and close friendship. Not to mention, just as the more frustrating aspects of one’s personality are reserved for their relationship, the same could be said for the best qualities of one’s character such as the uncompromising altruism that is kept for those closest to us.

Relationships are where polarised behaviours can not only be expected but also accepted; arguably due to the inherent vulnerability of relationships. They represent a safe place for our emotions and character, good, bad and indifferent, to be free; a place where any judgement we're subject to should be neutered by underlying affection and respect.

Vulnerability is what enables a couple to go from yelling at each other, both fuelled by indignant anger, to reconciliation with reciprocated and sincere contrition. It's what gives us the space to get frustrated and show it, rather than keep it contained as we might have to with others, but also to make amends while not constrained by bravado or one-upmanship. It allows us to our lose inhibitions to be frivolous, show and articulate our fears and innermost thoughts and have unfiltered honesty within the sanctuary or our relationship. It's the essence of what makes good and genuine relationships such incredibly honest spheres.

To be vulnerable is a feature of the human condition. Hence it being present in any relationship. Without vulnerability, we lack the capacity for fear and apprehension. We lack the capacity to motivate ourselves toward a greater good for ourselves and those around us through connection and compassion. While vulnerability has become synonymous with exposure or weakness, on reflection, it is at the very core of human existence and by no means an attribute that we should seek to erode or ignore.

Brené Brown’s brilliant TED Talk articulated the struggle of vulnerability. Yet within a relationship, that struggle is countered by the security that is provided via our connections with each other. Anxieties are alleviated with reassurances, loneliness with companionship and judgement and criticism with acceptance. Within the sphere of relationships, opposing emotions are juxtaposed and balanced, thus diminishing our vulnerability. The intrinsic nature of vulnerability within relationships means it isn’t going anywhere and on the whole, this is a good thing. Indeed, for a partner or friend to facilitate the emotional refuge of a relationship that doesn’t allow vulnerability to be a crushing albatross but rather a feature that can be accepted and managed, is testament to a great partner or friend.

As spheres of intimacy, relationships will always have the scope for one’s fragility that vulnerability threatens to expose. Although a good relationship will ensure that doesn’t become the case in providing the requisite sanctuary. But what happens when that fragility is abused and taken advantage of with vulnerability becoming a means to facilitate that very abuse?

Vulnerability presents the landscape for relationships to encompass companionship and empathy. Though the vulnerability of others can be exploited by those who feel unable to embrace their own vulnerability and rather use it as a tool to protect their own insecurities and selfishly advance only their own desires. Mental, emotional and sometimes physical abuse, bullying, control and diminishing of individuality and any modicum of independence outside of a relationship, can just as easily be facilitated via vulnerability. Just as the safety and support afforded by a healthy relationship can be too.

For some, their own weakness compels them to pounce upon the vulnerability of a partner for their own gains. Just as they wouldn’t take such an approach with others (in the knowledge that their efforts would be feeble and consequently crushed), they reserve their form of abuse for the only sphere that they feel confident in experiencing success as they prey on the vulnerability of others.

He or she who is subject to such treatment is sadly pinned down by their own vulnerability and numbed, leaving them emotionally paralysed as their own fragility is taken advantage of. With the presence of vulnerability, it’s therefore little wonder that relationships are forums for the best and worst of the human condition with either being heightened through closeness and connection.

Our struggle with vulnerability is part of our emotional experience. And within relationships, that struggle is intensified. It’s a place for the best and the worst that we have to offer in the knowledge that we escape judgement and reproach to an extent that we could not hope for outside of its parameters. At face value, this presents anxieties that rationally, we might not want to encounter. But the possibility of that vulnerability being the basis of something greater continues to lead us to relationships in the hope that just that will be achieved.