A defence of Priti Patel

When looking at the Priti Patel bullying scandal, I turn to history. For half a century — until five years ago — I was a political commentator and labour editor. I was privileged to observe the two most important but controversial woman politicians of my period. (Leave aside poor Theresa May who became Prime Minister after I retired from active service.)

One Tory, one Labour. Maggie Thatcher, vilified by Labour and destroyed by Tory Wets. And Barbara Castle, also a formidable politician. She was a family friend (my father was a trade union general secretary) whom I followed day by day with affection and admiration. I was the Guardian‘s young labour editor when she fought bravely and tenaciously to reform the unions as Harold Wilson’s Secretary of Employment.

The unions defeated her, but the country was on her side. Truth is, like many who knew her, I was, I suppose, a little bit in love with her. Lots of people were. They really did call her “Our Barbara”. At the height of her battle with the union barons, we walked together (no security in those days) from her headquarters in St James’s Square to Parliament. Men came up to her and said things like “Good on you, Barbara” and “Hang in there, love”.

But there is a further reason. My late wife was also of Indian heritage, and spent much of her working life on endless committees, commissions and working parties, charities and policy groups for successive governments and the EU. She was a gentle, kindly person who never bullied anybody in her life. But she had to have a will of iron to get her ideas taken seriously, given the handicaps of being brown and female in the then largely white male world. Her success record was pretty good and she ended up with an OBE. But she didn’t get it by allowing herself to be pushed around.

So here we go. Why do so many of today’s Tory Wets, and much of male-dominated Whitehall, hate Priti Patel? Part of the Patel problem is that she has more than a touch of the “Thatchers”. A smack of firm government is a plus in a man. Women in politics are still expected by many men (alas) to be, well, feminine. They can be women’s libbers, but their interest ought really to lie in health and welfare, in caring, and in the rehabilitation of prisoners. Being nice to people. That sort of thing.

But Priti is Maggie Mark Two, tough on both crime (the sneer on the backbenches is that she is a hanger and flogger) and the police who have become too namby pamby. She thinks civil servants should shape up too. She is a dedicated believer in free market economics. Doesn’t like terrorists or their apologists. In short she is, like Thatcher, a radical reformer. And she has an added problem. She is of Indian heritage. A lot of elderly male MPs still think of Indian women as submissive. Priti doesn’t do submissive. It rankles.

Another of Priti’s problems is that she is not Barbara Castle Mark Two. Apart from being a tough and effective politician, Barbara had a powerful, not-so-secret weapon. She flirted with individual MPs, with the Chamber, with journalists and with the public. She didn’t simper and come on all girly. But men were attracted to her. Somehow they gained the impression that she was attracted to them. Somehow women forgave her. I suspect because they knew it was all part of her game. And they felt it was reasonable for Barbara to use all the weapons at her disposal, fighting to survive and prosper in a man’s world.

It was all very innocent. Even so, times have changed. Of course I am not suggesting that Priti could, would or should follow Barbara’s example. And, anyway, that sort of flirtatiousness is outdated and simply not Priti’s style. But it might have helped as she rightly flexed her muscles in her new job.

And so to the crisis which provoked this article. The walk-out by Sir Philip McDougall Rutnam, Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath, no less, from the top job at the Home Office. He broke the civil service oath of omerta, complained publicly that Patel was a liar and a bully, and turned down what was described as a substantial offer of compensation. He chose instead to threaten to sue the civil service for constructive and unfair dismissal.

An admittedly anonymous senior civil servant who had observed the pair of them in inter-departmental meetings, told the Sunday Telegraph he corrected her in public, and generally tried to undermine her. He said Rutnam’s actions were “ a dangerous precedent — senior civil servants trying to take down a democratically elected minister.” Perhaps Mr Anonymous is a liar.

But remember Rutnam was, in effect, the CEO of the Home Office plc and Patel was his chairman. It is a huge “company” with some 185,000 employees, which was reflected in the fact that his salary was one of the largest in Whitehall. In the private sector, a CEO with a job of that size would be tough enough to take some harsh talk from a newly appointed chairman.

Before the current bust-up, Rutnam had form. He had presided over the end of the Windrush disgrace at the Home Office. That mess cost Amber Rudd her job as Secretary of State because “his” civil servants had somehow misled her in email briefings. That, in turn, caused her to mislead the House. Yet the CEO escaped without a scratch. Before the Home Office, Sir Philip was number one at Transport, where he was charged with sorting out Network Rail. Not an obvious success. That did not stop him from being promoted to become administrative head of one of the three great offices of state. Onwards and upwards. It’s not like that in business.

So it was a delight to see Patel, smiling and sitting confidently next to Boris at PMQs last week, as he robustly defended her. Long may she — and he — continue to prosper.