Spare us the sanctimony about the tory leadership contest | thearticle

From the tone of some of the coverage of the Tory leadership contest, you’d be forgiven for thinking that vigorous debate is alien to British political culture. Hand-wringing and angst over

the supposed lack of decorum have filled the airwaves and news websites, while something dangerously approaching a consensus seems to be emerging that the whole process has been unedifying,

or worse: a Bad Thing for British politics. There are several things to say to this. First, politicians in this country have been going at each other hammer and tongs for centuries: indeed,

this has proved an enduring and distinctive characteristic of our democracy. The language and sartorial preferences might have changed — no Claire’s Accessories for you, Mr Disraeli — but

the fundamental premise of spirited give and take has not. One of the chief complaints seems to have centred around the so-called “blue-on-blue” nature of the contest. But why should being

from the same party alter anything? Wouldn’t it be odd if there were no disagreements among those competing for the leadership of a political party? In what business are there not

divergences about policy or company direction among the members of the board? In what school are there not disagreements among the Senior Leadership Team? For all the power that they wield,

political parties should not be any different – all pulling for the same ultimate goal but with different opinions on how to get there. Not so long ago political commentators (and indeed

many voters) were decrying the underlying conformity of the main British political parties, the lack of diversity of thought among the political classes, whether on Left or Right. Yet here

we have a significant and genuinely held difference in views, something which is surely healthy both for the Conservative Party and for the country more broadly. What about the damage this

could be doing to the Tories in the longer term? Well — maybe. But has the whole process not exhibited the diversity of the modern party to the electorate, while also proving useful

preparation for whoever does end up becoming PM? Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss have already gained extensive practice in TV debates and will have been examined rigorously by voters and

journalists by the time the next election eventually hoves into view; Starmer will be coming from more of a standing start. And in any case, journalists should be careful what they wish for.

Truss and Sunak have been providing column inches in abundance. Had the contest been less rambunctious, the criticism would instead have been of the “Tory bore-fest”, where “we’ve got five

more weeks of this” would have taken on quite a different complexion. So whatever we think of the policies or the individuals themselves, we should at least value the fact that they are able

to debate with such force on the public stage. Rather this a thousand times than the stultifying fug of political conformity in dictatorships and one-party states around the world. Obvious

to say, but apparently all too easy to forget. A MESSAGE FROM THEARTICLE _We are the only publication that’s committed to covering every angle. We have an important contribution to make, one

that’s needed now more than ever, and we need your help to continue publishing throughout the pandemic. So please, make a donation._