Priti Patel entered parliament in 2010 as part of a fresh group of Conservative MPs who began their Westminster careers in the wake of the expenses scandal. Widespread anger with politicians who were seen as lazy and intent on feathering their own nests made this intake more determined than ever to exert their independence.
The new MP for Witham — described as a Thatcherite on the right of the party — was soon being viewed as a rising star, elected quickly on to the 1922 Committee that represents Tory backbenchers and tipped for promotion into a ministerial role. Years later, the charismatic MP who performed well on media would be talked about as a possible future leader.
Although she was sometimes perceived as outspoken and rebellious in her first years in the House of Commons, her voting record tended to be relatively loyal, as she maintained a strong reputation both within the ranks of government and among her party’s MPs.
However, Patel was part of a major rebellion in October 2011, over an issue that would go on to dominate David Cameron’s leadership and about which she had long held passionate views: Britain’s membership of the EU. The then prime minister was rocked by the decision of 81 Tories (including a third of the new 2010 intake) to vote against him in favour of a referendum on Britain’s membership.
It was the start of a campaign that resulted in him offering the country the 2016 vote that killed his own political career.
Because of the scale of the rebellion, many of those who voted against Cameron that October (including Andrea Leadsom, Tracey Crouch and Patel) were forgiven and later promoted into ministerial roles.
Patel — whose parents, Sushil and Anjana, were immigrants originally from the Indian province of Gujarat but whose families had moved to Uganda — was first appointed as the UK’s Indian diaspora champion in 2013.
In July 2014 she was made exchequer secretary in the Treasury and then in May 2015, she became employment minister in the Department for Work and Pensions — the job she held when the government embarked on the EU referendum.
As Cameron relaxed ministerial collective responsibility, Patel quickly became one of the most visible and outspoken members of the Vote Leave campaign team, even escalating a row in government over the treatment of Brexit ministers.
She accused the cabinet secretary, Jeremy Heywood, of an “unconstitutional act” after he told civil servants that they may have to bypass ministers who were campaigning for leave.
Patel — who backed Theresa May in the Conservatives’ post-referendum leadership battle — was rewarded with a cabinet role as the government tried to ensure a balance of pro-leave and pro-remain ministers around the table.
However, after May was stripped of her majority in June’s general election, talk of Patel as a possible leader grew, with a Conservative Home survey placing her third favourite, amid a clamour for a candidate from the next generation.
Patel is by no means a Cameroon from the modernising wing of the party. As well as her fierce campaigning for Brexit, including over needs to rein in immigration, she had also called for the death penalty to be reintroduced.
In fact, Patel has been branded a “modern-day Norman Tebbit”.
But the 46-year-old, who is married with one son, is seen as a slick operator who, as an Asian woman, can show a different face of Toryism.
Her background breaks with some of the stereotypes of the Cameron years. Patel’s parents were left penniless and homeless under the murderous regime of Idi Amin and came to the UK, where they set up a chain of newsagents.
Patel was born in London, and educated in a comprehensive school in Watford before studying economics at Keele University and taking on a postgrad at the University of Essex: a strong fit for the Tory hope to present itself as a party of aspiration.
However, whether through naivety or worse, her failure to let the prime minister and Foreign Office know of invitations for a series of meetings in Israel could be Patel’s downfall, not just as a cabinet minister, but perhaps as a potential future leader too.
It was certainly notable in parliament that colleagues were not lining up to support her. And what will be perceived as a closeness to the Israeli regime, not matched by efforts with Palestinian counterparts, could be damaging in the longer term.
However, this scandal is unlikely to break her resolve: she remains an impressive media performer, who would offer a completely different feel to the Tory party, with a political ideology more sharply in contrast to Labour than many of her peers. And she will certainly not keep a low profile on the backbenches.
