Main Edition
US
FR
October 9, 2024 - 6:00pm
Farewell then, James Cleverly’s ephemeral lead in the Conservative Party’s leadership election. The Shadow Home Secretary has been forced to make way after only 24 hours in pole position after a well-received conference speech. His loss is Kemi Badenoch and Robert Jenrick’s gain: they are the two leadership candidates who Tory MPs have nominated to be selected by the party membership.
It wasn’t just Cleverly who was surprised by the result — MPs’ gasps of shock were reported by those watching the results of the final Parliamentary round in Westminster’s Committee Room 14. “One Nation” contender Tom Tugendhat was knocked out in yesterday’s round and his votes were widely expected to be distributed between Cleverly and Jenrick in a bid to prevent a member’s coronation of Badenoch, the contest’s most putatively Right-wing candidate.
Instead, the two most Right-wing candidates will now be put to the membership to choose between. Far from learning from July’s catastrophic defeat — the worst in its Parliamentary history — the party’s MPs are in full indulgence mode.
Every party leadership election is a choice between ideology or power. Political history on both sides of the aisle is littered with the career wreckages of winning ideological candidates — from Iain Duncan Smith and Liz Truss on the Right, to Michael Foot and Jeremy Corbyn on the Left. The lesson is clear: in order to implement any ideology at all, power — and the compromises necessary to achieve it — must come first.
It means that, even if a candidate cares deeply about their pet issues, they need to be prepared to put some aside when prioritising what they choose to talk about. Nothing short of a laser-like, monomaniacal focus on what is necessary to discuss and do is needed to make political headway. Without this, any nuance and thought put into a wider political philosophy is lost.
Neither Jenrick nor Badenoch have been prepared to do this during the leadership election so far, with the latter focusing on outdated culture war issues, and the former loudly burnishing his credentials on immigration. That’s not to say these issues don’t matter — of course they do — but the wider electorate is far more likely to reward attention devoted to bread-and-butter political issues such as housing, childcare affordability, and NHS waiting lists.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeSo naive. If the author had been paying attention he might have noticed all sorts of tactical voting skullduggery intended to deliver these final two.
Badenoch will be the favourite and rightly so, despite her poor choice of financial backer. She would be very good in opposition and doesn’t need to worry about ‘wider electorate issues’ for another four years. Assuming Labour make it that far of course.
That’s exactly how i see it. Badenoch is way ahead of [what remains of] the parliamentary party, whose “gasps” at the outcome only indicate their lack of nous. Your point about not needing to worry about ‘wider electoral issues’ for a while is exactly what those with a seat in the Commons should, but apparently fail, to understand. It may take them four years to catch up with her, if she wins.
Out of interest has she, or any of the candidates, declared and made transparent their financial backers? Morgan McSweeney will be loading the gun.
Badenoch is involved with a climate change sceptic, using his facilities and stuff. Regardless of one’s views on this it’s a relationship that spells problems, conflicts and the wrong headlines.
I hope to see her jumping clear of the hurdles she puts in front of herself.
The fact that she’s supported by a climate change sceptic is exactly the right sort of headline for me. And for an ever-increasing number of others, who now understand exactly how shonky and untrustworthy the so-called “science” of climate change is, which mostly isn’t science at all, just politics.
It’s now clear that James Cleverly should in fact join Starmer’s government in a senior cabinet post.
That won’t happen, but there is now more of a chance the Tories fracture in half. Much will depend what direction the winner then takes the party. If it’s Right they’ve had it. Even with Nige’s lot they’re doomed if they fracture. Remember Libs/Lab took more seats off them than Reform.
Good day today for Labour. Will have cheered them up after dreadful mess of last few weeks.
I just meant, in view of the horlicks he’s just made of his leadership bid, I feel he would fit right in in Starmer’s Cabinet. Between Miliband and Lammy. Or perhaps as the replacement Chief of Staff.
That’s feels a bit like delusional copium JW.
I’ll offer you a bet here now that there’ll be no Conservative party fracture over the next 5 years. No evidence of this at all. One or two MPs might bail out to the Lib Dems or Labour. Don’t think that’s likely though. Nothing more.
None of us know today how good or bad Badenoch or Jenrick might be as a leader. Isn’t it at least worth waiting a few months before jumping to any conclusions ?
Point was there is more chance. I still think Tories instinct for power makes it an outside bet, but that bet improved with outcome yesterday.
We might be amazed that talents and abilities not yet apparent come to the fore in whoever wins. We’ll see.
Certain people become terribly animated as to whether MPs or members should chose Party Leaders, but the truth is that they are both rubbish. Leaders chosen by either the MPs or the members are generally bad enough. Yet the Conservatives look set to join Labour in having one who had been chosen by both. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.
Conservative MPs chose John Major, William Hague, Michael Howard, Theresa May and Rishi Sunak, while the party members presented a grateful nation with Iain Duncan Smith, David Cameron, Boris Johnson and Liz Truss. Take your pick. It was considered that Howard, May and Sunak were self-evidently the only candidates, meaning that May and Sunak were appointed directly to the Premiership without a vote’s having been cast even among MPs, although the MPs had been heavily behind both. In and out of Parliament, any doubters were dismissed as obvious lunatics.
Labour pulled the same trick with Gordon Brown, although he would also have won a members’ ballot. But in 2020, the Parliamentary Labour Party had been all ready to secede, and to litigate for the party’s assets, if the plebs had not given it who it wanted, as they duly did. The 100-year blackout of the Left had been reimposed, so the only noises off that anyone would admit to being able to hear were from sniffy old Blairites. Those can hardly complain today, though. Beyond their wildest dreams is the means-testing of Brown’s winter fuel payment, a key measure in cementing the enormous popularity that he enjoyed for many years, long after most voters had recognised that the Blairites’ own hero was a war criminal surrounded by crooks.
Well, now we have another Prime Minister who is a war criminal surrounded by crooks, and who is arguably a crook himself. When he is not starving children, then he is freezing pensioners. The MPs and the party members both chose him, although at the present rate the MPs will soon be the only remaining members of the Labour Party. So again, and even before considering that Labour’s rules had been changed under Keir Starmer to make a contested Leadership Election effectively impossible, when it came to whether MPs or members should choose the Leader, then take your pick.
” ‘Outdated’ culture war issues” ? Since when?
If only.
Quite. That comment alone shows the author hasn’t a clue.
I was just going to say the exact same thing. It was immediately obvious that was written by a man as women don’t see their erasure as ‘outdated’. Keep on Kemi!
A rather sexist remark, if I may so so, and in more ways than one. The first and more obvious one is that plenty of men (me among them) don’t see the culture war issues as outdated; and the second is that you home in on the erasure of women, to use your phrase, as if it that were the only thing the culture wars were about, which is clearly not the case. Though I appreciate it may be the only one that matters to you.
Absolutely, culture wars don’t end just because one side unilaterally declares it to be so. Even if Labour would like everyone to shut up about all the inconvenient social issues that are leading to a spectacular post-election slump, there’s no reason for the Tories to play along when a huge chunk of their base have defected to Reform (19-20% national support based on the latest polls).
If they want to win government again (and win because of their platform, rather than being seen as the least worst option) the Tories need to bring back disaffected voters into the fold. These voters want action on immigration, ‘anti-racism’, gender ideology, positive British identity, etc. – arrogantly dismissing these concerns as a meaningless ‘culture war’ will simply reinforce the existing resentment and guarantee the Tories will remain out of power. If indeed they even survive in the long term.
That all said, there’s good ways and bad ways to fight a culture war. If Badenoch or Jenrick copy Donald Trump’s approach, it will spell political death given most Brits are not receptive to that sort of politics. But they absolutely can present themselves as mature, competent leaders whose policy decisions on immigration, race relations, history, and so on, are simply offering what the majority of citizens have long asked for. If that message takes hold, then it is the progressive/corporate elite in their ivory towers who stand accused of leading a ‘culture war’ against the UK, not the Tories.
Yup. This is more same-old-same-old MSM junk. Neither candidate has stood up against the massive threats to the UK and RoW. I am speaking of the ongoing evil antics of the UN, WEF, WHO etc..
The only MP who had the intelligence & enough of a scientific education to call out massive fraud (Andrew Bridgen) was treated disgracefully by parliament as a whole and the Tories in particular. If they grovelled with an abject apology for their behaviour and begged forgiveness from Bridgen & the electorate then I might be persuaded to think about voting for them again. Until then . . . never.
Of course, it won’t happen because they, too, are in hock to the Davos devils. 2TQueer isn’t the only Windbag happier in Davos than Westminster.
But to appeal to “the wider electorate” the contender first has to become leader of the party, and therefore a potential PM. In short, to obtain power in the party.
The Tory party membership will fully understand that the “bread and butter issues” are the most important but want reassurance that those issues are not going to be addressed by yet more Blairite/Cameron “third way” ie large state at taxpayer’s expense “solutions”.
The country needs soundly based economic growth not fake growth based on government spending.
Whoever wins two-thirds of the MPs didn’t support. No ringing endorsement that and as Author says the history on such similar weak support not good.
Good day for Labour and not just because it showed a divided Tory parliamentary party, but because the winners will now fight down a cul-de-sac. ‘All new mothers are scroungers’ vs ‘our SAS are war criminals’ a great pair-off. What a bunch of numpties.
And then back down the cul-de-sac with Nige too.
I actually quite like Kemi and she’ll certainly make it entertaining, but a brittleness that undo her one suspects been exposed. Nonetheless hope she gets it and for positive reasons.
So Two Tier’s main problem is his own party. He must so relieved…
I think that’s true
He is probably relieving himself as we speak.
That’s an obviously ridiculous conclusion from the data available. And one that I heard repeatedly from the supposed experts talking about this on Radio 4 this evening.
The MPs voted for their *preferred candidate*. No information was recorded about who they would have voted against. Or who their second preference would have been. For all we know, 90% of Conservative MPs might prefer one of these candidates to Rishi Sunak.
Indeed, there seems to be evidence that some MPs have voted for more than one of the top 3 candidates already. I wouldn’t be surprised if some hadn’t voted for all 3 given what’s been going on !
It’s not ridiculous PB. It’s a contestable point, but some things are just facts. Nobody got even close to a majority of support. That means 2/3s of the parliamentary party thought someone else would be better.
Even Starmer got a better proportionate endorsement from the public despite Labour’s low proportion of popular vote. You can see the attack angle the winner will already have repeatedly played back to them.
outdated culture war issues
I don’t think so. The war is only just getting started.
But they are not really “right wing” so much as conservative, I.e. not left wing.
Kemi Badenoch and Robert Jenrick are both just about of my generation, yet they are obsessed with Margaret Thatcher, who left office when they were still in primary school. Their party has had six Prime Ministers since then, three of them have won overall majorities at General Elections, and all six are still alive. Yet someone who has been dead for 11 years, and out of power for 34, continues to preoccupy it, a Captain Kirk who can never be equalled, much less surpassed. One wonders how people who thought like that could feel themselves capable of being Prime Minister in her stead.
Despite the efforts of many others, the only organisation that ever succeeded in getting rid of Thatcher was the Conservative Party. She did not even contest the subsequent General Election, which her party won with what remains the largest vote ever cast for a British political party. No party will ever again take 14 million votes, so John Major’s record will stand forever. As an electoral machine, his party had clearly been right to remove his predecessor. Yet it has entirely forgotten that it ever did so, and would probably deny it.
Ok, I stopped reading just after half way though.
“Outdated culture wars”? WTF
Immigration is last year’s issue??
What would his ideal candidate be like? I shudder to think.
Who cares? The way the UK is currently being run we will require a National Government rather than a party-led term.
One does wonder…
In what sense are Kemi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick “ideological” ? Yet another UnHerd article starts from a false premise – and one for which the author doesn’t even attempt to provide any evidence.
I find it baffling how obsessed some commentators are about ideology. Especially when there’s so little about.
The one good thing about yesterday and today’s result is that it’s blown away the remaining fragment of fig leaf that was masking the utter incompetence and cluelessness of the legacy media. These people entirely lack any wisdom or judgement. When James Cleverley surprisingly surged in the vote yesterday, it never seemed to occur to any of them that this might be an outlier and down to tactical voting. In spite of decades of evidence that Tory MPs do unpredictable things in leadership elections.
They seem so caught up in pushing their own narratives and hopes that actually doing the job they’re paid to do is no longer a requirement,
The article is complete rubbish. And there’s a bit more to politics these days than simple left/right.
Another Polly Filler article on UnHerd by someone who I bet went to Oxford. And, clearly, hasn’t a clue what the man or woman on the Clapham omnibus cares about.
There is one issue that will unite 60 pc of the voting public- freedom of speech and expression, which means getting rid of laws on hate crime, and publicly stating that racism, LBGT, and global warming are NOT of interest and concern.
I wish I could also believe that most of the public genuinely care about free speech. At the moment the wokerati have the whip-hand and therefore the political right talks about the importance of free speech. But looking around on the internet I get the feeling most of them really only object to the current agenda of those exercising censorship (be it officially or culturally enforced) and if/when they attain the whip-hand themselves, they’ll take exactly the same position as the wokerati do now: “It’s not that we’re authoritarian, it’s just that we’re right about everything.”
Just what I needed, another article by an “analyst” telling the electorate what they think.
Can hardly be bothered to read anything about the Conservative party. They will never unite and be back in power. Their time is over.
Don’t underestimate the Conservative and Unionist Party (note the full name), which in recent years successfully became a permanent coalition between social conservatives and economic liberals, so successful in fact that people often need to be reminded that there is nothing natural about the alliance in question.
I don’t seek to argue that the Tory Party itself is a masterful, multi-generational political strategist here, more that the political Right in general is better suited to the deals and compromises realism demands. The infighting that the Tories always seem to have a problem with is actually a mark of success, not failure, as differences of similar scales on the Left more often causes parties to split entirely (the old Judean People’s Front problem that Monty Python expertly parodied in the same scene that prophesised radical transgenderism – no wonder John Cleese got cancelled these days).
Anyway, irrespective of what Nigel Farage is saying, there will be a deal between Reform and the Conservative Party that prevents a left-wing-style ideological split on the Right sabotaging the ability to mount an attack on Labour in 2029. I have no idea what shape it will be of course, but four more years of what we’ve seen in the last 100 days will concentrate minds, you may rest assured of that.
This article seems to be more of a critique of the Conservative’s leadership selection process than anything else.
As for what kind of leader the Conservative party need in order to have a chance of power again, I would say what they’ve lacked in the last few leaders a real sense of conviction and belief in anything (Liz Truss aside).
We have had a string of Tory leaders who have cleaved to the centre, failing to do anything significant to reverse the damaging aspects of New Labour’s legacy or install their own significant programs for change. This is partly because they’ve been largely fire fighting the entire time (first dealing with the lingering effects of the financial crisis, then Brexit, covid and finally the energy crisis). They never had time for anything really radical.
I think that whoever becomes leader needs to use this term in opposition to start building up a real program for change and action. We don’t need someone managerial or who is content to merely tinker around the edges. Whether one of the two remaining candidates will be up to that job remains to be seen but at least they have time. Who knows, if Liz Truss had had more time to plan and form a coherent program for change (rather than the rushed and half baked program we actually got) things might have gone a lot differently for her…
This analysis, like a few others I’ve read lately, looks like special pleading by the political class. Talking about the difference in priorities between the Tory membership, the MPs, and the electorate as a whole as if this represents some intractable conundrum when in fact the major conflict of priorities is the same for the Tories as it is for all parties: the fact that the political class disagrees fundamentally with the voters about how the country ought to be run.
A nod to this is made in the article about things like “…housing, childcare affordability, and NHS waiting lists…” – but using these as way to dismiss concerns about culture war issues and immigration is dementedly silly: these issues matter enormously to everyone not in Westminster and in fact even partly underpin the more everday issues anyway.
Yes, silly arguments about abstract issues such as, say, whether a man can become a woman just because he feels like it may appear to be a waste of time when people are dealing with lengthening waiting lists and collapsing public services but here’s the thing: when such a man is in women-only spaces in public institiutions and is getting treated on the NHS, and when the NHS and the local authority is spending money on critical race theory employee training instead of letting them do their jobs, that impacts directly upon the everyday concerns of voters and taxpayers.
The point here is that the concerns raised in this article aren’t solved by having James Cleverly either in the final two for internal election, and they very emphatically don’t represent any sort of defence for electing him leader of the Tories. Complaining that the two leadership candidates are from the Tories’ right-wing is silly, because the Tories just had their worst ever defeat precisely because they were no longer the right wing party people expect them to be.
What the Tories have forgotten is that they don’t win elections as a result of the idea that anyone likes them. They win elections when the voters can see that the country has been broken by the alternatives, the voters resign themselves to a difficult few years while the Tories fix it, so the Tories win enough votes to get the job done. Winning elections on this basis and then paying attention to polls and social media commentary is a fatal error for any government elected to do a difficult job in the manner described. The Tories should never have made the mistake of competing with the Left on the Left’s own turf. And they can’t even say they weren’t warned.