October 18, 2024 - 7:00am
The Conservative leadership election started on 24 July. That means we’ve had to wait 86 days for the first public debate between the contenders, which eventually came last night on GB News.
Of course, we only got to see the final two candidates: Kemi Badenoch and Robert Jenrick. A podium debate earlier in the race could have given James Cleverly and Tom Tugendhat their chance to shine, but it never came.
Yes, there were the candidates’ speeches at the Conservative Party annual conference, but a compare-and-contrast would have required anyone who wasn’t there to find the footage online and then watch four separate 20-minute monologues back-to-back. Who is going to do that?
That’s why a podium debate is such a user-friendly format — you see the candidates in parallel. Unfortunately, the format for last night’s debate was serial: an hour of Jenrick followed by an hour of Badenoch (including questions).
Nevertheless, a number of differences between the two hopefuls did stand out. In terms of delivery, Jenrick was calm and fluent, for which he was periodically rewarded with polite applause. Badenoch, by contrast, was animated and insistent, hitting clap-line after clap-line. If the GB News audience is representative of the Conservative Party membership at large, she’ll win easily.
Other than style, the key difference was over policy. For Jenrick, the key to everything is regaining trust over immigration, which in turn means leaving the European Convention on Human Rights. Badenoch, however, is all about principles before policy. “I’m not here to impose what’s in my head on the party,” she said. And as for the ECHR, she’s not sure anyway. A podium debate would have allowed the candidates to challenge one another on this point of tension.
There were other times when they should have been called out. Jenrick was forever promising to “end the drama” — as if that was a barrier to getting things done in government. I don’t ever recall Margaret Thatcher ending the drama.
As for Badenoch, she should have been challenged when she said we should bury electricity cables instead of using pylons. Just a moment earlier, she’d been decrying the cost of energy. For someone who makes great play of being an engineer, she ought to know more about the relative expense of different types of infrastructure.
On the whole, both candidates are accomplished performers, which is precisely why they need to face tougher tests before party members cast their votes. It is therefore ludicrous that voting had started before last night’s debate. Even worse, two other proposed debates — one to be hosted by The Sun and the other by the BBC — have fallen through.
Another format that might have worked is the hard-hitting long interview. During the 2022 leadership campaign, Rishi Sunak submitted to a grilling by Andrew Neil. Liz Truss, however, did not. It might have saved a lot of trouble if she’d wilted under Neil’s fire — and not during her brief but eventful time in Downing Street.
This time round, there’s been no such ordeal for any candidate. Throughout the leadership race, the individual campaigns and Tory HQ have consistently gone for the soft option. Both Badenoch and Jenrick would have us believe they’re made of tough stuff. But thanks to this misconceived leadership contest, we’ll have to take that on trust.
Peter Franklin is Associate Editor of UnHerd. He was previously a policy advisor and speechwriter on environmental and social issues.
peterfranklin_
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.
SubscribeSadly they are irrelevant. They might be great people, have the right policies etc but they are Tories and it would take a long term of real Conservatism in power before I could ever trust them again.
Maybe they’ll get back in by default, just as Labour did when people were sick of the Tories but hardly enamoured of Labour. It wouldn’t even take 14 years this time.
Taken on face value both candidates have something positive to offer but face two major obstacles :-
1 – they would have to lead a conservative Party that is stuffed to the rafters with liberals who will obstruct and undermine any attempt to promote truly conservative policies. Neither candidate gave any indication of how they would deal with that.
2 – even if they can achieve #1 they then have to face an electorate who have heard it all before from the Tories only to be betrayed over and over again. While both recognised the need to restore trust neither of them indicated what they would do (ie actions not words) to achieve that.
As for me, l like Kemi and would like to trust Jenrick but I don’t see any way either of them have a hope of making the Tories electable again in my lifetime. Given the ongoing changes and growth within Reform l will be continuing to support them.
On 1> Kemi Badenoch was clear that these major policy positions need to be clarified by internal reviews – after re-agreeing core principles – and MPs being aligned before publicly putting them forward as proposals. I think that is a reasonable stab at saying how she would deal with the differences. However, your accurate 2> will certainly hamper any rewards for this work.
I have reached the conclusion that Badenoch seems to be one of the few MPs that realise that things need to be designed before you build them. It really shouldn’t be like this.
There is a chance to do something about 1) because such was the 2024 wipeout that they will need select a whole raft of candidates for the 2029 GE. The next few years are the chance to ensure that the next set of Tory MPs are a) not Wets and b) not touchers, crooks, halfwits etc. I think a lot of effort from whoever becomes LOTO will be spent on candidate selection procedures.
The good news for the Tory membership is that both candidates are committed to stop Conservative Central Office dictating candidate lists. This should reduce the type of “Cameron arse kissers” that get selected.
Instead pf perhaps a bunch of Reformist Loons?
The problem is the gene-pool is diminishing for the type of Tory you might prefer and thus some barrel scrapping necessary, unless, and here is what will happen, the Tories tack back to the Centre Right.
We are back yet again with the frog and the scorpion.
I’m inclined to go along with those who see Kemi as feeling good but policy light.
It’s hard to believe any engineer doesn’t know why high voltage long distance transmission cables are unsuitable for burying.
It’s mainly to do with cooling, which is complicated, very expensive and needs more frequent attention and expensive maintenance when buried, but a relative breeze (sorry) when suspended high in the air.
And the birds get to warm their feet.
Not only are underground lines high maintenance but there is a real chance of environmental disaster in the form of oil leaks.
However, real engineers sometimes have a weakness – many don’t realise that overhead lines are bare and uninsulated because of the need for cooling. I had this exact discussion in a seminar once – people just did not believe me.
From my kitchen window I can see one of the main 400kV twin lines in the country. These have always been there. You just don’t notice them after a while. There is no evidence that house prices have been reduced by the presence of the lines.
I suspect you’re right, but wondering how it works in big cities? Is the power more distributed? Perhaps that’s the reason. Anyway, I think she would be amenable to a rational explanation as to why it’s not feasible;
I know this is a matter of me trusting her ,judgement, but I find she does inspire such trust. I really believe she is of a different stripe to the average politician, & wouldn’t be cajoled, corrupted or bullied by the usual suspects. She will have to compromise, obviously, but I instinctively feel her instincts are right. She’s the best chance the Tories have got.
Cities and towns are underground. Have you noticed how often electricity companies are digging up the roads?
Perhaps as an engineer, Kemi has read the recent report from the National Energy System Operator:
“But an official report into the East Anglia Network – where a large-scale pylon roll-out from Norwich to Tilbury is planned – has found that burying cables is cheaper over the longer term.”
Can’t post a link as that would send this post into moderation (Doh!) but Google is your friend.
As this project affects neighbouring constituencies, she’s probably up to speed on the arguments.
I believe she actually cited constituency concerns when discussing this matter yesterday in her (excellent) fielding of questions from the audience. The audience clearly loved her, and barring a major upset, she’ll be leader in a few days.
Labour will probably lose the next election. Their majority, while large, is built on extremely shallow soil, and they’ll soon find (yet again) that countries can’t tax their way to prosperity. So, this contest does matter.
She may well be up to speed, but exactly as one would expect she’s not going to say how she’d pay to bury the cables and whether it can be done as quickly. She wants to face both ways and blinkin obvious.
The report indicated that the cabling could be buried and completed by 2034, the pylons by 2030. This fits mad Ed’s confected and ridiculous net zero deadline, so if course undergrounding is rejected!
This format was appropriate for party membership – but not really for a general election TV debate. You can rest assured that the MSM and the arrogant disrespectful harridans like Emily Maitlis will have their chances later.
Maitlis. The tiresome TV termagant , as I like to think of her.
Imagine Kemi dismantling The Maitliss! Emily would blow a lefty fuse at all the things she could not say!
All it did was further confirm the Tories, and the Right more broadly, miles off the real reflection they need on the balance between Conservatism and Neo-Liberalism, and miles off the real reflection needed on immigration, it drivers and what we can do about them both legal and illegal. These two candidates and what they are prepared to say/not say reflective of where the Right’s supporters are. Still in Cake-ism land where platitudes work.
But they have been blessed with some luck. Starmer not had a good start at all and governing much more difficult. That means there has actually more interest in who Tories choose.
Kemi for me, rather than Generic. She’s still unknown but one just senses she may be able to not only get Starmer right on his toes but also talk more truthfully to the Right. Let’s hope.
Some truth in relation to Jenrick – but nonsense to tarnish Badenock with your simplistic brush about being limited in what “they are prepared to say”
Been eating word salad again Mr Watson? Maybe you should consider writing Kamala’s speeches
You are Kamala Harris, and I claim my five pounds.
Taking more than three months to elect a new leader is stupid in itself, so it’s no surprise that the process been badly handled.
Is it stupid? Isn’t a quick process less likely to produce a good leader? And is there a rush? it seems that Labour will be firmly in power for some time.
It’s stupid at the very least because it leaves them with a stand-in Leader of the Opposition in Parliament for several weeks. It’s also hard to indicate what your policies are, or respond cogently to any national or international crisis which might arise, when you don’t have an established leader. (“Dear Hezbollah, Please get back to us in a coupe of weeks, when we’ve worked out who our leader is. Yours, The Tories.”)
As the leader is chosen by the party membership, one would hope that the members already have some idea of what the leadership candidates stand for. More detailed pitches could then be made via some kind of online symposium, supplemented by some kind of mailout. The whole thing could be done in a month.
The last thing the Tories need now is policies, none of which will make it into the 2029 manifesto. Much as I favour leaving the ECHR, events are very likely to make this policy irrelevant by 2029. If Jenrick is identified as Mr Leaving the ECHR, he’ll be left looking like yesterday’s man.
It’s more than possible that Starmer’s desire to cosy up to Brussels will lead to the UK signing up to an EU plan for offshoring asylum applications. Magically, that would lead to all the lefty commentariat’s objections to Rwanda falling away. At which point, the ECHR argument would lose its key traction on the minds of the electorate. While there are plenty of legal, philosophical and sovereignty arguments for leaving the ECHR, it’s undeniable that immigration is the factor that gives it prominence in today’s political debate.
So, what the Tories need now is not policies, it’s a leader who will make Starmer’s life miserable for the next four years in opposition.
Well, yes. But they also need to rediscover a guiding philosophy as to what being conservative is; a set of beliefs and principles backed up by logic and argument upon which they can then hang their policies and they will all look amazingly coherent and consistent and mutually supportive because there will be a robust ideological underpinning. They have not had this for, well, years and years – which is why they have lost their way.
And would you care to enlighten us on what you believe those beliefs and principles to be? Let’s just start there before we get into what practical policies then actually deliver those principles.
Badenoch has proven her mettle time and again at the dispatch box and in parliamentary committees.
Go to YouTube and search “Badenoch calls Labour MP ‘liar’ over transgender children”.