From the totemic to the trivial, no news cycle is immune to that most inevitable of developments: an intervention from Kemi Badenoch.
Since securing the Conservative leadership in November, Badenoch has questioned the veracity of Reform UK’s membership ticker; suggested the Partygate scandal was “overblown”; scolded the humble sandwich as “not real food”; claimed (erroneously) that Netflix series Adolescence “fundamentally changed” the events it is based on; and ridden to the defence of US vice president JD Vance after he suggested (falsely) that the UK and France have not fought a war in 40 years.
The consequence of each of these interventions has been a series of unwelcome headlines for the Conservative Party — as it seeks to carve some space in a crowded, hostile political landscape.
Badenoch, for what it is worth, would protest she is merely doing her job: securing headlines for her party at an immensely perilous moment. With the Faragist tide rising and potential irrelevance looming, she is securing a future for the Conservatives one write-up at a time. Moreover, she is doing so while saying what she thinks and thus building a reputation for plain-speaking.
Badenoch has no time for the question-dodging sophists in the Labour Party. Note her response to sandwichgate: “I got asked what I like to eat and I answered the question which is something Keir Starmer doesn’t do.”
***This content first appeared in Politics.co.uk’s Politics@Lunch newsletter, sign-up for free and never miss our daily briefing.***
Badenoch is also living up to the platform she set out during the Conservative leadership contest. “I am sad to be in opposition”, she told the Tory grassroots last October, “but there’s a part of me that’s excited.”
“Opposition is an opportunity — an opportunity to make Angie uncomfortable, to make Rachel wriggle, and make Starmer sweat. We are going to have fun.”
She added: “Some people say I like a fight — I can’t imagine where they got that idea. But it’s not true. I do not like to fight.
“But I’m not afraid to fight. I don’t fight for the sake of fighting, but I do fight for you.”
Perhaps it is in this vein that we should consider the Conservative leader’s latest controversy.
Taking to the broadcast studios yesterday, Badenoch defended Israel’s decisionto deny two MPs entry into the country and deport them. She told the BBC that Israel had a right to “control its borders”, insisting it is “shocking” that there are Labour MPs — in this instance Abtisam Mohamed and Yuan Yang — whom other countries will not admit.
In a joint statement released Sunday morning, some time before Badenoch’s comments, Yang and Mohamed said they were on a trip to visit the occupied West Bank to “witness, first-hand, the situation” and were “astounded” after being stopped at the airport.
The Conservative leader was subsequently slammed for siding with the Israeli authorities over her parliamentary colleagues.
David Lammy, the foreign secretary, wrote on X: “It’s disgraceful you are cheerleading another country for detaining and deporting two British MPs. Do you say the same about Tory MPs banned from China?
“This government will continue to stand up for the rights of our MPs to speak their mind, whatever their party.”
Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey accused Badenoch of “unbelievably poor judgment” and “another complete shocker”.
Intriguingly, Richard Fuller, the shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, also took a very different stance from his leader. Speaking to Times Radio on Sunday, he commented: “Any member of parliament who goes on an official trip should be, I would think, welcomed in any country.
“They’re going there to be better informed about the situation and then report back to their parliamentary colleagues about what they have found.”
***This content first appeared in Politics.co.uk’s Politics@Lunch newsletter, sign-up for free and never miss our daily briefing.***
But Badenoch doubled down in a social media post of her own. Responding to Lammy, she declared: “Unlike China, Israel is our ally and a democracy. A good foreign sec [sic] would be able to make that distinction.
“Perhaps Labour MPs could put UK national interest first and do their jobs instead of campaigning for airports in Kashmir or promoting Hamas propaganda in parliament.”
For those who have followed Badenoch’s career since her initial rise to prominence in 2022, this row follows a familiar pattern.
There’s the immediate context: an unexpected development that requires some comment from a senior politician. Then arrives Badenoch’s reflexive, at times logic-defying, response. The ensuing commentary considers what audience the Conservative leader could possibly have in mind. The rebukes roll in — first from the opposition party best-placed to benefit, and then on a cross-party basis. Finally, Badenoch decides to double down with an excessively forceful response to her critics.
This pattern presents some pretty obvious political problems for the Conservative Party.
Firstly, Badenoch’s comments often reframe a news cycle in a fashion that reflects poorly on the Tories. Badenoch’s baseless criticism of Reform UK’s membership ticker, issued via a lengthy social media post in the quiet of Christmas recess, found a prominent place in the news bulletins. Farage was invited to respond, and so he did — again and again at the Conservative Party’s expense.
Secondly, as Tory leader, Badenoch’s statements become — immediately and inevitably — the “line” for her party to take. Conservative MPs and frontbench spokespeople suddenly find themselves asked to repeat their leader’s latest intervention. Anything other than a fulsome endorsement of Badenoch’s position is considered a slight on her authority.
Thirdly, Badenoch would be wrong to assume that provoking headlines is tantamount to relevance. The Conservative leader toured the broadcast studios yesterday, presumably, to get ahead of the government’s announcements this week on Trump’s trade war. But any such stance was lost in the furore she triggered.
Opposition, especially when it comes to press strategy, is characterised by opportunity costs. The media spotlight is finite; and so Badenoch’s eye-grabbing “interventions” will always secure the story. More substantive contributions will be forgotten.
And yet, the biggest problem with Badenoch’s instinctive interventions is that they frequently conjure attack-lines for her opponents from thin air.
***This content first appeared in Politics.co.uk’s Politics@Lunch newsletter, sign-up for free and never miss our daily briefing.***
Take the Conservative leader’s comments Sunday. The inability of Badenoch and frontbencher Richard Fuller to adopt the same position was weaponised by Labour’s press team. Foreign Office minister Hamish Falconer, set for a ministerial statement today on this matter, duly commented: “A good leader of the opposition can usually command the confidence of their front bench.
“Mr Fuller’s position, like the foreign secretary’s, is the one that I hope the whole house can agree with; on both sides of the aisle.”
Another pertinent example concerns Badenoch’s recent characterisation of the Liberal Democrats as a party that is “not on Twitter” but rather in “local communities”.
The throwaway line, delivered on Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson’s podcast, framed Ed Davey’s keynote speech at his party’s spring conference last month. (Expect Badenoch’s remark to appear on many a Lib Dem leaflet ahead of the local elections on 1 May).
And then there’s Badenoch’s comments relating to the triple lock, issued in January, which have inspired several planted questions at PMQs — not least of all Labour MP John Grady’s offering last week.
Grady told the House: “This week, the full state pension will rise by £472 a year, putting money in the pockets of pensioners in Glasgow and across the United Kingdom.
“Does the prime minister agree that this rise is possible only because of Labour’s plan for change and our commitment to the triple lock?”
Starmer agreed (of course) before turning his fire on Badenoch: “The Leader of the Opposition wants to means-test the state pension so that she can cut it.”
In the round, Badenoch’s recurrent rows form a pretty comprehensive picture of her political understanding — specifically, her perception of public opinion, her party’s vulnerabilities, and the media landscape.
Badenoch’s sandwich commentary, and revealed preference for a lunchtime steak, has had an intriguingly long afterlife. (Rachel Reeves raised it at the spring statement). This can be explained by the following facts: (1), the British public, generally, likes sandwiches; (2), the Conservative Party, historically, is exposed to suggestions it is “out of touch”; and, (3), the media enjoys the ridiculousness of the remark.
Consider also Badenoch’s comments on Partygate, JD Vance, maternity payand the minimum wage in these terms. After all, can the apparent “authenticity” of Badenoch’s positions really compete with the manifest political downsides?
Above all else however, Badenoch’s rows point to a lack of understanding or research about a given topic. Her position on Adolescence, while unlikely to dictate the outcome of the next election, was baseless — and apparently borne of a social media conspiracy theory. Her (mis)understanding of public opinion could well be linked back to an evidenced over-reliance on social media.
***This content first appeared in Politics.co.uk’s Politics@Lunch newsletter, sign-up for free and never miss our daily briefing.***
My points here will not come as a surprise to many within the Conservative Party. Sir John Hayes, a onetime supporter of Robert Jenrick, suggested in October that Badenoch would make an “irascible” leader. Jenrick himself suggested she could turn the party into a “Twitter account”. And then there is the common refrain that Badenoch can start a fight in an empty room.
The Conservative leader’s combative predisposition is a feature, not a bug, of her approach. That much is plain. Badenoch cannot be coached, by experience or external influence, away from this fundamental facet of her politics. It is simply something the Conservative Party will have to endure as long as Badenoch is leader.
From 2020-2024, Keir Starmer tried his utmost to alienate as few voters as politically possible, while still going through the motions of opposition. That ensured he was well-positioned to benefit from the tide of anti-incumbency sentiment. This phenomenon, once so fruitful for the prime minister, is now working against him.
Despite a dearth of policy, Badenoch is not copying Starmer’s “small target” strategy. And so I pose the following question: will Badenoch’s maladroit interventions alienate a critical mass of voters before the anti-incumbency tide sweeps her into Downing Street (or at least over the finish line with the help of Reform)?
In other words, will Badenoch’s missteps prove so consequential that they overwhelm the prevailing geopolitical and economic conditions, which should benefit her as the default anti-incumbent option?
Of course, if the historically regicidal Conservative Party dislikes the answer to these questions, they could always revert to type.
Subscribe to Politics@Lunch
Lunchtime briefing
Andrew Ranger: ‘Change takes time — but Labour will deliver’
Lunchtime soundbite
‘I still think that this big tariff threat globally … It’ll look different in three months time.
‘He’ll use it as a big negotiating tool. I think we’re better positioned to come out of this with a deal than almost any other country.’
— Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, says that he thinks the Donald Trump tariffs are just “a big negotiating tool”.
Now try this…
‘UK ministers consider abolishing hundreds of quangos, sources say’
Via the Guardian.
‘My only priority is making British people better off’
Keir Starmer writes for the Times. (Paywall).
‘5 pro tips for Donald Trump from Liz Truss* amid market bloodbath’
Liz Truss (as imagined by Matt Honeycombe-Foster) writes for Politico.
On this day in 2022:
Minister denies chancellor’s wife is ‘sheltering’ from tax
Subscribe to Politics@Lunch
Source: Politics
