logo
Kemi Badenoch's missteps are a 'total disaster' for Conservatives, say insiders

Kemi Badenoch's missteps are a 'total disaster' for Conservatives, say insiders

Yahoo5 days ago

Listen to Henry read this article
"Could this be like the 1920s where the Liberals got overtaken by Labour – but this time it's the Conservative Party being overtaken by Reform?"
It's an interesting question – perhaps a little niche. But it's certainly not a question you'd expect to find a senior member of Kemi Badenoch's team openly pondering.
The shadow cabinet minister went on to stress that they were more optimistic: that the resilience of what is often called the world's most successful political party should never be underestimated.
Yet it's not so rare to find Conservative MPs entertaining the demise of the party under whose banner they were elected only last year.
Why? Because since July – when the Conservatives were not just turfed out of office but reduced to their fewest MPs ever – things have only gotten worse.
The initial excitement of a leadership contest and the opportunity to renew their party in opposition has given way, for many Conservative MPs, to a deep and deepening despondency.
And while almost nobody believes that Kemi Badenoch, leader of the party for just under seven months, is the problem, more and more Conservatives admit to seeing her as a problem.
"It's pretty bad," says one Conservative adviser. "I don't think you would find many of her supporters at all who would either tell you it's going well or that they expect her to be there at the general election."
Another senior Conservative puts it more starkly. "This is a hugely important crossroads for the party. Trying to win an election again or just becoming a sort of heritage party that shrivels."
The immediate cause of these statements – one about Badenoch, the other about the party more generally, both utterly fatalistic – was the local election results at the start of the month, a grim reminder for the Conservatives that the only way isn't up.
What began as expectation management, that the Conservatives might lose control of every council they held at the start of the night, became a prophecy. Crucially, the local elections proved that the rapid surge of Reform UK in the polls was real at the ballot box too.
The results also made clear that the challenge facing Badenoch is a dramatically distinctive one.
The Conservatives last left government in 1997, and in the following set of local elections in 1998, their new leader William Hague made modest gains.
When Labour lost office in 2010, their new leader, Ed Miliband, made gains at the local elections the following year. There is a template for how defeated parties fare in their early period out of office – and Badenoch's Conservative Party is diverging from it significantly.
In fact, new analysis by the BBC's Political Research Unit shows that things have got worse for the Conservatives even in the few weeks since the local elections. The Conservatives have lost 44 more councillors since polling day, a rate of about two a day.
There are diverse reasons for this – six (including two this week) have defected to Reform UK, whereas others who have quit have generally left to become independents. Three have died. And it's worth noting that on the other side of the ledger, one independent councillor has defected to the Conservatives since the start of May.
While not completely unheard of, it is unusual for a party to lose so many councillors in such a short period of time and will be interpreted by some as another sign that the pillars of Conservative strength are continuing to crumble.
In the same time period, Reform have gained 19 new councillors, both through defections and by-elections, although they have also lost five.
The Conservatives' polling position has deteriorated since the local elections too. A YouGov poll last week put the party in fourth place on 16%, their lowest share with the pollster ever.
While probably an outlier – a new poll this week had the Conservatives back in third – falling even temporarily to fourth was a blow to Tory morale at the start of what became a difficult week for its leader.
Badenoch's performances at Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs) had been seen by her colleagues to be steadily improving. That changed on 21 May when Sir Keir Starmer opened the session with an announcement that he was U-turning on the winter fuel allowance. Badenoch proceeded with her planned questions anyway, only coming to the winter fuel allowance midway through.
Badenoch denied what many of her own MPs believed – that she had simply failed to notice the significance of what the PM had said. "Lots of people who have never done PMQs all have lots of suggestions," Badenoch said.
Some members of the team preparing Badenoch for PMQs have been urging her to change her approach, advising her to deploy more jokes in an effort to break through in what is typically her highest-profile event of the week. Badenoch disagrees.
"She wants it to be more serious," says a party source. "She feels PMQs should be a proper exchange of arguments and views."
An oddity of PMQs at present is that, given Reform's surge, Starmer often uses Badenoch's questions to jab at Reform, who have a tiny Commons presence.
Some argue that in a funny way the Conservatives are a victim of Starmer's unpopularity: Labour's polling decline has been so fast that voters who are unwilling to forgive the Conservatives are flowing to Reform instead.
Unexpected though it may have been, Reform's success arguably feeds on a crucial early strategic call Badenoch made.
During her leadership campaign, a point of difference between Badenoch and her rivals was policy. Not necessarily what party policies themselves should be, but more fundamentally, when and whether to have policies.
She argued that the Conservatives needed to take the time to go back to first principles and work out what the government should and should not do. This, Badenoch was explicit, would take time.
In practice that has meant Badenoch repeatedly refusing to be drawn on policy questions, instead launching a string of policy reviews which will weigh up what direction to take the party in.
To many of her colleagues we've spoken to, that is being increasingly revealed as naive at best.
"The way in which she's just vacated the playing field has been a total disaster," one senior Conservative says. "Reform has become the de facto opposition. And that's because of a conscious choice she and her team made."
Even some shadow cabinet ministers – each of them responsible for the policy reviews in their areas – agree. "We need more policy sooner," says one.
Another urged Badenoch to do more to "articulate our values" even while sticking to her policy development timetable.
Others argue that criticism of Badenoch on policy development is wide of the mark. A shadow cabinet minister pointed out that Badenoch had said she would reverse Labour's policies on inheritance tax on farms and VAT on private school fees, as well as changing the Conservative position on net zero targets and the European Convention on Human Rights.
"It's not that we're not saying things," says the shadow minister. "It's that people don't want to listen to us."
Accompanying that strategic debate are more mundane frustrations, many of them stemming from money – or the lack of it.
True, political parties often shrink their staffing operations a little at this point in the cycle, having tooled up for the general election. But at Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ), a string of voluntary, then compulsory, redundancies were especially severe, prompting so much briefing that Badenoch was moved to write to party members assuring them the rebuild was strategic rather than due to a shortage of funds. "Ignore ill-informed media reports from the disgruntled," she says.
Shadow cabinet ministers have repeatedly complained of going without advisers, several of them being told the party does not have enough money for them to hire yet.
"You go from having a whole department of thousands of civil servants filling your red box with briefings to working out how to respond to the government in the House of Commons all by yourself," says one shadow minister, sitting alone at a table in parliament.
'It's going to be ugly': Westminster braces for Spending Review
Numbers are down - but Starmer will still struggle to win on immigration
Is Britain really inching back towards the EU?
Badenoch's defenders – and indeed some of her critics – say that both the money and personnel issues are yet more facets of her miserable inheritance.
"People don't realise how bad a state CCHQ was in," one MP says. "A lot of work has had to go into getting the party back on its feet, and I don't think it fully is yet."
Opposition parties are funded by a scheme known as Short Money. While there is a fixed sum for the staffing costs of Badenoch's office as leader of the opposition, the rest of the money given to the Conservatives is calculated from a formula on the basis of the number of seats and votes they won at the general election. Both were low – so, as a result, is the Conservatives' income.
Badenoch did not exactly have the luxury of choice for her shadow cabinet, given its members constitute almost 20 per cent of Conservative MPs. Still, there are frequent complaints that some have taken to opposition with significantly more energy and commitment than others, and that Badenoch ought to promote newly-elected Conservatives to senior roles sooner rather than later.
Reshuffle rumours are the preserve of any political party. But those complaints, as with all the others, take on a greater urgency while Reform is lurking.
A few months ago, the word that probably figured most often in conversations with Conservatives about Reform was "pact" – should there be one between the two parties come the next general election.
Now it is probably "existential" – the crisis the Conservatives have been plunged into by Reform's success.
"Right now it would not be a pact," says one Conservative MP, "it would just be us folding into Reform."
Even those who believe the Conservatives will overpower Reform in time wonder at what point more pessimistic Conservative MPs might follow the logic of their own predictions and defect.
Top of many of her colleagues' lists is Suella Braverman, the former home secretary.
Asked earlier this month whether she would join Reform, Braverman spoke of her "many decades" of commitment to the Conservative Party but warned her colleagues that "Reform is here to stay".
What worries some Conservatives more is not defections of current MPs but a brain drain of future MPs and advisers – the kinds of people who keep the ecosystem of a political party healthy.
They warn of a "crossover point" where ambitious young people on the right entering politics might decide it makes more sense to sign up to Reform than to join the Conservatives.
For all their frustration, many Conservative MPs are still sticking to the view that Badenoch ought to be given longer to prove her worth. For them, the next set of local elections just under a year from now will be the pivotal moment – not least because they coincide with elections for the Scottish and Welsh parliaments too.
A shadow cabinet minister says: "Realistically you need to give any leader, including this one, at least two years to show their worth."
Others disagree. "People say 'you can't change leader again, you'll look mad'," says one senior Conservative. "Well I remember all that with Liz [Truss]. People said the country wouldn't allow it. Actually the country was just relieved."
One crucial factor in Badenoch's favour is that, beneath the loud despair, there are still plenty of Conservatives who believe Reform's surge will fizzle out. One shadow cabinet minister says that just as Reform UK leader Nigel Farage was the beneficiary of a "speeding up" of politics, he will soon become a victim and be seen by the public as "old news".
Others believe that Farage's prominence masks how thin Reform's bench is. "You can't win a general election or be the largest party as a one-man band. Farage will have to find a way of sharing the limelight."
Those the words of a senior figure from the last Conservative government.
Last as in most recent? Or last as in final?
Overwrought it may sound, but there really are plenty of Conservatives now entertaining those questions.
Additional reporting by Peter Barnes and Oscar Bentley.
Top picture credit: Getty Images
BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we showcase thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can send us your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking on the button below.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

South Koreans vote for new president after Yoon Suk Yeol's ouster over martial law
South Koreans vote for new president after Yoon Suk Yeol's ouster over martial law

CBS News

time43 minutes ago

  • CBS News

South Koreans vote for new president after Yoon Suk Yeol's ouster over martial law

South Koreans are voting for a new president in a snap election triggered by the ouster of Yoon Suk Yeol, a conservative who is facing rebellion charges over his short-lived imposition of martial law late last year. Voting began at 6 a.m. local time Tuesday at more than 14,000 polling stations nationwide, the election commission said. Voting ends at 8 p.m. local time, and observers say the winner could emerge as early as midnight. More than 15 million people had already voted during a two-day early voting period last week, accounting for nearly 35% of the country's 44.4 million eligible voters. A voter comes out of a booth to cast a ballot for the presidential election in a polling station on June 3, 2025 in Seoul, South Korea. / Getty Images Pre-election surveys suggest Yoon's liberal archrival, Lee Jae-myung, appears headed for an easy win, riding a wave of public frustration over conservatives in the wake of Yoon's martial law debacle. In a Facebook post, Lee called for voters to "deliver a stern and resolute judgement" against conservatives following the months of political turmoil. Meanwhile, the main conservative candidate, Kim Moon-soo, has struggled to win over moderate, swing voters. This election serves as another defining moment in the country's resilient democracy, but observers worry a domestic divide worsened by Yoon is far from over and could pose a big political burden on the new president. The winning candidate will immediately be sworn in as president for a single, full term of five years without the typical two-month transition period. The new president will face major challenges, including a slowing economy, President Trump's America-first policies and North Korea's evolving nuclear threats. Lee Jae-myung, the presidential candidate of the Democratic Party, waves at his final campaign rally in Seoul, South Korea, on June 2, 2025. Chris Jung/NurPhoto via Getty Images Lee has preached patience over Mr. Trump's tariff policy, arguing it would be a mistake to rush negotiations in pursuit of an early agreement with Washington. Kim has said he would meet Mr. Trump as soon as possible. Final campaign pitches In his final campaign speeches Monday, Lee promised to revitalize the economy, reduce inequality and ease national divisions. He urged the people to vote for him, arguing that a win by Kim would allow Yoon's "rebellion forces" to return. "If they somehow win, that would mean the return of the rebellion forces, the destruction of democracy, the deprival of people's human rights, the normalization of martial law and our country's downfall into a backward, third-world nation," Lee told the crowd gathered at a Seoul park. Kim Moon-soo (L), the presidential candidate for South Korea's conservative People Power Party, at the final election campaign event in Seoul on June 2, 2025. PEDRO PARDO/AFP via Getty Images Kim, a former labor minister under Yoon, warned that a Lee win would allow him to wield excessive power, launch political retaliation against opponents and legislate laws to protect him from various legal troubles, as his party already controls parliament. Lee "is now trying to seize all power in South Korea and establish a Hitler-like dictatorship," Kim told a rally in the southeastern city of Busan. North Korea relations unclear Relations with North Korea remain badly strained since 2019, with the North focused on expanding its nuclear arsenal while refusing dialogue with South Korea and the U.S. Since his second term began in January, Mr. Trump has repeatedly expressed his intent to resume diplomacy with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, but Kim has so far ignored the offer while making Russia his priority in foreign policy. SA voter casts a ballot in the presidential election at a polling station on June 3, 2025 in Seoul, South Korea. / Getty Images Lee, who wants warmer ties with North Korea, recently acknowledged it would be "very difficult" to realize a summit with Kim Jong Un anytime soon. Lee said he would support Mr. Trump's push to restart talks with Kim Jong Un, which he believed would eventually allow South Korea to be involved in some projects in North Korea. Foreign policy strategists for Lee understand there isn't much South Korea can do to bring about a denuclearization of North Korea, said Paik Wooyeal, a professor at Seoul's Yonsei University. He said Lee also doesn't share the Korean nationalistic zeal held by ex-liberal President Moon Jae-in, who met Kim Jong Un three times during his 2017-2022 term.

Starmer's family business death tax won't help keep us safe
Starmer's family business death tax won't help keep us safe

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Starmer's family business death tax won't help keep us safe

To govern is to choose. And this week we have heard ad nausem from Sir Keir Starmer about the tough choices he claims he is having to make to fund our islands' defence. Or rather presumably would have to make in order to get to a firm 3 per cent of GDP in this Parliament rather than the equivocal 3 per cent at the end of the next one he will not even commit to. But amidst the menu of choices, like the Chagos surrender costing our forces £100 million a year, there's one very easy choice that would pay back on many levels. To reverse his family business (and family farm) death tax. This prejudiced decision may turn out, according to new analysis, to cost more money than it raises, punishes aspiration and risks wiping out centuries-old businesses in a single parliamentary term. New independent research published by CBI economics confirmed in another example of Rachel Reeves's dodgy accountancy that this one tax will put 200,000 jobs at risk and lower the size of the wider economy by £15 billion. The Prime Minister must not go ahead with it. Family businesses represent years of work, skills and investments made, passed down carefully through generations. They currently receive relief on inheritance tax when passing it down to the next custodians. This is a feature introduced by a previous Labour government to ensure the success of a constituent part of the economy providing 14 million jobs in the UK. But this is an anti-business government, driven by what works in socialist screeds rather than the shop floor. So, it's no wonder Starmer and his ministers are intent on attacking them. The Cabinet don't have any real business experience between them – the Business Secretary [Jonathan Reynolds] embarrassingly lied on his CV even about being a qualified lawyer – and it shows. Labour came into the general election promising not to tax working people, but that is exactly what they are doing. This is a small business death tax, which will be paid for in the jobs of working people. While some businesses' assets may be valuable on paper, they don't equate to hard cash. There are plenty of family businesses for whom being forced to sell assets (like machinery) on the factory floor will mean emptying the factory floor. They're asset rich but cash poor – and they'll be forced to shut up shop. This is the latest in a long line of decisions aimed squarely at punishing wealth creators and risk takers by a government that at the most charitable interpretation doesn't know about business interests, nor foresee the outcome of their assaults on business. All the more reason to listen when independent forecasters say your numbers are wrong. More shockingly, what started as a pre-election prawn cocktail offensive aimed at charming business has become an all-out war on private enterprise. Because this is only the start. The Employment Bill, which will do the exact opposite of what it says on the tin, is costing businesses £5 billion and allows trade unions to reconquer private businesses. Many of those who won't be able to cope with its hundreds of pages more regulations will be the same small, family businesses already suffering under the burden of the death tax. As part of my role as shadow business secretary, I have been going around the country engaging with businesses from the biggest automotive firms to village shops. All seriously worried about what this government will do next. It is no wonder that there has been an exodus of wealth creators since Starmer has taken office. Last year, over 10,000 millionaires fled Labour's socialist attacks on businesses and wealth creators. The tax bills they took with them are the equivalent of losing 300,000 average taxpayers. These are ambitious, courageous people, many of them entrepreneurs who have choices – and they're not choosing Labour's Britain. These people create jobs, drive growth, and pay for our public services. We will all be worse off without them. But still, Reeves dogmatically ploughs on, not paying attention to the warning lights on the dashboard flashing red or the millionaires leaving every 45 minutes. It is a stark reminder of what socialists are capable of when they get their hands of the levers of power. The Conservatives understand family businesses and wealth creators because so many of us have worked in the private sector. While other parties fight over who can spend the fastest more taxpayers' money we cannot afford, we continue to advocate for government that spends only within its means and balances its books without fiddling the rules. That means making the genuinely tough choices that will prioritise defence over ballooning welfare costs. We know that those who start businesses are taking a risk. We need to create a society where people aren't afraid to fail and are rewarded for those risks when they pay off. At the very least, those who start family businesses should know that they are able to pass their business down to the next generation. Unless the Prime Minister sees sense soon, Britain's legion of quietly successful family business will be consigned to the dustbin of history and our future with them. Andrew Griffith is the Conservative shadow business and trade secretary Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

Rachel Reeves threatens Roman Abramovich over frozen £2.35bn Chelsea sale funds
Rachel Reeves threatens Roman Abramovich over frozen £2.35bn Chelsea sale funds

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Rachel Reeves threatens Roman Abramovich over frozen £2.35bn Chelsea sale funds

Rachel Reeves is preparing to haul Roman Abramovich to court to finally break the three-year deadlock around the frozen £2.35 billion Chelsea sale fund. In a dramatic hardening of the UK's position, the Chancellor is taking a personal lead in attempting to force the fund's release for Ukraine aid. The fund has remained in limbo as Abramovich remains at loggerheads with ministers over how it is spent on war victims. The Labour Government has been holding the same line as the previous Tory administration in insisting the huge sum is spent only on Ukraine. As talks continue to stall, Reeves and David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, have now resorted to threatening court action. 'We are deeply frustrated that it has not been possible to reach agreement on this with Mr Abramovich so far,' a statement from the pair read. Senior ministers have been debating for years how best to deal with Abramovich, who has maintained throughout that his initial agreement with the Government was to release the fund for 'all victims' of the war. The possibility of action via the courts was previously toyed with by the Conservative government, sources close to talks say. With Labour making no progress since coming to power, however, Reeves is understood to have played a key role in pursuing a new tougher on-the-record position. 'The Government is determined to see the proceeds from the sale of Chelsea Football Club reach humanitarian causes in Ukraine, following Russia's illegal full-scale invasion,' the new statement said, before later adding: 'While the door for negotiations will remain open, we are fully prepared to pursue this through the courts if required, to ensure people suffering in Ukraine can benefit from these proceeds as soon as possible.' No final decision has been made on taking Abramovich through the courts to seize the asset. Such action against the oligarch would inevitably be lengthy and messy. The former Chelsea owner first promised proceeds for 'all Ukraine war victims' after putting the west-London club up for sale on March 2, 2022, eight days before facing action over alleged links to Vladimir Putin, the Russia president. Abramovich is still under UK Government sanction. The proceeds have been frozen in a UK bank account since the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) issued a licence to permit Abramovich to sell the club. The fund will have generated a significant amount of interest while in the account, potentially taking the total value beyond £2.5 billion. The Foreign Office had repeatedly promised in recent months that the new Government would 'double down' on efforts to reach a solution. Humanitarian charities have grown increasingly desperate for a breakthrough, fearful that discussions will be thrown further into chaos if UK sanction arrangements against Russia were to change. Despite the sale of the club taking place entirely within UK jurisdiction, ministers signed a unilateral declaration in May with the European Commission, stating the money would be spent 'exclusively' within Ukraine. That move bemused the humanitarian sector as Mike Penrose, a former UK chief executive of Unicef, was brought in to create an independent foundation on the basis that it would be spent on 'Ukraine and its consequences'. Penrose has been taking a neutral position in discussions between the Government and Abramovich's lawyers. He has set up legal undertakings to make sure the money cannot fall back into the hands of the Russian. The Government will have board input and Jan Egeland, a senior Norwegian diplomat who once advised Kofi Annan at the United Nations, was brought in as interim chairman of the foundation. James Deneslow, head of the conflict team at Save the Children, is among leading figures in the sector to call on ministers to release the funds to support the full 'humanitarian consequences of the war in Ukraine'. The difference of opinion on the purposes of the foundation predates the Chelsea sale to a consortium led by American businessman Todd Boehly, which was completed on May 30, 2022. A representative of Abramovich has been contacted by Telegraph Sport for comment. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store