Tory modernisation has failed
One of the most important developments in British politics today, therefore, is the extraordinary implosion of the Conservatives under Kemi Badenoch. Its scale is remarkable in its own right, but it also has profound implications for how Britain is governed. Think about how Labour behaves as it shifts its focus from the Conservatives to Reform ahead of the next general election. Without the collapse in support for the Tories – and the corresponding rise in the polls for Nigel Farage – would Starmer ever have uttered the words 'island of strangers'? The Prime Minister's mistake reveals a deeper truth: he and his government have yet to develop a strategy for how to deal with Farage
The rub of Will Lloyd's cover story this week is simple: Kemi isn't working. For those who may (understandably) take some joy from this, Will's piece offers pause for thought. While it is absolutely the case that one of the reasons Badenoch is failing is her own limitations, there is no getting away from a deeper truth: she is also struggling because of nastier currents in society.
Badenoch is not struggling because she is too right wing. Quite the opposite, in fact. For many of those agitating against her leadership, she represents the failed project of modernisation (as they would see it) of the David Cameron years. Today, the 'New Right' wants a far more Trump- (or Farage-) inflected conservatism than the one Badenoch is offering. Another reason the mood has soured is that a growing segment of the New Right has become dangerously fixated on questions of race, ethnicity and demographics. For some young Tories, it seems, Badenoch will never be British enough. This is a grim trend that we at the New Statesman feel a duty to expose.
One final lesson from Will's piece is the continued failure of our political class to meet the challenges before it. As a friend put it to me recently, the problems the country now faces are at least as acute as any we have faced for decades, while the quality of our leaders seems to deteriorate from one parliament to the next. As our problems become bigger, our politicians get smaller. And so we enter a doom loop of hopelessness and despair, as one government after the next fails to rise to the challenge before it. Badenoch, in other words, may simply be a symptom of a deeper structural problem in Britain (and the West) today.
Of course, Badenoch is not the only party leader in Westminster struggling in the polls. Andrew Marr delves into the disquiet bubbling just below the surface in Labour. As ever, his column is a must-read for those who want to understand the inner workings of the government. Meanwhile, Oliver Eagleton examines the lasting legacy of the war in Afghanistan, which continues to cast its shadow over British politics. Will Dunn looks at the extraordinary inertia of our governing class and Pippa Bailey casts her eye over Labour's (sensible) changes to sex education in schools – some good news at last! We have expanded Correspondence to reflect the huge number of letters we have received following last week's cover story about war crimes in Gaza.
In the New Society, we have compiled our list of the best summer reads (including Don't Forget We're Here Forever by the New Statesman columnist Lamorna Ash), Finn McRedmond decamps to Chianti, and Michael Prodger reviews a book by the artist David Gentleman (he of those beautiful murals at London's Charing Cross Underground station).
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
Before I sign off, I'd like to draw the reader's attention to one final piece in this week's magazine. Hannah Barnes reflects on the devastating death of her brother in a motorcycle crash. Life is precious and fragile. Perhaps it is so precious because it is so fragile. I hope that we at the New Statesman try to live it with vim and vigour while we can, bringing you life in all its pain and joy, glory and tragedy: a magazine reporting on our world as it is, while always having an eye on how we want it to be.
Related
This article appears in the 23 Jul 2025 issue of the New Statesman, Kemi Isn't Working
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
a few seconds ago
- Telegraph
Recognising Palestine will not solve Labour's electoral woes
In Scottish Labour ranks there used to be a saying: you can't out-nat the Nats. This was usually in response to armchair strategists who expressed the view that if only Labour in Scotland would embrace a more robust form of devolution – the 'full fiscal autonomy' model, or devo max, as it was called – then those who yearned for independence would consider supporting us. Naturally, such self-delusion was almost childishly easy to dismiss: why would nationalists vote for a unionist party that denied them the very thing they wanted? Why settle for 90 per cent of your ambition when an alternative party (the SNP) were promising to deliver 100 per cent? Labour's current troubles over whether to recognise Palestine formally as a nation reeks of the same cynicism and strategic folly. There are other hurdles to navigate before we even get to Labour's (relatively unimportant) internal squabbles: how do you recognise a country that doesn't exist? What is the point of recognising even a hypothetical country when no one can agree what its borders should be, where its capital is and who represents its leader or its government? More importantly, how would recognition by the UK aid the peace process? It is far more likely to do the opposite, since Hamas would (correctly) see it as a reward for the grotesque act of barbarism they inflicted on Israeli civilians on October 7, 2023, which led directly to the calamity now befalling their own people. Labour MPs, already nervous about their chances of re-election in a few years' time, believe that their chances of survival depend upon the recovery of their party's support among Britain's Muslim voters and recognition of Palestine, even though it can have no practical beneficial impact except in terms of propaganda. They are understandably concerned, not only about the imminent emergence of Jeremy Corbyn's latest political party – one that will specifically target voters disillusioned by Labour's current approach to Israel and Palestine and whose formation has been largely motivated by that conflict – but by others on the Left seeking to exploit the current conflict for their own electoral ends, like the Greens. So put yourself in the shoes of a British Muslim voter, one who has traditionally backed Labour, mainly because of its relaxed approach to mass immigration, not least from your ancestral home country. Two things have happened: first, the Conservatives have proved that Labour does not have a monopoly on support for mass immigration without the consent of the indigenous population. In fact, while in office they established that they were more enthusiastic about an open-door immigration policy than even Labour. And second, the conflict in Gaza exposed Labour as fair-weather friends to both Israel and Palestine. If, as Nye Bevan once said, those who cannot ride two horses at the same time shouldn't be in the circus, then the current administration might have to retire from the ring. The government started out supporting Israel in the face of the Islamist threat. Then, once in office, after it recognised the threat to its electoral strongholds from independent pro-Gaza candidates, it pivoted and jumped on the International Criminal Court bandwagon by allowing arrest warrants to be issued for Israel's prime minister for alleged 'war crimes'. Yet still ministers resist calls from shouty middle-class people in our city centres every weekend to boycott, disinvest and sanction Israel. Still they defend Israel's 'right to exist' – a point of principle that few pro-Palestinian protesters would concede. And now numerous Labour MPs actually seem to believe that recognising Palestine will bring all those disillusioned Muslim and far-Left voters home to Labour. But why would they come back? Why return to a party that, however much it has served their purposes in past decades, is now prevaricating over the one conflict in the region they have chosen to feel strongly about? Just as Scottish Labour could only hope to attract the support of nationalists by fully signing up to the fight for independence, so Labour cannot hope to thwart the appeal of Corbyn's new party on this issue – unless it follows Palestinian recognition, from the river to the sea, with a refusal to recognise Israel's right to exist or defend itself. It would also have to ban all Israeli imports and ban British companies from exporting to that country. Even then, would those lost voters return to Labour in big enough numbers? Why support a 'Johnny-come-lately' to the Palestinian cause when Jeremy has a proud record of describing Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists as his 'friends'? Beat that, Keir Starmer! The Prime Minister mustn't even try. You can't beat the far Left at their own game, at least not while hoping to retain the much more centrist and sensible voters who put you in office. The various weirdos, extremists and weekend paper-sellers that will form the activist base of Corbyn's new party have a lifetime's experience in opposing the only liberal democracy in the Middle East and yearn to see it replaced by the kind of Islamist dictatorship that has brought so much misery to ordinary Palestinians. Far better for Starmer to take the side of Israel as our long-term ally in western democracy's fight against worldwide Islamism.
Daily Mail
a few seconds ago
- Daily Mail
Labour admits BREXIT is to thank for Britain securing a better US trade deal than Europe - as bloc's leaders hit out at their 'badly negotiated' agreement
Brexit is to thank for Britain securing a better trade deal with the US than Europe, Labour admitted yesterday. Jonathan Reynolds, the Business Secretary, said there was 'absolutely no doubt' that the UK was better off as a result of having its own trade policy. His comments came after Donald Trump announced he had agreed 'the biggest deal ever made' between the US and the European Union. The agreement will subject the EU to 15per cent tariffs on most of its goods entering America. It is lower than a 30per cent levy previously threatened by the US president - but worse than the UK's deal - and was quickly lambasted by European leaders. After a day playing golf in Scotland yesterday, Mr Trump met the president of the EU Commission Ursula von der Leyen to discuss the broad terms of an agreement. But Viktor Orban, the Hungarian PM, hit out: 'Donald Trump ate von der Leyen for breakfast'. 'This is what happened and we suspected this would happen as the U.S. president is a heavyweight when it comes to negotiations while Madame President is featherweight.' Former Belgian prime minister Guy Verhofstadt branded the deal 'scandalous' and 'badly negotiated', saying there was 'not one concession from the American side'. French prime minister François Bayrou said: 'It is a dark day when an alliance of free peoples, united to affirm their values and defend their interests, resolves to submission.' And Bernd Lange, the EU Parliament's trade chief, said: 'My first assessment: Not satisfactory. 'This is a lopsided deal. Concessions have clearly been made that are difficult to accept. Deal with significant imbalance. Furthermore lot of questions still open.' But Ms von der Leyen said the deal was 'huge', adding: 'It will bring stability. It will bring predictability. That's very important for our businesses on both sides of the Atlantic.' Mr Trump said the 'partnership' would 'bring us very close together'. He added: 'I think it's great that we made a deal today instead of playing games and maybe not making a deal at all.' Full details of the deal have not yet been confirmed, and a written text still needs to be agreed. But the agreement is worse than a similar deal struck between the UK and US, which will see tariffs of only 10per cent placed on British exports. Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds this morning admitted that the UK's favourable deal was a direct benefit of Brexit. He told Sky News: 'All of the trade negotiations that we've got use the fact that we are not part of the customs union anymore, I'm absolutely clear of that. I think we can make the best of that.' Pressed on whether he would call it a Brexit benefit, he added: 'I'm absolutely clear, I've said in Parliament many times, this is a benefit of being out of the European Union, having our independent trade policy, absolutely no doubt about that.' When the UK and US signed a trade deal in June, it reduced tariffs on car and aerospace imports to the US. But agreement on a similar arrangement for Britain's steel imports was not reached, leaving tariffs on steel at 25per cent. American concerns over steel products made elsewhere in the world, then finished in the UK, are said to be among the sticking points. Sir Keir Starmer is expected to spend most of the day with President Trump on Monday, when he will have a chance to press the president on a steel deal. But Business Secretary Mr Reynolds suggested it may take more than a meeting between the two leaders to resolve the matter, telling BBC Breakfast: 'We were very happy to announce the breakthrough that we had a few months ago in relation to sectors like automotive, aerospace, which are really important to the UK economy. 'But we always said it was job saved, but it wasn't job done. There's more to do. The negotiations have been going on on a daily basis since then. There's a few issues to push a little bit further today. 'We won't perhaps have anything to announce a resolution of those talks, but there's some sectors that we still need to resolve, particularly around steel and aluminium, and there's the wider conversation about what the US calls its reciprocal tariffs.'
Telegraph
a few seconds ago
- Telegraph
Musk brands online safety crackdown ‘suppression of the people'
Elon Musk has said Britain's online safety laws amount to 'suppression of the people', as he joined a backlash against rules to protect children from adult content. 'Its purpose is suppression of the people,' Mr Musk, who has described himself as a free speech absolutist, wrote on X over the weekend. The Tesla founder also retweeted support of a petition to repeal the Online Safety Act, which has garnered more than 330,000 signatures. It's purpose is suppression of the people — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 26, 2025 X, owned by the billionaire entrepreneur, introduced age checks to stop children from watching pornography and other inappropriate content last week, shortly before the rules came into force. However, the platform has been a vocal critic of the new regime. Mr Musk's latest comments come after he has frequently attacked British policing of the internet, including the case of individuals who were arrested and prosecuted for posts related to last summer's riots. Ofcom started enforcing measures in the Online Safety Act last Friday, meaning that websites are now required to check people's ages before showing them porn or other inappropriate content. The measures are designed to protect children, but every person accessing major adult websites must also verify their age through a credit card, bank account, or by using their email or phone number. Some social media sites have also deployed facial age recognition, in which they record a short video selfie to estimate how old users are. The rules have led to a surge in downloads of virtual private networks (VPNs), which mask a user's internet address to appear as if they are in another country. Four of the top six apps on the iPhone App Store in the UK were VPNs on Monday. X introduced age checks last Thursday, saying it was doing so because it was 'required by regulations'. Donald Trump is reportedly pressing Britain to water down the laws as part of discussions around the UK-US trade deal. Sir Keir Starmer is poised to meet the US president on Monday. Zia Yusuf, Reform UK's former chairman, has also criticised the legislation's requirements to protect people from 'psychological harm', saying it 'plunges Britain into an authoritarian surveillance state'. Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, appeared to criticise the laws as well, posting an image of an article supporting the laws by Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, with the caption: 'The Conservatives should be in hiding. Never forget who they really are.'
