Debate: should Kemi Badenoch go?
Kemi Badenoch has come in for criticism since becoming leader of the opposition – for her energy, her performances at PMQs and her inability to galvanise her shadow cabinet. On this podcast, James Heale hosts the trial of Kemi Badenoch and asks whether someone else might be better placed to take the Tories into the next election and – more importantly – who that prince (or princess) across the water could be. The Spectator's assistant content editor William Atkinson makes the case for the prosecution, while Michael Gove sets out why the Tories should stick with Kemi. Lara Brown, our new commissioning editor, acts as the jury.
'If your house is on fire you don't wait a year to call the fire brigade,' says William. But Michael argues that political leaders – much like football managers – should be given time and patience in order to implement their direction, philosophy and, ultimately, to become successful. So should she stay or should she go? … Or should the Tories give it to 'Big Sam' until the end of the season?
Produced by Oscar Edmondson.
Have your say, by emailing us at: podcast@spectator.co.uk
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South Wales Argus
6 hours ago
- South Wales Argus
Nigel Farage and the thousands funding Reform UK's campaigns
The big donors included Bassim Haidar, the Nigerian-born Lebanese entrepreneur who gave the Tories more than £670,000 under Rishi Sunak, was there, as was Arron Banks, the former UKIP donor who spent millions campaigning to leave the European Union. Farage was given a rousing introduction by Oswald's owner, clubland impresario Robin Birley, who donated £25,000 to Reform a few weeks before the general election. Reform reportedly took in more than £1m that night at Oswald's in an event that was part of a wider strategy of attracting big money. 'Reform is where the money is going now,' says former Conservative donor Mohamed Amersi, having paid £25,000 to attend the Oswald's fundraiser. Using millionaire money England to fight the Welsh Senedd election, using English-developed policies and with an English MP as its current leader and main campaigner in Wales. A long way from being the man of the working classes. Andrew Nutt, Bargoed
Spectator
6 hours ago
- Spectator
Rachel Reeves, the Iron Chancer
Gordon Brown may not be every teenager's political pin-up. But as an Oxford student, Rachel Reeves proudly kept a framed photo of him in her bedroom. It was Brown who introduced the first multi-year spending review in 1998: the kind of big political set-piece speech which he relished. Reeves's speech on Wednesday showed the level of constraints facing the Treasury this decade vs the 1990s. Chess, not poker, is the Chancellor's chosen game of recreation. As a player and a politician, she prides herself on making decisions guided by skill, care and thought. Yet this week she staked her government's future on a series of political bets. Her tax rises and changes to Treasury rules gave her some £300 billion to spend across Whitehall – including £113 billion in capital funding. This is proof, her supporters say, that Reeves offers the kind of long-term thinking so absent under the Tories. But her exposure to risk means she is less 'Iron Chancellor', more 'Iron Chancer'. Her first bet is on the UK's finances holding strong until October. Her fiscal headroom is just £9.9 billion, a buffer that could prove insufficient against further economic shocks. Domestic growth is sluggish and the global economy is set for its worst decade since the 1960s. Within the Treasury there are predictions of another nervy summer spent watching the bond markets. In the past year, UK ten-year gilt yields are now higher than after the Liz Truss 'mini-Budget' which the Chancellor so disdains. The high UK risk premium means yields have risen more than their equivalents in any other G7 country this year, bar Japan. Reeves is waging that the City views her plan as credible both now and when the OBR reports in the autumn. The bond markets need only be lucky once; she will have to be lucky always. Then there is inflation, which is at 3.5 per cent. One aide involved in the last spending review, back in 2021, suggests the subsequent erosion of Whitehall budgets should serve as a 'cautionary tale' for ministers cheering this week. 'Labour is running a looser policy. It just shows all of this is for naught if you don't have a wider grip,' they said. Rachel Reeves has staked her government's future on a series of political bets Reeves's second big bet is on health, the winner of the review. Wes Streeting's department received a £29 billion rise in its day-to-day spending budget: 60 per cent of the cash increase available to Reeves. 'If we don't fix the NHS, we won't win re-election' is the argument Streeting made to the Treasury. More money, though, won't guarantee results. As Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies – and one of Reeves's favourite economists – noted this week, 'very, very big increases' in the number of doctors and nurses in NHS England between 2019 and 2024 yielded a 'much smaller increase in measured activity'. On current trends, the health service will employ almost 10 per cent of England's entire workforce within a decade. An ageing population will only increase its demands for state spending. The third bet is on her party's stomach for spending cuts. Citing the jump in spending from 2026/27 to 2028/29, Reeves told the House: 'In place of chaos, I choose stability. In place of decline, I choose investment.' But her words will give little encouragement to her backbenchers. Labour's U-turn over the winter fuel payment, which dominated so much of the pre-review coverage, concerned just £1.2 billion (0.4 per cent of welfare spending) in a state that is projected to spend nearly £1.5 trillion by 2029. While the Chancellor goes all in on public services, others are placing their bets elsewhere. Some senior Tories, jaded by their time in office, argue privately that Britain's woes will be fixed only by an overhaul of Whitehall's power structures. It is not just the post-Blair constitutional settlement that needs reversing, but the post-Brown Treasury set-up, too. While No. 10 and the Treasury slugged it out over the precise wording of Reeves's speech on the day before the review, Richard Tice, Reform's deputy leader, met 15 hedge fund leaders for breakfast. It was the kind of smoked salmon schmoozing that Reeves did in opposition not so long ago. 'I think they call it a vibe shift,' remarks one aide. That change in the pace of politics is precisely why Labour MPs are urging the Chancellor to 'get the money out the door as quickly as possible'. Colleagues cite Joe Biden's failure to convince voters that they were better off under him, arguing that the British electorate must feel any benefits from new spending within the next year. Reeves can point to quick measures such as public sector pay increases and 500,000 more children getting free school meals. The £13.2 billion warm homes plan was ring-fenced, much to Ed Miliband's delight, to try to bring down energy bills. Long-term infrastructure schemes, such as £14.2 billion for Sizewell C, have been balanced against £15.6 billion on local projects. Yet such was the level of concern about MPs' reaction that Reeves began briefing them a full 24 hours before delivering her statement. The Chancellor's more generous colleagues recognise the immense strain she is under. Reeves must contend with two things that Brown's Treasury never faced: a stuttering economy and the end of the Cold War peace dividend. Defence spending will rise to 2.6 per cent in April 2027. 'Gordon never had to face a review like this,' remarks one veteran, citing Brown's persistent and vocal demands for Reeves to lift the two-child benefit cap. Another Labour MP notes that any political consensus tends to last 30 years: 'We might now be coming to the end of the Third Way consensus.' At cabinet, prior to heading to the Commons, Keir Starmer told ministers that the spending review 'marks the end of the first phase of this government'. It was a remark intended to signal a line in the sand after a difficult first year in office. Yet if, as expected, Reeves hikes taxes again in the autumn, voters may struggle to see the difference. The Chancellor's figures rest on the hope that growth will be strong enough, inflation tame enough and tax receipts robust enough to last until October. Will her plan pay off? Don't bet on it.
Daily Mail
7 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Migrant hotels to close... by 2029! Rachel Reeves vows to end use of 'costly' scheme - but Tories are quick to ask: Where are you going to put them instead?
The 'costly' use of hotels to house asylum seekers will be ended, Rachel Reeves has vowed, but the system will still cost taxpayers billions a year. The Chancellor pledged that migrants would be moved out of hotel accommodation by the time of the next general election, due in 2029. Ms Reeves also promised £1 billion of savings by speeding up the asylum system, along with £280 million investment in future years for the new Border Security Command. 'The party opposite left behind a broken system: billions of pounds of taxpayers' money spent on housing asylum seekers in hotels, leaving people in limbo and shunting the cost of failure on to local communities,' Ms Reeves told the Commons. 'We won't let that stand. So I can confirm today that, led by the work of the Home Secretary, we will be ending the costly use of hotels to house asylum seekers in this Parliament.' Latest figures show £3.1 billion was spent on housing asylum seekers in hotels in 2023-24, out of a total asylum support bill of £4.7 billion. More than 30,000 asylum seekers are housed in about 200 hotels across Britain, many of whom arrived illegally in dinghies, and ministers are looking at moving them into derelict tower blocks and student digs. But despite Ms Reeves' pledge to end the use of hotels, the Tories pointed out that the small print of her Spending Review documents revealed that £2.5 billion will still be spent each year on asylum support by the end of the decade. In 2028-29, the Treasury document showed, Home Office day-to-day running costs will total £20.6 billion with the budget amounting to £18.1 billion excluding the 'asylum forecast'. Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp said: 'Labour have slashed the Home Office budget in the middle of a border crisis. 'Their entire budget is built on an assumption that the hotels magically empty themselves. 'Yet there are more immigrants in hotels than when they took office, and they still have no plan for where these people will go. 'The Government's own figures just released show they still plan to spend £2.5 billion a year in 2028/29 on asylum seekers – most of whom are illegal immigrants.' Shadow Chancellor Mel Stride said the Government was merely trying to shift the problem of where to house asylum seekers. He added: 'Where are the migrants going to go? 'Are they going to be put into, dispersed into, communities in a particular way? I think that's a very important question to ask.' And Tory MP Julia Lopez warned that Labour's vow to speed up asylum decisions would mean more people granted leave to remain. Ms Lopez said: 'The Home Office just wants people off their books as fast as possible – straight on to the books of local councils. 'That means more positive asylum decisions – only making it more attractive to cross. 'And so it will go on.' The Spending Review document published by the Treasury also showed that the Home Office's budget will fall by 2.2 per cent in real terms over the next few years, from £22 billion in the current financial year to just £22.3 billion in 2028-29. But the Treasury insisted: 'Excluding the reduction in the Home Office's budget that will result from the
