Runners and riders gathering in the race to succeed Badenoch
Robert Jenrick is seen as the runaway favourite, but the party's wiser heads fear he would prove just as hopeless in the job as Badenoch. He did, after all, just lose a leadership campaign to her – and when the Tories replaced Liz Truss with Rishi Sunak, who lost to her, it didn't work out too well.
As the Conservative Party slips ever further in the polls – and despair at Kemi Badenoch's leadership mounts – conversation naturally turns to who the party might choose once she is inevitably ousted.
The party's few remaining moderates believe that Penny Mordaunt still might be their standard-bearer if a seat could be found for the woman who lost Portsmouth North last July. They say she polls favourably even outside of the party's faithful – having become a favourite of centrist dads everywhere after her role in the King's coronation.
Mordaunt is such a threat that there is already nasty gossip about her. One story claims she only narrowly avoided a wardrobe malfunction for the ages, having burst out of her distinctive blue gown shortly before the big day, requiring a last-minute repair.
And the Tory rumour mill is also sniffy about Mordaunt's generous act of selling said dress in a charity auction, alleging that her final charitable donation seems to be minus the initial cost of the £2,000 Roni dress by Safiyaa.
As a result, Tory hopes for a revival are instead pinned on hoping that Boris Johnson might be tempted to return after all – all is forgiven, at least on the blue benches. The minute a super-safe Tory seat comes up at a by-election, expect the comeback talk to start in earnest.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
2 hours ago
- BBC News
Majority on Dumfries and Galloway Council back special meeting
A majority of councillors in Dumfries and Galloway have backed a move for a no confidence motion in the Conservative-led administration.A total of 22 members of the 43-strong local authority signed the call, which has triggered a special meeting for 16 move came after a number of Conservatives left their political group to form a new Labour and Democratic Alliance councillors have backed the move which could see current leader Gail Macgregor and depute leader Malcolm Johnstone replaced. The Conservatives formed an administration in 2023 after the collapse of a previous had 16 members but that fell to just nine when seven councillors quit the group - four to form a group called Novantae and three to create the Dumfries and Galloway Independent a result a request was lodged to convene a special meeting of the local authority to consider a no confidence vote in the standing orders, the move must be backed by at least a quarter of councillors. However, papers published on the council website show that support has significantly exceeded that 11 SNP members, eight Labour councillors and three from the Democratic Alliance signed the they were to agree to work together in future they could form an outright majority on the full council will meet to decide the way ahead on Monday.
The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
Two-child benefit cap: How much is it worth and what will families get if Labour scrap it?
Scrapping the two-child benefit cap could lift up to 470,000 children out of poverty, according to the latest estimates, by allowing low-income families to claim an extra £3,513 per year in universal credit for every extra child. After months of firm support for maintaining the limit, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has appeared to leave the door open to the possibility of lifting the limit, put in place by the Conservative government in 2017. 'We'll look at all options of driving down child poverty,' Sir Keir said last week, in response to questions on whether he would scrap it. It came after mounting pressure from his own MPs and Reform leader Nigel Farage, who committed to scrapping the limit if he were PM. What is the two-child benefit cap - and who loses out? There are 1.2 million families with three or more children in the UK and around 370,000 of these are households on universal credit (UC). Families receiving UC - who are on low or no income - receive an extra £339 each month for their first child born before 2017, and £292.81 for first or second children born after 2017. This amounts to £7,581 per year for families with two children. But in most cases, parents are unable to claim UC benefits for any further children. There are rare exemptions, for example, in the case of twins, or adopted children. Most families can still claim general child benefit payments for more than two children, which amounts to £897 per child per year. But if the government scrapped the two-child benefit cap, families on UC could claim a further £3,513 per year for every extra child. However, there is an upper limit to how much families can claim in benefits with an overall cap of £22,020 a year, or £25,323 for households in London. How many children would scrapping it help lift out of poverty? The number of children living in poor households has been steadily increasing over the past decade, with 4.5 million children - around 1 in 3 - now living in poverty. Poverty can be defined in several ways but the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) uses 'relative low income' as a marker, referring to people in households which earn below 60 per cent of the median income of £36,700 in 2024, or £14,680. Some of these children are going without essentials, according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, such as food, heating, clothing or basic toiletries. Removing the two-child benefit cap could lift 350,000 out of poverty, according to analysis from researchers at the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG). A further 700,000 children could see their lives improved with the extra cash, their research has found. Meanwhile, the Resolution Foundation has estimated that around 470,000 children could be taken out of poverty by lifting the cap, or 280,000 if the limit was extended to three children. Since the Labour government came into power in July last year, some 37,000 more children have been pushed into poverty by the two-child limit, according to CPAG estimates. 'No road to better living standards, economic growth and wider opportunities starts with record child poverty. The policy must go - and sooner rather than later,' said CPAG's CEO Alison Garnham. Since the cap applies to families receiving UC, the children affected are in low-income households. And 6 in 10 families affected by the two-child limit have at least one parent in work, CPAG found. What would scrapping it cost the government? The estimated cost of removing the two-child limit, extending it to three children, or removing a household cap varies. Getting rid of the cap could cost the government £3.5bn in 2029/30, according to estimates from think tank the Resolution Foundation earlier this year. Meanwhile, CPAG suggests that the move would cost £2bn. The Independent's own calculations suggest that extending the limit to three children could cost at least £1.3 bn a year; assuming that 370,000 households claim an extra £3,513 of UC each year. Consecutive governments have refused to commit to removing the cap, despite its unpopularity with voters. Last year, Sir Keir enforced the whip on seven Labour MPs who voted against their party to oppose the two-child benefit cap. The current Labour government had consistently maintained that they would not take action to remove the cap, due to tight resources in the budget; yet Sir Keir's statements last week appeared to open up the possibility of a U-turn.
New Statesman
6 hours ago
- New Statesman
Rachel Reeves' economic credibility is on the line
Photo byIt's Spending Review day, when Rachel Reeves gets to set departmental budgets for much of the rest of the parliament. The Chancellor's balancing act – ensuring public services have the day-to-day funds they need and are able to fulfil Labour's missions, without breaking her tax pledges or her 'ironclad' fiscal rules – is an unenviable one. George Eaton has already written this week on how Reeves intends to rebut the twin accusations that the government is embarking upon austerity 2.0 and that Labour is losing its grip on the purse strings. Today, Reeves will try to frame her stance – maintaining her fiscal rules while boosting overall spending by £300bn – around a pledge to 'invest in Britain's renewal'. 'In place of chaos, I choose stability. In place of decline, I choose investment,' she will say (with an accompanying promise of £39bn for a new Affordable Homes Programme over the next decade). It's a dangerous moment for Reeves: while the chatter about the precarity of her position at the start of the year has simmered down, there is real dismay within Labour at some of the Chancellor's choices, and her name is one of those most cited as patience begins to wear thin. We'll find out later this afternoon if Reeves can pull it off, but rather than speculating on what we might hear in a few hours' time, let's zoom out and examine the wider context. While Spending Reviews are always important, this one comes at a particularly critical time. Less than a year since winning a landslide victory, Labour's popularity has plummeted. Though the Conservatives remain in disarray, Reform has leapfrogged both mainstream parties to top the polls, with Nigel Farage presenting himself a realistic alternative prime minister. One of the key attack lines against Reform used by both Labour and the Tories has concerned economic credibility. Last month, Farage announced the outlines of Reform's economic programme, which consisted of lots of popular but expensive policies (slashing taxes while restoring the winter fuel allowance and scrapping the two-child benefit cap) with little word on how to pay for them. According to the IFS there is an estimated £80bn black hole in the plans. Cue accusations of 'fantasy economics' – or, as the Liberal Democrats pithily put it, 'Trussonomics on steroids'. The Farage-as-Truss comparison is one Keir Starmer has been hammering at PMQs. Unfortunately, the public do not seem to be buying it. New polling from More In Common ahead of the Spending Review contains much to terrify Downing Street, but most disturbing is surely the revelation that Reform and Labour are neck-and-neck on who the public trust most on the economy (on 22 per cent each) – with Starmer and Farage virtually tied in a head-to-head (51 per cent to 49 per cent, in Starmer's favour). Why isn't the Truss attack, which proved so effective at skewering the Tories (resentment over the mini-Budget still comes up on the doorstep), not working against Reform? One reason may be down to what people actually think happened back in October 2022. While there is widespread belief that 'Liz Truss crashed the economy', drill down in focus groups and you'll find people are far hazier on how exactly she managed to do so. 'They associate her with being shit but they don't know why,' as one pollster put it. And her failure is very much associated with the Tories. Farage could promise to do exactly what Truss did (his unfunded tax cuts are definitely comparable) and still skirt the toxicity associated with her. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe There are other worrying insights in the More In Common polling – for Labour, the Tories, and anyone else who values a stable a economy. While 46 per cent of people believe Reform would indeed be a risk to the economy (compared to 29 per cent who don't), almost as many (40 per cent) believe the risk is worth it as 'Reform can't be any worse than other parties when it comes to managing the economy'. This is Farage's argument any time he's called out on his party's dodgy figures (such as in Wales on Monday), pointing to the Conservatives' economic record and Labour's current struggles, with the implicit message 'how much worse could Reform be?' There is an answer to that, and it's one that gives economists nightmares. But both Labour and the Tories need to find a way to tell it compellingly if they are to win on this key battleground. Two other nuggets stand out. First, on economic credibility, the Tories are actually going backwards, with a decline in how much people trust them on a range of economic metrics since March. (Reform has increased trust on all metrics, while Labour is a mixed bag.) Most of the polling will have taken place before Mel Stride made his speech disavowing the Truss era. It's an apology which many Tories believe should have come much sooner. Second, while people want an improvement in public services, there is little appetite for tax rises. The public seem to believe the progress they want can all be funded by that elusive ambition of cutting 'waste' – almost half of Brits (44 per cent) think the government could cut one fifth of government spending without damaging the economy or reducing the quality of public services. This is essentially Reform's argument, with its Musk-inspired DOGE initiative. If it were that easy, previous governments might have tried it. All of which paints Reeves into a corner, at a time when the government's economic credibility – and its wider political reputation – is at stake. The Chancellor needs to make the case for her fiscal rules to an audience that doesn't really understand why they're necessary. That's what her lines about 'stability' over 'chaos' are all about. And she must find a way to present her prioritisation of capital spending over day-to-day budgets not as austerity, but as investing in the future. It's the kind of challenge that requires not just a rock-solid grasp of the figures but a laser-like comms operation. Good luck, Rachel Reeves. [See more: Labour is losing Wales] Related
