I can't spend all my time worrying about regicide
Speaking to the Financial Times in the week she reshuffled her top team, Mrs Badenoch played down the idea of threats to her leadership.
'I can't spend all my time worrying about regicide, I would lose my mind,' she said.
She added: 'I'm so thick-skinned to the point where I don't even notice if people are trying to create harm.
'That's extremely useful in this job.'
The New Statesman reported that many Tory MPs who backed Mrs Badenoch in the leadership contest have privately turned on her, and believe her core team of advisers are 'lightweights and sycophants'.
Faltering Conservatives may seek to trigger a vote of confidence in their leader in November, once a grace period protecting her from such a move ends, the magazine said.
Asked about suggestions that Tory MPs were already plotting a coup, Mrs Badenoch told the PA news agency on Wednesday: 'I would say that if nobody put their name to it, then I'm not paying any attention to it.'
Among the changes announced as part of Mrs Badenoch's reshuffle this week was the return of Sir James Cleverly to the front bench as shadow housing secretary.
In his first full day in the job, Sir James accused the Prime Minister of being more interested in finding accommodation for asylum seekers than 'hardworking young people'.
He said he was 'furious' when the Prime Minister 'blithely' said there are 'plenty of houses' around the UK for asylum seekers.
Sir Keir Starmer insisted there was 'lots of housing available' to accommodate rising numbers of homeless people and asylum seekers when he was questioned by senior MPs earlier this week.
Sir James told Times Radio: 'I was furious, I genuinely couldn't believe he said this, when the Prime Minister was at the Liaison Committee and blithely said, 'Oh, there are plenty of houses around the UK for asylum seekers'.'
Sir James also said he understands the frustrations of local people when asked about demonstrations outside hotels believed to be housing asylum seekers.
There has been a series of protests outside the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex, since an asylum seeker was charged with sexual assault.
His new role makes him the opposition counterpart to Angela Rayner in her housing, communities and local government brief, but not in her deputy prime minister post.
Ms Rayner said on Tuesday that immigration was among issues having a 'profound impact on society' as she updated the Cabinet on her work on social cohesion.
Mrs Badenoch made a series of further changes to the junior ranks of her shadow cabinet on Wednesday, completing her reshuffle.
Among the appointments was the return of Stockton West MP Matt Vickers to the job of deputy chairman of the Tory party.
Mr Vickers was in the job for two years from summer 2022, but resigned last August to back Robert Jenrick in the leadership election.
He also retains his job as a shadow home office minister.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
36 minutes ago
- New Statesman
It's time for angry left populism
Illustration by Rebecca Hendin / Ikon Images 'Populism, I'm very sceptical of,' said Adrian Ramsay in the New Statesman's Green Party leadership hustings. 'I… don't want to see the kind of politics you get from populism which often brings about a divisive, polarising approach: Green politics is about bringing people together, respecting different views, having respectful discussion,' added the MP, and current party co-leader. On the contrary, countered Zack Polanski, the party's current deputy and London Assembly member, who's running for the top job promising 'bold leadership' and 'eco-populism'. 'Populism just means the 99 per cent vs the 1 per cent,' he said. He was reviving the old slogan of the Occupy movement. But he was also stating a clear position on a debate which has wracked the intellectual left for more than a decade. If Polanski's right, and if he wins, then there's more at stake than the leadership of England's fifth party. Should they adopt the attitude of their insurgent new political star, then the Greens have an opportunity to change the political climate in Britain, pointing the way to a durable populism of the political left. It's not just the Green Party; a similar phenomenon is emerging across civil society. Under newish, millennial co-directors, Greenpeace UK have adopted an angrier, anti-elite tone. 'Did you know that one of the richest billionaires in the UK is destroying our oceans with plastic?' the NGO asked in one recent online post, linking a traditionally soft-focus issue to spikier class politics. The most significant academic advocates of left-populism have been the Belgian political scientist Chantal Mouffe and her late husband and academic collaborator, the Argentine philosopher Ernesto Laclau. They saw populism as 'a political strategy based around constructing a frontier' between the privileged and the downtrodden, and 'appealing to the mobilization of the 'underdog' against 'those in power''. Mouffe argued that neoliberalism has impoverished not just the working class, but also the middle class, has depoliticised the bulk of the population, and produced what she calls 'oligarchisation' – that is, both radical wealth inequality, and also the political dominance of a growing international billionaire class. This context, she argued in 2016, produced a 'populist moment', one which led to radical political changes on right and left: as well as Trump, Brexit and (later) Johnson, there were Corbynism, Syriza, Bernie Sanders, Podemos, and Jean Luc Mélenchon. Even the more successful centrists of that era – Emmanuel Macron (during his first election) and Nicola Sturgeon – painted themselves as direct opponents of 'those in power'. Nearly a decade later, much of that post-2008 context remains, to which we could add the surge in anxiety about the environmental crisis in 2019, the anger with elites which emerged from the pandemic, and the daily nausea millions of us feel watching a Western-backed genocide livestreamed through our phones. In this context it's absolutely vital, as Mouffe argues, that the left try to mobilise the overwhelming majority of people together against that oligarch class and those in power who protect them. Doing so will require telling clear political stories about the world, which express the tension between 'us' – the majority of people – and 'them' – the oligarchs and their allies. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe This is not a time to tell citizens to 'calm down, dear'. It's a time to focus righteous rage into change. This will require rhetorically 'constructing a boundary' between 'the 99 per cent' and 'the 1 per cent' and their outriders on the right. It's drawing this boundary to which Ramsay and, in another debate, his running mate Ellie Chowns, object when they describe populism as 'polarising'. But any good story needs conflict and villains, and the real world has plenty for Polanski to point to. Oligarchs and their allies must be curtailed, and we're not going to do that by 'having respectful discussions' with them. Anger has to be focused upwards, or the political right will channel it down. In the context of environmental crisis, economic inequality becomes even more urgent. As Oxfam calculated in 2024, billionaires emit more carbon every three hours than the average British person does in a lifetime. The richest 1 per cent of humanity are responsible for more emissions than the poorest 66 per cent, and are increasingly insulating themselves from the impact of the disaster they've created, flitting around between air-conditioned mansions in private jets while the rest of us swelter. Despite this, Reform's fossil fuel financed anti-environmental populism has managed to rhetorically spin action on climate change – framed as the technocratic sounding 'net zero' – into an 'elitist' project, one which they can blame for rising energy bills, neatly deflecting blame from the fossil fuel industry and energy companies. As Polanski himself pointed out during the New Statesman debate, Ramsay is happy to call for a wealth tax, and clearly wants to curtail the oligarch class. So what's he's afraid of? Perhaps the most articulate intellectual opponent of populism is the Dutch social scientist Cas Mudde, who defines it as an ideology which divides society into two groups, 'the pure people' and 'the corrupt elite', and which regards politics as 'an expression of the general will of the people'. While he sees it has a role in bringing issues that elites don't want discussed to the fore, he worries that it ultimately undermines systems of liberal democracy. And it's this that Ramsay and Chowns really fear: if you channel anger at elites and the system which sustains them, you risk attacking those systems of democracy that we have, and replacing them not with more democracy, but less. But to me – certainly in Britain and the United States – this fear is itself dangerous. Britain has astonishingly low levels of trust in our political system for a simple reason: Westminster stinks. Too often, in Britain (as in America), the left ends up defending that system from right-wing attacks, because the right wants to replace it with authoritarianism, or market rule. Which means voters see us propping up an obviously rotten system, and turn to the right to replace it. This is how Trump won twice, it's how Johnson crushed Corbyn in 2019, and it's why Farage is ahead now. For an alternative strategy, look across the Channel. In France's 2024 legislative elections, the left-wing New Popular Front came first after making radical constitutional change a central message, promising an assembly to write a new constitution, and launch a sixth Republic. Progressives – including Greens – shouldn't fear hatred of our politics any more than we should worry about anger at our economic system, rage at rising bills, or horror at genocide in Gaza. We should express that collective fury, and channel it into serious ideas for the radical change we need. [Further reading: Are the Greens heading left?] Related
The Herald Scotland
37 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Now will the small minds of the SNP twig what voters care about?
Gus Connelly, Calderbank. Time to trim constituency Yet another bright light in Holyrood is dimmed, as Deputy First Minister [[Kate Forbes]] announces her intention to stand down from politics in 2026. Ms Forbes certainly lit up the Chamber back in 2020 as the first female to deliver a Scottish Budget (incidentally at short notice) and she brought great ability and commitment to her new-found position. To be an MSP in such a rural and geographically taxing constituency as Skye, Lochaber & Badenoch would be difficult for anyone, but for a mum with a young child it presents a scenario which raises questions. Should the Boundary Commission be considering geographically halving the constituency to make it manageable? Should Parliament be looking for options for such a widely-spread constituency? The make-up of constituencies should be manageable in the interest of constituents and their representatives. Catriona C Clark, Falkirk. Read more letters How much did Sturgeon cost us? In her paean of praise for Nicola Sturgeon's 'many achievements', Ruth Marr (Letters, August 2) draws a veil over the costs to the public purse of these policies. With regard to the SNP's abolition of prescription charges, perhaps one example will suffice to illustrate the financial impact of this policy. The cost to NHS Scotland in 2023-24 for paracetamol prescriptions alone was £14 million. Adding pharmacy dispensing charges of £7m brings the total cost to £21m. A Google search reveals that a pack of paracetamol can be bought for around 90p in any supermarket. Alan Ramage, Edinburgh. • It is notable that the list of "achievements" by Nicola Sturgeon given by Ruth Marr all involve her spending other people's money. I wonder if Ms Marr can come up with an example of Ms Sturgeon making a positive contribution to achieving economic growth in Scotland. She certainly made many negative contributions like destroying the ferry service to Arran and allowing her erstwhile allies in the Green Party to introduce measures like National Planning Framework 4 that are strangling economic development all over Scotland. I also wonder if Ms Marr is aware that her hero's actions in relation to the ferries, including having the Glen Sannox launched on her direct orders six months before the ship was ready so that she could upstage the Conservative Defence Secretary when he was announcing new jobs, and her contribution to the closure of the Grangemouth oil refinery by further high-handed actions, have resulted in the new "greener" ferries actually being responsible for more emissions of carbon dioxide than their conventionally powered predecessors. This is because the diesel fuel that the conventional ferries use can be brought to Ardrossan by electrically powered railway trains but the Liquefied Natural Gas needed to make the new ferries "greener" has to be transported from Essex on diesel-powered lorries. You couldn't make it up. Peter Wylie, Paisley. Indy target should be two-thirds As GR Weir (Letters, August 2) has not answered my simple question as to how he would define his 'stable majority" for independence, allow me to propose two-thirds for consideration. In my view, irrespective of how, when and by whom the decision to hold another inevitably divisive referendum on independence is taken, the stable polling majority sufficient to justify it must be understood in advance, and to achieve independence the actual voting result must at least confirm that polling majority. That result can then be taken as the settled will of the people at that time. The same requirements would apply to any subsequent calls for a rejoin referendum. As Mr Weir will know, to change the constitution of the [[SNP]], the principal advocate of independence, requires at least a two-thirds majority (Article 27), so nationalists should have no difficulty in supporting my proposal. Alan Fitzpatrick, Dunlop. Why can't they admit mistakes? Kevin McKenna's interview with Jackie Baillie on Saturday (''I hated how Sandie Peggie's daughter was used', says Scottish Labour deputy leader', The Herald, August 2) highlights an uncomfortable but increasingly familiar feature of our politics: an unwillingness to accept responsibility for past decisions. In December 2022 Scottish Labour gave full support to the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill. The party whipped its MSPs to vote in favour and, with their backing, the legislation was passed by the Scottish Parliament. Since then, the well-publicised cases of Isla Bryson and Sandie Peggie have shown that public concern is widespread – particularly about allowing individuals to legally change their gender through self-identification, thereby acquiring all the rights of their preferred gender. Labour now appears to be pivoting in response to that unease. Jackie Baillie attempts to distance the party from the fallout by suggesting Labour's support of the bill was dependent on key amendments and a future consultation with the UK Government. This rings hollow. If those amendments were so crucial, why did the party not withdraw its support when they were not accepted? And what purpose does consultation serve after a bill has been passed? This kind of political hedging only deepens public distrust in the integrity of politicians. Would it not be more honest and more effective to simply say "Sorry. We got this wrong"? George Rennie, Inverness. How will Nicola Sturgeon be remembered? (Image: PA) Let the media into Gaza The first and continuing victim of war is truth. Despite evidence from non-Palestinians, western doctors among them, about the near-famine conditions in Gaza, it has not come as a surprise to watch and listen to Israeli officials claim it is a lie that Palestinians are facing starvation. From what I have seen from interviews with [[Israel]]i citizens, they too believe the world is subject to Hamas propaganda. There is a way for the world to see, without bias, the actual conditions under which Palestinians are now compelled to live – reverse the present [[Israel]]i policy and let the world's media into [[Gaza]] so that we can all see for ourselves from objective reporting. If not, why not, is the question Keir Starmer should put to his [[Israel]]i counterpart. As for Hamas, is it not past time for those in its leadership languishing in the safety of Qatar to be asked why, given its ability to construct miles of tunnels in Gaza, it did not build shelters for the population when it must have known that Israel would respond to the atrocity of October 7 with a fury not seen before? Jim Sillars, Edinburgh. Shame on Ian Murray The Secretary of State for Scotland's antipathy towards the Scottish Government is persistent, but surely reached a new low when he castigated Public Finance Minister Ivan McKee for using the word 'genocide' during a BBC broadcast discussion about recognising the state of Palestine ("Minister confirms Scottish Government 'genocide' in Gaza position", heraldscotland, August 3). Ian Murray wants the courts to decide what is genocide, presumably before the UK Government acts, and despite the fact that the UN Special Committee, Amnesty International and Médicin San Frontières have all used the term to describe the continuing Israeli actions in Gaza. In addition, reports from the front line bring us daily reports of massive fatalities, destruction of infrastructure, displacement of communities, murder of aid workers, and human rights abuses, all of which meet the criteria for genocide. But Ian Murray wants to wait on the courts, and by doing so extends the United Kingdom's complicity in the despicable acts of the Israeli state. Shame on him. Graeme Forbes, Edinburgh.
New Statesman
39 minutes ago
- New Statesman
Kemi Badenoch's position on Israel is discrediting the Conservative Party
Photo byandWhen Kemi Badenoch became leader of the Conservative Party, she very sensibly aimed not to rush into early statements of detailed policy. Unfortunately, her appointment of Priti Patel as shadow foreign secretary was its own statement. Following her unauthorised 2017 trip to Israel while secretary for international development, Patel has been a disgraced figure. While there, accompanied by the peer Stuart Polak of the Conservative Friends of Israel, she met the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu without UK government officials or the British ambassador. Afterwards, she advocated a change in UK policy which, in breach of long-established humanitarian practice, would have included the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) in its aid delivery. This episode could not have been a starker example of impropriety. It merited her dismissal but Theresa May was too weak to wield the axe. Instead, Patel was allowed to resign. And yet, Badenoch saw fit to appoint her to the shadow cabinet. Patel is now in a position to perpetuate her views at a critical moment in world events. Badenoch has shown no indication of knowing anything about Israel and Palestine, and has not made any profound statements on this, the one foreign issue, other than Ukraine, that has dominated global news since she was elected. All she utters is uncritical support for Israel. The Conservative Party used to have a world-view. It supported enlightened international cooperation, and institutions such as the UN along with its accompanying treaties, rules and conventions. More broadly, it was the UK that pledged to support a homeland for the Jewish people, and a future for the Palestinians next door. To their shame, while successive governments have forever delayed implementing that commitment, the Israelis each and every day have violently stolen ever more Palestinian land. Palestine is the only populous legally undisputed land in the world not allowed to call itself a state. It does not belong to Israel, and Israel's determination to annex it does not mean it is disputed. The illegality of Israeli encroachment is cast-iron in international law, a belief that has been the policy of Conservative and Labour governments for decades. Badenoch, however, seems to share the view of those like Patel who do not believe in their own policy. They can never bring themselves to say explicitly that settlements are illegal. The charge sheet against Israel is growing every day: disproportionate force, indiscriminate bombing, mass displacement, food deprivation, the replacement of the Palestinian relief agency UNRWA with mercenaries, the killing of tens of Palestinians each day as they desperately scramble for food, state-backed support for settler terrorists, and the banning of journalists from Gaza. Badenoch and her front bench have done nothing to condemn any of it. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe [See also: Jonathan Sumption on Israel and Gaza: A question of intent] Amid all this, Priti Patel has refused in the Commons to condemn settler violence – all she would say was that settlers are a barrier to a two-state solution. And when extremist Israeli ministers Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir were sanctioned in June, she declined in her response even to mention their names. The likes of Suella Braverman, meanwhile, have branded pro-Palestine demonstrations 'hate marches'. Contemptibly, any pro-Palestinian voice within the Conservative Party is almost systematically accused of anti-Semitism and put into its complaints procedure, which silences and bullies. And as Michael Gove increases his hold on appointments to the leader's office, what could be more warped than his recent recommendation that the IDF be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize? It has now reached the point where Conservative comment has become so extreme it has discredited their entire foreign policy and is making them despised more widely. The party is increasingly becoming defined by its lack of humanity. The world is watching the extermination of an entire country. Palestine is being annihilated. Meanwhile the Conservative Party is covering itself in shame, and will stand no chance of re-election unless it states a clear policy based on international law, and promotes the UK's historic understanding of the region. This issue is and always has been about land. Israel's extremist government has only one objective, and that is to make all of Palestine theirs. All other talk, horrendous though the facts may be, is second to that. As leader, Kemi Badenoch could redeem herself speedily by stating loudly what all should be saying to Israel: 'Get out of Palestine, it isn't your country.' [See also: Keir Starmer alienates left and right on Gaza] Related
