The recent riots in the wake of the Southport stabbings provide a stern and tragic test not just for Keir Starmer, but also for the six candidates vying to be the next leader of the Conservative party.
Each of the candidates is, naturally, focused mainly on how to appeal to their fellow MPs before turning to their party membership. However, they must also keep one eye on the average voter and demonstrate, to all concerned, that it is they who can best connect with and represent an electorate who so searingly turned their back on the Conservatives just one month ago.
But new data released by YouGov suggests that none are quite on the same page as the British public on the issue of the recent riots.
Each of Robert Jenrick, Kemi Badenoch, James Cleverly, Tom Tugendhat, Priti Patel, and Mel Stride have made some form of intervention about the violence which has spilled out onto streets across the United Kingdom, but have varied in the levels (and the specifics) of their condemnation and the language they have used to describe those participating, their motivations, and their actions.
And there has been a marked division in how the Conservative leadership candidates and the Labour government have been discussing the violence, its causes, and its targets. This division matters because the Government is closer to the public view.
Starmer for instance recently has branded the violence as “far-right thuggery” and has sought to highlight the threat to Muslim communities in particular and reassure them with extra security measures.
Yvette Cooper’s most recent statement branded the rioters as “criminals and thugs”, again highlighted the specific attacks on Britain’s Muslim communities, and slammed those she accused of “whipping up racist violence”.
Conversely, at the time of writing, Kemi Badenoch is yet to release anything on her Twitter/X page specifically addressing the riots, but has argued for the UK to “start again” on integration following the outbreak of the violence.
Others, such as Tom Tugendhat, have indeed taken to social media to condemn the violence, and have used terms such as ‘extremism’ (or ‘thuggery’ in the case of Priti Patel), but have not spoken about the issues of race and racism, the far-right, and the targeting of Muslim and other minority communities in the same way that, for example, the Prime Minister and Home Secretary have.
Those are quite simple frames and languages that are not anywhere close to seeing from the Conservative leadership candidates.
But this lack of engagement with some aspects and elements of the violence leaves the candidates at odds with the public. The reason is that the frames and language that the Labour government is using connect much stronger with the public’s view than those expressed by the Conservative leadership candidates.
Research published by YouGov yesterday (6th August 2024) suggests that 86 per cent of the public have ‘not much sympathy’ or ‘no sympathy at all’ with “those causing unrest”, and that 71 per cent believe the unrest is “completely unjustified”.
Further, 67 per cent said it was appropriate to call those involved “thugs”, 65 per cent said it was appropriate to brand them “rioters”, 58 per cent believe it appropriate to call them “racist”, and 52 per cent think they are “far-right”.
In all cases except the latter, this includes a majority of 2024 Conservative voters (just 45 per cent of them describe the participants as racist), yet we have seen extremely little, if anything at all, from the leadership candidates in the way of using these terms of talking about these issues about the violence.
Only 16 per cent of the public say they would describe those involved in the events as “people with legitimate concerns”, and a mere 7 per cent would apply the term “far-left”.
As well, the leadership candidates must be wary of their responses regarding the current government and their role – or culpability – in the ongoing situation. The same YouGov data shows that the British public is much more likely to blame “previous Conservative governments” (55 per cent) than “the current Labour government” (36 per cent) for the riots, and almost three-quarters (74 per cent) believe that “far-right groups” bear responsibility, compared to just one-third (33 per cent) who say Starmer does.
One thing where there is a fair degree of alignment between the Tory leadership candidates and the public (and the Government) is the view that those acting violently should face strong police and legal action against them.
Around half of Brits (52 per cent) believe that the police response to the riots has not been tough enough, and over seven in ten would support measures such as using water cannons (75 per cent support), taser (75 per cent), mounted police (72 per cent), and curfews (72 per cent) to control the unrest. 62 per cent would support the army being brought in to help deal with the situation.
But aside from condemnation of violence and strong application of the law to stop it, the candidates remain some way off the average voter in terms of how they are seeing and reacting to these scenes. The public sees these events as far-right riots and criminality being participated in by thugs and racists. This is not the language being reflected by the Conservative party leadership candidates.
Now, this is not exactly simple ground for the candidates to walk on. The issues of immigration and integration, which underpin the story surrounding the riots, are two policy areas on which the Conservative Party – including many of the candidates themselves – have taken increasingly tougher stances and have moved significantly further to the right in recent years.
This is not at all to say that the Conservatives and rioters occupy, or aim to occupy, the same political ground. Or that the rioters represent the party or its leadership candidates, or vice versa.
But it does create a conundrum for candidates jostling and vying to lead a party from whom a key election slogan has been taken by rioters and turned into a chant – ‘stop the boats’.
Will we see candidates adopt the frames and language with which the British public understands these events in the coming days? Or will they continue to toe a much more cautious line?