The six contenders to lead the Conservative and Unionist Party have spent the summer busy on a whistle-stop tour of the UK’s local associations, whilst the party is still reeling from the worst election defeat it has ever suffered.
When I started as Editor of ConservativeHome two weeks ago, I wanted to make sure that our audience got a chance to hear the leadership pitches of Mel Stride, Dame Priti Patel, James Cleverly, Tom Tugendhat, Robert Jenrick and Kemi Badenoch if that Tory tour had eluded them…or for a variety of reasons they had so far avoided it!
I offered all their teams a no “gotchas”, straightforward interview. It was to be shared with our readers before a single vote had been cast by either MPs or members. I’m grateful they all agreed.
I’m well aware many will have a favoured candidate already, but given what is at stake and the party’s recent history, I’d urge those who want to see the party get back up off its knees, if not the floor – listen to what all of them have to say.
And listen it is. These are audio interviews, to not just give you information on their background, plans, and professed expertise, but also to give you an unfiltered feel of who they are as people.
We’ve released three of the six interviews today and will release the other three tomorrow. This is to avoid overwhelming everyone, whilst giving at least 24 hours before any MP starts the voting section of the contest on Wednesday afternoon.
As I say, you the readers, are more than free to draw your conclusions, that is after all the aim, but I thought I’d share some of mine, having sat down and spoken with them all.
None of the contenders seem interested in aggressively going for each other. After the last few years should be a relief to members. All six identify so-called “Blue-on-Blue” attacks as behaviour that has hurt the party badly. If the party, media, or public were hoping for a “spatter of blood on the carpet” that does not, yet, seem the order of the day, and frankly long may that continue. Entertainment it might be, good for the party it isn’t.
That doesn’t mean they aren’t trying to set themselves apart from each other. Jenrick and Patel are at pains to point out they weren’t part of the last months of Government. In her case that was nearly two years. The four that were in Government to the end, are at equal pains to show they were in their areas responsible for actually doing things, not just saying things.
Even if a common theme is that the last government was really bad at delivering on its promises, Rishi Sunak doesn’t come up much, which is perhaps not a surprise. Nor is it surprising Stride defends the repairs the last Government had to make after the Liz Truss mini-Budget. Others think it was too late.
CCHQ, if it hasn’t realised already, can expect a big overhaul (and indeed the whole machinery of the party) whoever wins. A distinct frustration, even anger, with the way the central party has handled local associations, and how members’ voices have been ignored, makes up a sizeable part of the six conversations. The party can expect, whether some in it like it or not, to see the membership given more say in a range of areas.
I was careful, in a bid to be fair to all of them that they faced a majority of the same questions. It was not my aim to catch any individual out. However, it doesn’t mean despite some common themes that they are all singing from the same song sheet. The basic melody is familiar but there is a variety of individual flourishes that either harmonise with some of the others, or create a notable dissonance.
The most notable difference is the extent to which each candidate wants to spend time reflecting on and rebuilding after that loss of Conservative values and principles. That’s a theme they’ve all clearly heard not least from those traditional Tory voters who chose Reform at the election. This is countered by the extent some contenders think getting stuck into Labour and the other opposition parties quickly, simply can’t wait.
It’s not that they don’t care about Conservative values but they think, they just need amplifying not ignoring. For Cleverly a discussion about values should not become a long academic excercise, for Badenoch and to an extent Jenrick it is key to a deeper change in the party for the future. None of the three make it an either-or debate but there’s a visible difference in the emphasis they give to reflection and to getting the party ready to fight. All of them have their sights on the local elections in May next year.
Keir Starmer couldn’t stop banging on about how much he’d changed his party, even as some of those ardent Corbynite MPs he still has, celebrated being re-elected. However, Tories should prepare for quite a lot of “change” language over the next few weeks. I asked each of the six the question Tories asked Starmer and never quite found out: change to what?
Indeed, all six candidates think the recent weeks of a new Labour Government have provided ample targets for serious and sustained Tory attacks. After all, the old “it was what we inherited” excuse is already getting noisomely sniffy in the sell-by-date stakes.
After the necessary investigation of their diagnoses of what’s gone wrong, how to fix it, what will change under them, and what they want to bring back, there is the feel of each contender as an individual. Tugendhat is big on ‘service’ and none of the six come across as short on dedication to the party.
So who describes themselves as a poker-playing prankster? Who promises more cooking videos? Who likes a leather jacket and listening to AC/DC? And who is the qualified tour guide? Two of them seem to revel in being ruled at home by boisterous but delightful children …and dogs.
I think all of them manage to laugh at various points and when faced with a question about the level of intrusion that comes with being Leader, one of them suggests someone should riffle through their bins! It might also be a relief to members that all of them seem confident they have nothing to hide.
Choosing the leader is a serious business but good leaders are not always serious. Likability isn’t enough on its own but it certainly helps taking a message to the party and the public. Since the party has but 121 MPs and none of these individuals could be described as ludicrous options, it is perhaps a relief to hear from all of them that they’d work hard for the winner, even if it isn’t them.
But they all want it to be them. You can hear that in the conversations.
So, give them a hearing. ConservativeHome will be watching which ones start to build the momentum that might see them finally over the line. They can’t do that without members taking a good look at them and making their own minds up.