David Gauke is a former Justice Secretary and was an independent candidate in South-West Hertfordshire at the 2019 general election.
The Conservative members chose their leader and – for a change – I thought they made the right choice. As it happens, I was even one of the 53,806 who voted for Kemi Badenoch, even if unenthusiastically.
To my mind, Badenoch had one very important attribute: she was not Robert Jenrick. This perhaps puts it more personally than is necessary. As a colleague, I liked Jenrick and have always found him thoughtful, conscientious and courteous.
But his leadership campaign articulated a strategy of focusing on Reform voters by pursuing a hard-line approach on immigration which involved leaving the European Convention on Human Rights. As I do not think it is agenda that will be electorally successful or good for country, my vote was not going there.
Badenoch would not have been my first choice. Or, to be fair, my second or third choice. The candidates who dropped out in the previous three rounds – James Cleverly, Tom Tugendhat and Mel Stride – would have been more to my liking. Badenoch’s media interviews are too often uncomfortable experiences as she berates the interviewer for asking perfectly legitimate questions.
Last week’s exchange with Kate MCann on Times Radio, where McCann challenged Badenoch about her views on Jenrick, was a case in point. Badenoch accused McCann of twisting her words; McCann replied that she was directly quoting her. Badenoch has a bad habit of being a straight-talker until challenged on her straight-talking.
This abrasiveness is not limited to broadcast interviewers. She has a reputation among colleagues of being difficult.
This is, perhaps, even more of a problem for a Leader of the Opposition than it is as Prime Minister. She does not have Cabinet positions to offer but places in the Shadow Cabinet; offers to be in her frontbench team may prove to be resistible. In a Parliamentary party of just 121, the leader needs to make use of as much of the talent that she has available. This means charming and cajoling colleagues, and her ability to do that is unproven.
She was also need to develop an agenda with wide appeal that has something to say on the issues that matter most to the general public. Badenoch refrained from setting out detailed policies in the leadership race and she was right to do so: policies designed to enthuse party members will not necessarily have wider appeal, and she has a relatively free hand to set out an agenda with broad appeal.
Up until now, her views on cultural issues have been most prominent. She wrote an introduction to a pamphlet published by her leadership team – Conservatism in Crisis – that argues that “a new progressive ideology is on the rise” which is “based on the twin pillars of constant intervention on behalf of protecting marginalised, vulnerable groups, including protecting us from ourselves – and the idea that bureaucrats make better decisions than individuals, or even democratic nation states”.
This ideology, she argues, is responsible for an “economic and cultural malaise that has set in across a complacent West that is living off the inheritance built by previous generations”.
It is bracing stuff, and it is no bad thing for an aspiring leader to think deeply about the issues we face, including the challenges of the political realignment. But it keeps her in her policy comfort zone, more focused on the rise of identity politics, for example, than the challenge of obtaining higher economic growth. (She does, to be fair, make a reference to the excellent recent Foundations paper, but this feels like something of an afterthought.)
A centre-right political party should have something to say about the perils of identity politics, and no-one can doubt Badenoch’s sincerity on the topic.
But this is not as pertinent issue in the UK as it is in the US, and will not determine how large numbers of people will vote at the next general election. Almost certainly, the issues that will matter most when the public next chooses its government will be the same issues that usually determine how people vote: the economy and the state of public services.
Until the election, Badenoch held two ministerial positions; one consisting of a big economic portfolio (Secretary of State for Business and Trade) and one primarily related to cultural issues (Minister for Women and Equalities). Her reputation was that she was more committed and energetic in the latter role than the former one; she will have to shift focus as leader of the opposition.
Last week’s Budget highlighted that there is an opportunity here for the Conservatives, although it is not a straight-forward one.
Tax rises tend to be unpopular, particularly given that Labour had failed to obtain a mandate for them at the last election. Early polling, however, does not suggest that Rachel Reeves’ announcements have done great damage to public support.
It may well be that the electorate does not understand the tax incidence of employers National Insurance Contributions (employees pay most of it by receiving lower pay) but perhaps there is widespread support for higher taxes to pay for better public services. If so, a simple promise to cut taxes (the default position of Tories in opposition) will not be the electoral winner some might hope.
But dig into the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecasts and our economic prospects look grim. Living standards look set to barely improve in the next few years, mortgage rates are only going to fall slowly, and spending on public services are set to see a squeeze in the second half of the Parliament.
Labour won the last election promising higher economic growth but with little detail on how it was going to be delivered, beyond a claim that they would offer more stable government than the Tories. At the moment, that does not look like enough to deliver markedly stronger improvements to living standards.
These are only forecasts, of course, but if our economic performance is going to be poor, this is bad news for the country – but potentially good news for an opposition with a credible economic agenda.
Labour’s vision for economic growth is more statist than anything the Conservative Party is likely to offer, and there is a centre-right critique to be made of it: too many decisions made by politicians rather than the market; a tendency to focus on social rather than economic objectives; a reluctance to stand up to producer interests, especially the trade unions; an inability to deliver ambitious reform of the public services.
The country may not yet be ready to hear it from the Conservatives, but if the economy disappoints over the next four years, these are arguments that Badenoch could win.
Badenoch was always the low floor/high ceiling candidate. Her weaknesses might mean she implodes, but her strengths mean she might cut through and win the respect of the electorate. To do the latter, however, she has to focus on the issues that matter to the public.