For the last few days, my social media timeline has been taken over by edits of the Falklands War. As warships bound for the South Atlantic appear on the screen, loud, electronic music blares.
Suddenly, a photo of Margaret Thatcher appears. “The Falkland Islands belong to Britain” she declares. I instantly double tap the screen. I have never felt more proud to be British.
But with so much focus paid to the Falkland Islands in the run-up to yesterday’s game, I began thinking about the idea of war and conflict more generally, and how politics is often likened to warfare.
Mao Zedong once proclaimed that “politics is war without bloodshed” and it is difficult to disagree with such an assessment. As we look at the state of modern British politics, what do we see? Constant clashes and skirmishes in the media, attacks launched by one party against another, secret backroom plots which seek to bring down entire premierships – it is a fight, and Westminster is the battlefield.
When one becomes accustomed to this conflict, it can be difficult to expect anything to change. Yesterday’s showing of PMQs was no different. In the moments leading up to Starmer and Badenoch’s final exchange at the despatch box, LBC’s James O’Brien was feeling rather pessimistic about the whole situation.
“I don’t want to be rude about Kemi Badenoch” he said, looking rather despairingly as one headphone rested off his ear, “but will she be respectful of the moment and of the man?”
Natasha Clark, LBC’s Political Editor, weighed in on the matter, predicting that we were not “going to see some of the niceties that we regularly see with final PMQs.”
And so, I readied myself for the inevitable social media divide which would come as a result of this. I could already imagine the comments flooding in on Twitter:
‘Yes Kemi, stick the boot in’ versus ‘She should really show some respect’
But this divide never materialised. Rather, Kemi read the room, and she understood the correct tone to take. She joked about her exchanges with Starmer, she playfully mocked a handful of senior Labour figures, and she extended her wishes to the outgoing PM’s family. It was all very civil.
Yet, what I found most striking was when Starmer revealed the things which Badenoch had done behind the scenes. “She has extended kindness to me, privately, in very difficult times” Starmer told the Commons. He mentioned the time in which his family home was attacked, and when his brother died of cancer. On both occasions, Kemi Badenoch reached out privately and offered her support to Starmer.
I think this reveals something very significant about Kemi Badenoch. Beneath the sass, the quips and the political savviness she is still human. She is still someone who cares, and who remains authentic despite the constant scrutiny of the cameras.
And this authenticity is critical. When I speak to MPs, even those who were most sceptical of her leadership at first say that they have been won over not by her big policy announcements (though this has, of course, helped matters) but by her character.
She feels genuine. She comes up on the doorstep organically because the public feel as though they are getting the real Kemi who is guided by a grounded, conservative philosophy – not a Kemi who is guided by focus groups and polling.
And at a time when other leaders are associated with sleaze, or are seeking to avoid scrutiny altogether, Kemi’s authenticity cuts through. We need only look at the latest polling from More In Common which puts her as the first party leader to achieve a net positive favourability score since the summer of 2024. Admittedly, it is only +3, but the very fact that we can now say Kemi is the most liked political leader, rather than the least disliked shows that the party is heading in the right direction.
Indeed, some may argue that this says more about the state of British politics than anything else, but I would wager that it reveals a trend. Unlike other leaders, the more the public see of Kemi, the more they like her, and her final showdown with Starmer at PMQs will only serve to reinforce this attitude.
She proved yesterday that she can adapt and manoeuvre when the situation requires it. She knows when to go hard and lay the boot in, but she also knows when to be civil and when to respect her opponents. That intuition matters. It was a similar showing to when she responded to the Henry Nowak case.
She could have quite easily responded in a way that mirrored Farage, calling for ‘pure, cold rage’ but she read the room and she knew what was needed. It proves she is able to change tack when the situation requires it – and that is something that any voter should want not only in a politician, but in a leader.
And so, ConHome readers may spend the remainder of the day despairing over our exit from the World Cup last night. But despite such sorrow, we at least have something we can look forward to in our leader’s ability. It pains me to even utter this phrase, but I find myself having to agree with New Labour on this matter – things can only get better