Ukraine has become something of a pilgrimage for Britain’s leaders. A place where Prime Ministers are able to strut their stuff on the world stage, flexing their understanding of Morgenthau to the world. Johnson sought to invoke a touch of Churchill in his steadfast defence of the nation, whilst Starmer reiterated that the UK would continue to provide “unwavering support” come what may.
Andy Burnham has since joined the club, having realised that a ‘trip abroad’ means something very different than taking the train down South to London’s boroughs. Making the trek out to the war-torn country yesterday to reaffirm Britain’s support in their efforts to combat the Russian threat, Burnham, much like his predecessors, committed to sticking alongside Ukraine, stating that the UK would be alongside them “all the way.”
The trip culminated in a crucial deal being struck. Late in the afternoon, a “landmark AI deal between the UK and Ukraine” had been signed, which will “solve key national security challenges.” The press release goes on, stating that Avengers AI Labs – a so-called “goldmine of battlefield data” will “give British innovators and researchers unparalleled access to real-world operational insights and the opportunity to ‘plug and play.’”
It’s a welcome move. Aside from a handful of jibes over the his dress sense, the King in the North’s trip was largely a success, and highlighted the importance of foreign policy and diplomacy in such a volatile world. Indeed, one of the criticisms most often levied against Burnham is that he would prove unable to tackle the complexities of foreign policy, enmeshed in the nitty gritty details of domestic affairs. But, lo and behold, he has proven us wrong.
And so, much like when Grey went gallivanting around Europe in the run-up to the First World War, foreign policy has once again returned to the forefront of the news cycle. Who, then, has the blue team put forward to vouch for their foreign policy? Who could possibly perform the daunting task of representing Britain’s interests abroad for His Majesty’s Official Opposition?
The answer is (still) Priti Patel.
It’s rather an odd move for a leader who has gone to such considerable lengths to present herself as the face of Conservative renewal. Drawing clear lines in the sand on matters such as leaving the ECHR and scrapping net zero targets, alongside barring Party grandees from standing as candidates are steps which highlight that the Party is very much eager to commit to change.
That is not to say that politicians with less than stellar records should be prevented from holding senior office whatsoever. Parties, of course, require experience to govern well, and to shut the door on anyone with even the slightest blip on their CV would be both unrealistic and unwise. But to hug someone such as Patel so close is puzzling. How can voters expect to trust our Party once again if the Shadow Foreign Secretary is someone who many associate with a previous Tory Government? As one MP put it rather bluntly to me, Patel “has too much baggage” from having served under Johnson, “and should return to the backbenches at the next reshuffle.”
But despite such attitudes amongst MPs, one can perhaps see some logic behind Badenoch’s decision. Being Shadow Foreign Secretary is very much a job where one is ushered away from the cameras. Press conferences and policy announcements are few and far between, and so installing someone such as Patel who possesses a certain level of experience isn’t necessarily an outlandish move. But the desire for experience must balance out with the Party’s need for rejuvenation. It’s rather a difficult task to muster when the furniture from years gone by remains in place.
And many within the Party agree with such a diagnosis. Time and again, whenever discussions of a possible changing of the guard come up, Patel is one of the first names to be mentioned. As another MP told me, there “are a number of prominent front benchers who remind people of a past that the Leader is trying to move away from. It doesn’t make much sense keeping people in prominent positions whose peak is clearly behind them.”
Indeed, her record is far from, uh, pretty. Whilst International Development Secretary, she embarked on a series of meetings in Israel without informing the FCDO, which eventually led to her resignation. A few years later, having been entrusted to run the Home Office, she was one of a handful who were considered responsible as having oversaw the Boriswave, where net migration reached a record 745,000.
But rather than accepting that that the figures reflected a failure of Tory immigration policy, the second coming of Metternich doubled down on her performance in office, arguing that adding context to the equation would vindicate the Tories on the charge of failing to secure our border. It’s “lazy” to discuss these figures without context, she told GB News in late 2024. She then went on to defend her record when speaking to Harry Cole, refusing to apologise for a surge in migration on account of the fact that many who entered into the country were on skilled visas.
Unsurprisingly, the coupling of such a questionable record alongside an inability to concede that the last government got some things wrong has meant that she is not the most popular of figures. Repeatedly, she jostles with Stuart Andrew for penultimate place in our Shadow Cabinet League Tables, struggling to keep her name in the double digits.
Why Kemi continues to keep her around is thus a perfectly reasonable question to ask, and one which her colleagues are indeed raising. Much like the bottom set PE kid you never really wanted on your team, she has fallen at every hurdle – and yet she has somehow still ended up in Badenoch’s innermost sanctum.
Perhaps it’s rooted in some Essex-based loyalty. Perhaps it’s an attempt to prevent Patel – who once partied with Farage – from jumping ship. Reform would almost certainly never take her on, but many said the same about Braverman et al.
Patel may well have the experience required for the job, and Badenoch may have her reasons for keeping her there, but it becomes difficult to sell the image of a changed party to the British masses whilst she continues to play such a central role.