Once again, the Conservatives seem poised to serve up another political gift to Labour. If Labour manage to blow it, they’ll only have themselves to blame.

Following accusations of deliberate “vote-lending” in which MPs vote for a candidate who is not their favourite to knock out a rival they see as a threat – speculation that grew especially loud when James Cleverly was unexpectedly knocked out – it’s now up to Conservative Party members to decide their next leader. And it’s a tough one to call given that the two remaining candidates occupy a broadly similar space on the right of the party. Both unquestioningly support Israel, embrace culture wars, talk tough on immigration, and sneer at multiculturalism.

After years of party infighting, surely the last thing the Tories need is the divisive influence of Kemi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick. Their hard-line stances and policies risk deepening party infighting and alienating key voter bases at a time when unity and broad appeal are crucial for the party’s survival.

Even Britain’s top pollster has warned that the Conservatives cannot regain power whether Jenrick or Badenoch end up winning the Tory leadership contest. Professor John Curtice described the pair as “unknown quantities” who do not have what it takes to turn the party’s fortunes around.

“In short, despite their ideological stance, neither Ms Badenoch nor Mr Jenrick is necessarily well set to heal the electoral divide on the right,” he said in a damning article for the Independent.

Conservative councillors have their doubts as well, and many plan to boycott the vote. Polling of Tory councillors by Savanta shows that almost half believe neither Jenrick nor Badenoch will be able to win the next election, and 15 percent are not planning to vote.

Jamie Driscoll, former mayor of the North of Tyne, summed up the general feeling.

“Neither Jenrick nor Badenoch will give Britain the opposition it needs – economic scrutiny, not more culture wars,” he said.

With just a week to go until the new leader is announced, RWW examines some of the most bonkers policies of the two contenders, in what has, unsurprisingly, become another gruellingly onerous Tory leadership battle.

A ‘political opportunist’

Team Badenoch has branded Jenrick as a political opportunist who changes his positions to suit his ambitions. Suggesting he’s malleable and can’t be trusted, they claim Jenrick was more of a centrist until his dramatic resignation as immigration minister when he slammed Sunak’s Rwanda asylum plan as too soft.

“It’s fair to say he’s ‘been on a journey,’” one Badenoch-supporting MP remarked.

Jenrick’s critics also warn that if he succeeds, the Conservative Party will fall into the hands of hard-right influencers, who only backed him when it became clear that Suella Braverman lacked support.

“I am absolutely certain that the likes of Kruger and Hayes and [fellow right-winger] Mark Francois think that they can control him and make him do what they want,” said a member of Badenoch’s team.

Jenrick’s hardline immigration gambit

In his conference speech, Jenrick laid out five key changes for the party to challenge Labour: an immigration cap, opposing Labour’s “mad plans” on net zero, embracing housebuilding, reducing the size of the state, and “defending our culture.”

Going hard on immigration is apparently, the new ticket to power.  Across Europe, far-right parties are seeing some success at the polls by pounding the anti-immigration drum. Even our centre-left prime minister has responded to the drumbeat in meeting Italy’s far-right leader Giorgia Meloni and praising her crackdown on migrants.

Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez seems to be alone in offering some moral sanity, condemning the use of fear and hatred of foreigners as the only path to power, as he announced a new pro-immigration policy.

Jenrick meanwhile has leaned heavily on hardline immigration policies, attempting to emulate the success of far-right parties across Europe. His signature policy is the UK’s withdrawal from the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), which he argues has made it “impossible to secure our borders.”  He describes the idea of reforming the treaty – as some Tories want but not all – as a “fantasy” and has said all members of his shadow cabinet will have to share his position on this issue.

But his extreme rhetoric, including a claim that British special forces are “killing rather than capturing terrorists” to avoid legal consequences under human rights laws, has sparked criticism. Tom Tugendhat, a former soldier and a candidate in the leadership race at the time, rebuked Jenrick for his “fundamental misunderstanding” of the law of armed conflict.

‘Tear up unconservative Climate Change Act’

Jenrick has also said he will scrap major pieces of Blair and Brown era legislation including the Climate Change Act, Equality Act, and the Human Rights Act under a “Great Reform Act” if he makes it to No 10.

His plans include scrapping carbon budgets and “unburdening” businesses of equality laws, which, as the culture war-stoking Telegraph keenly reported, “have been criticised for driving positive discrimination and political correctness in the workplace.”

He described carbon budgets as “Soviet-style five-year plans” (why not throw in some Cold War nostalgia for good measure) and claimed they impede the building of critical national infrastructure projects.

“The next Conservative government must do better to deliver a genuinely conservative country. We must repeal and amend the Climate Change Act, Equality Act and Human Rights Act and restore decision-making to ministers accountable to parliament,” he told the Telegraph.

Badenoch and ‘Conservative values’

Meanwhile, Kemi Badenoch, the former business secretary, has positioned herself as a staunch defender of traditional Conservative values. “You start with principles first, not throwing out a succession of policies,” one Badenoch campaign source said.

And Badenoch’s campaign has been notably light on specifics. Her team maintains that the detailed plan for renewal will come in due course. What we do know is that her campaign is entitled “Renewal 2030,” which refers to the year she envisages becoming the Conservative prime minister.

The spirit of Thatcher?

Badenoch is known for her direct and unapologetic approach which has even been compared to the no-nonsense style of Margaret Thatcher. Lord Forsyth, who served under Thatcher, said he saw in Badenoch some of the qualities that enabled the Iron Lady to “transform” the Conservatives after she seized the leadership of the party.

One does though rather recall Senator Bentsen’s 1988 putdown of the long-forgotten vice-presidential hopeful Dan Quayle, who was told on comparing himself to President Kennedy, ‘Senator, I knew Jack Kenndy and you are no Jack Kennedy.’ One thing we know for certain is that Kemi Badenoch is no Margaret Thatcher (thank goodness do I hear people say!). The last one to try that trick was Liz Truss and looked what happened to her.

Being Thatcher though, is a Tory obsession (except for Boris Johnson of course who wanted to be Winston Churchill) so not to be outdone in invoking the spirit of Thatcher, Robert Jenrick revealed at the party conference that his daughter’s middle name is “Thatcher.” Even Tory delegates, who are not easily shocked, gasped at that announcement.

This year’s conference in fact became something of a contest between Badenoch and Jenrick over who could generate the most attention and controversy.

Badenoch certainly succeeded by suggesting that maternity leave pay was “excessive,” despite the UK having one of the lowest rates of maternity pay among OECD countries. The Tory leadership hopeful also criticised the minimum wage, claiming it is “harming business,” and suggested that thousands of civil servants should be jailed.

But Badenoch’s pugnacious style means she “has cut through to the public,” says supporter and conservative commentator Albie Amankona. People see she is “fiery, opinionated, brave and competent,” without the need to be attention-grabbing, he added.

Hmm, not sure about that.

Often labelled a “culture warrior,” Badenoch might remain popular with the party’s right for her “anti-woke” position, but will it rub off with the wider electorate? As polls have shown time and time again, UK voters are frustrated with the ‘desperate’ culture war tactics of politicians.

Yet Badenoch appears undeterred. As equalities minister, she rejected claims of widespread institutional racism in the UK and defended single-sex spaces over gender-neutral facilities. At the party conference, she told the Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg show “not all cultures are equally valid” when it comes to deciding who should be allowed into the UK.

She has also expressed scepticism about the ECHR, suggesting that Britain should focus on wider reforms to its immigration system before considering withdrawal.

During the recent (and only) leadership debate which was aired on GB News – a fitting platform it has to be said for these two – Badenoch tore into Jenrick’s repeated pledge to immediately quit the ECHR, which he’s attempted to set out as a Brexit-style “leave or remain” issue. Badenoch argued the idea was a distraction from bigger worries and not properly thought-out.

And so, the Tory civil war rumbles on. Regardless of who claims victory on November 2, it’s hard to imagine either Badenoch or Jenrick being capable of the Herculean challenge that awaits. With the Tories’ once powerful “one nation” faction seemingly dead in the water for the foreseeable future, you can’t help but feel that yet another excruciating Tory leadership battle won’t be too far away.

Once again, the Conservatives seem poised to serve up another political gift to Labour. If Labour manage to blow it, they’ll only have themselves to blame.

Right-wing media watch – Opinion columns littered with alarmist speculation about the budget

As we approach the highly-anticipated autumn budget, the right-wing newspapers are digging to new depths to dish out dire warnings about Labour’s apparent fiscal plans, determined to paint a picture of an impending economic disaster.

“Labour plots a tax raid on your holidays,” was the Daily Mail’s front-page story on October 19. The story claims that Labour is considering so-called “inflation-busting hikes” on air passenger duty, labelling it a ‘holiday tax’ – a stealth levy on air travel. The article further fans the flames by suggesting that Labour is also planning a “multi-billion-pound fuel duty raid,” which could see a 7p per litre increase at the pumps, putting additional financial strain on motorists.

The Mail’s opinion column is brimming with speculation and alarmist rhetoric. One piece asserts that the chancellor is under fire for potentially extending the freeze on income tax thresholds, a move that would push “hundreds of thousands more people into higher tax brackets.” Another article warns of a “record number of British firms teetering on the edge of collapse,” supposedly fearing the impact of the upcoming budget. A further piece claims Reeves is “facing calls to exempt military heroes from the incoming VAT hike on private schools.”

The Sun’s opinion pages have been equally doom-mongering about the upcoming budget. Its biggest worry is a potential rise in fuel duty. The newspaper argues that such a move by Rachel Reeves would be “heading down a dangerous road,” claiming that the proposed 7p per litre increase “would punch working people full in the face.” The hyperbole continues, with the Murdoch-owned paper painting the budget as a direct attack on ordinary workers.

But it is perhaps the Express that wins the prize for the most alarmist exaggeration, even using the word ‘doom’ in its headline.

“Rachel Reeves to put economy in ‘doom-loop’ as tax rises to spark ‘bonfire of jobs.”

The article continued: “Business leaders and Tory MPs have expressed anger at Labour’s plans to raise £40billion through tax hikes and spending cuts.”

As the budget approaches, it remains to be seen whether any of these dramatic forecasts will come to pass or if they do, how much they will actually hurt working people. Or is the doom-mongering simply the product of political posturing aimed at undermining Labour’s credibility.

Woke-bashing of the week – Britain’s second-richest man backs ‘anti-woke’ university, cheered on by right-wing press

Sir Leonard Blavatnik, Britain’s second-wealthiest man, is one of several billionaires funding an “anti-woke” university in the US. Unsurprisingly, Britain’s right-wing media jumped all over the story.

GB News’ “New ‘Anti-Woke’ University Backed by Billionaires: ‘Our Mission is the Fearless Pursuit of Truth,‘ story claims that recent campus controversies and debates over antisemitism at elite institutions have boosted fundraising efforts for the University of Austin (UATX). Wealthy benefactors, the report claims, are seeking an alternative in higher education.

Blavatnik, a Soviet/Ukrainian-born British-American businessman and philanthropist, is one of the leading supporters of UATX in Texas. The university, which launched last month, has just 92 students and promotes the slogan “Dare to Think.” According to its website, the curriculum includes “forbidden courses,” offering advanced discussions on moral judgments, conservatism, and evolutionary biology, alongside classical texts and entrepreneurial studies.

As well as GB News, the Telegraph eagerly reported the story, informing how the university has raised $200 million (£153 million) from high-profile investors who support its “fearless pursuit of truth.” The Daily Mail also weighed in, saying the university is “frustrated with what they see as the ideological tilt and diminishing debate at elite colleges.”

Blavatnik is worth £29.2 billion according to The Sunday Times Rich List. He donated $1 million to UATX following Hamas’s terrorist attack on Israel last October. Other major donors include Harlan Crow, property developer and Republican donor, Peter Thiel, co-founder of PayPal, and Jeff Yass, a New York-based investor who has contributed $35 million. Executives from Elon Musk’s SpaceX and The Boring Company have also been involved in shaping the university’s engineering programme.

Blavatnik, who is Jewish, suspended donations to Harvard in protest after the university’s president failed to respond to concerns about rising antisemitism on US campuses. He is reportedly a good friend of Benjamin Netanyahu and has ties to Russian oligarchs like aluminium baron Viktor Vekselberg and the billionaire metals trader Oleg Deripaska. Blavatnik is also a significant donor to the Republican Party. 

Blavatnik received a knighthood in recognition of his donations to British institutions such as the Victoria and Albert Museum, the National Portrait Gallery, and the Courtauld Institute of Art.  

Byline Times recently revealed that Robert Jenrick accepted a £25,000 donation from a company owned by Blavatnik, who was sanctioned by the Ukranian government last year. The contribution was made via Blavatnik’s company, Access Industries, which also donated £1.25 million to the Conservatives during the UK’s election campaign earlier this year. 

In Israel, he owns a majority stake in Channel 13 News, which had been one of the few Israeli media outlets to air openly critical commentary of Netanyahu and the conduct of Israel’s war in Gaza. In July, Blavatnik faced a series of protests in Britain after his television channel was accused of cancelling programmes to please Netanyahu.

While the right-wing media eagerly seizes on the story, framing UATX’s launch and its billionaire backers as a significant pushback against so-called “woke” culture, the reality is more complex and perhaps even more disheartening. The establishment of the UATX, with its high-profile financial support, is yet another example of the ongoing narrative that traditional universities are failing to protect free speech and are overly influenced by progressive ideologies. When in reality, as the New York Times notes, the right-wing media is obsessed with the supposed stifling of “free speech” on college campuses, but it seems to care only about protecting the speech it likes. 

Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead is author of Right-Wing Watch

Comments are closed.