There are not one but two articles from Conservative leadership candidates in the newspapers this morning. Trade Minister Kemi Badenoch has an article: Sun He said Brexit was a vote of confidence in the country. And Robert Jenrick, as described in the online version daily telegram The “immigration minister”, who was in office until Wednesday, wrote a longer version of his resignation letter.
The collapse in Tory discipline happened so quickly that someone well connected to what he called “the party in the district” told me about Bob Hawke. This is the rule among us for a late leadership change before an election, as the Australian Labor Party did in 1983. After the election was called, he sidelined his uninspiring leader, Bill Hayden, and installed Hawke. Win not just that election, but three more.
This late change was made in the opposition, but it can also be made in the government. Anthony Eden traveled to the country immediately after taking office in April 1955 and increased the Conservative Party majority from 17 to 60 in this election. Boris Johnson is the only example of recent times who has managed to persuade his opponents to give him the election he wanted for three months. After becoming leader in 2019.
However, both of these cases are very different from the current situation. Eden was popular and had been considered the heir apparent for some time; and the economy was growing rapidly. Johnson was hugely popular and many voters agreed that an election was needed to break the Brexit deadlock.
This time it will once again look hopeless for the Conservatives to change their leader and will likely make matters worse for the MPs who will have to make it happen. In summary, even if they think a new face could help win a few seats, the process of making the change could only further damage the party’s reputation.
Therefore, we can put aside the talk of “letters going in” and a vote of confidence. Sir Graham Brady, chairman of the 1922 Committee that oversees leadership elections, has become more talkative about his role since announcing he would leave the House of Commons at the election. He said “colleagues are reluctant to use that power to remove a leader” – “the media always think, ‘We must be almost there’” – but in previous leadership crises he had been surprised by journalists’ estimates of the number of letters he had been asked about. for a vote of confidence, “while the number is actually still relatively low”.
Braverman and Jenrick are therefore competing in a leadership election that will likely take place within a year or a little later, in October next year or after the general election in January 2025. Braverman is currently in the strongest position. This might not mean much, but it does mean something. We could see the last three Tory leaders, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak, coming from some distance away. Even David Cameron and Theresa May, who later emerged as surprise winners, were mentioned as future leaders.
On the other hand, Jenrick is not in such a strong position, the odds are 100 to 1 with the bookmakers and Truss is stated to be a slightly better chance. Some Conservative MPs were surprised this week that he thought he had a chance at the leadership, but others said they thought he should have been foreign secretary and the main reason for his resignation was that Sunak could not bring him home. Secretary when Suella Braverman was dismissed.
Resignation letter and today’s article Telegram He confirms this view as his plan for Rwanda seems impractical. Any plan to challenge international law cannot go beyond the House of Lords, or even their One Nation counterparts who respect the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). He appears to have resigned to position himself for a more senior post in the opposition in the belief that the government was a write-off rather than a matter of principle.
This may not tell us much about Jenrick’s leadership prospects, but it does tell us something about the prime minister’s likely fate. Sunak managed to unite the party in parliament for a year and it was a great success. He was widely criticized for making a deal with Braverman a year ago to bring him back into the cabinet, but it bought him time. Unfortunately, he lost most of the risky bets he took to turn things around at the time, and now party discipline is breaking down again.
He gambled that inflation would halve and won. But the NHS gambled that waiting lists would fall and boats could be stopped, and lost. He thought the Supreme Court would allow the planes to fly to Rwanda, and he didn’t have much of a backup plan when it refused. He will pass the new bill through the House of Commons on Tuesday, seemingly balancing both wings of the party, but only because his rivals on the anti-immigrant wing and the pro-ECHR wing choose to fight another day.
Another day it will be too late. The campaign to replace him has already begun. Badenoch’s article is ostensibly about defending Brexit against Keir Starmer in the general election; but the second sense, about strengthening the Brexit base among Tory members in the leadership elections that followed, is not deeply buried.
Penny Mordaunt rehearses her stern face at Prime Minister’s Questions. James Cleverly worries immigration and asylum issues are already ruining his chances. Braverman still sees his path to the leadership as “the standard bearer for the anti-immigration wing” but is unlikely to garner enough MPs to put him to the vote. Meanwhile, centremen Grant Shapps, Claire Coutinho and Gillian Keegan wander around the paddock, waiting to be called to the starting line.
“The fight is not over,” Tory party leader Richard Holden said at lunch in the Commons press gallery on Thursday. Officially, he is right that the general election is probably a little less or a little more than a year away. But as he spoke, candidates to replace his boss were preparing for the contest that would follow his election defeat.