James Cleverly found some unlikely support in parliament on Monday night. Having just been ousted from the Tory leadership contest, he won warm words from the Home Secretary. Yvette Cooper, speaking at a Westminster drinks reception, was sympathetic. She said she knew what it was like to come third in a leadership contest. For her, it was in 2015, when she lost to Jeremy Corbyn and Andy Burnham. For Cleverly, it was this month, when he was defeated by Kemi Badenoch and Robert Jenrick. She wasn’t sure who should feel worse. ‘Yes, sister!’ shouted Cleverly in solidarity. But Cooper wasn’t finished yet. She ended by diagnosing his problem: he couldn’t count.
The Tories are still piecing together what happened in the final parliamentary rounds of the leadership contest. Cleverly was ahead in the penultimate ballot, leading some of his supporters to believe his path to the final two was guaranteed. Supporters of Jenrick and Badenoch were nervous on the day. Then Cleverly came third by a handful of votes and the two candidates on the right of the party marched ahead. As one Tory strategist explained, the result was a case of ‘mental MPs playing games and effing it up’.
The Tories had hoped to stop the infighting and silliness. Early signs are not encouraging
But regardless of who snuck through to the final two, the more worrying aspect is that not one candidate managed to muster more than a third of parliamentary support. ‘It would have been healthier had one of them bombed,’ says a shadow minister. Instead, the party split three ways. ‘I look at the numbers and I wonder how they are going to be able to lead while doing anything meaningful,’ adds a senior CCHQ figure.
For Tories who are longer in the tooth, it all feels a bit like 2001. In that leadership contest, Michael Portillo started in the lead, but by the time he reached the round between himself, Iain Duncan Smith and Kenneth Clarke, the votes were more evenly split. Each candidate had the support of around a third of the MPs – and Portillo was knocked out by one vote. Afterwards, some of his supporters wondered if it was actually a blessing in disguise. He had run on a promise to change the Tories – but was that really possible with the support of only a third of the parliamentary party? The eventual winner, Duncan Smith, found that too few of those MPs who hadn’t voted for him were prepared to rally behind him. He was forced out in a confidence vote two years later.
Are the signs more positive for the two remaining candidates this time around? Neither Badenoch nor Jenrick is likely to opt for a ‘softly, softly’ approach. Badenoch, the current favourite, is known for her willingness to adopt unpopular positions and criticise the media when she feels hard done by. She also will distance herself from old Tory plans, such as the Renters’ Reform Bill. She recently clashed with Angela Rayner on the issue, suggesting there was a reason the Tories had tried (and failed) to pass it: ‘The reason why [it] did not get through is because we recognised the flaws in the Bill. We tried to make it work and we couldn’t,’ she said. ‘It was having negative effects.’
Badenoch’s tone could become a problem for party management. She certainly has her diehard followers, who adopt the mantra ‘In Kemi we trust’. But she also has plenty of critics who feel they have not been appropriately respected by her. Will they really keep quiet if she comes unstuck over an unpopular position?
Jenrick risks dividing his party through his policy positions. His two main points are that the UK must leave the European Convention on Human Rights and also put a legally binding cap on visas to stop legal migration. ‘You can’t send Nigel [Farage] packing until you have done those things,’ says a supporter. His new slogan is ‘no drama, just results’. Yet while the Tories have hardened their position on migration, Jenrick’s pledge to bar anyone from joining his shadow cabinet unless they back ECHR withdrawal risks creating drama as well as isolating one section of the party.
The fact that some MPs believe Jenrick could ‘do a Starmer’ and change course isn’t helping. Given that his backers come largely from the right, it seems unlikely. But an old edition of Varsity, the Cambridge student paper, has surfaced which suggests Jenrick’s views have been hard to pin down for a long time. The paper’s verdict on the 19-year-old student (who said that the animal he was most like was a fox) was that he ‘appears to be a gentleman and would treat you to a nice meal, but you can’t help the feeling there’s something hidden behind it all’.
Senior Tories are worried about party disunity: ‘Whoever wins is going to have to realise their party management operation is going to be the biggest determinate of whether they are a one-term leader or more,’ says a former cabinet minister. ‘That means being pragmatic and reaching out to a good composition of people.’ It’s no coincidence that Badenoch has been trying to garner support from One Nation Tories – Winston Churchill’s grandson Nicholas Soames is expected to come out for her later this week. Jenrick has been posting photos of himself with former Tory minister Penny Mordaunt, who has a broad centrist appeal (though she has said that she was not asked for permission).
The 1922 Committee could help to cohere the party. Ahead of the election of a new leader, the executive met this week to discuss raising the number of no confidence letters it takes to trigger a vote. The idea is to change the rules before the new leader starts; the current threshold of 15 per cent is seen as regicide waiting to happen. Some in the party have argued for raising it to 50 per cent – but that would effectively do away with the confidence vote. Instead, 30 per cent is seen as reasonable. This is what the executive agreed upon. ‘You could still get rid of an incompetent,’ says one MP.
The Tories had hoped to stop all the infighting and silliness through the sobriety of opposition. The early signs are not encouraging. Some shadow ministers are already predicting that Cleverly could emerge as a prince across the water and return to lead the party into the election. Changing the rules ahead of the arrival of a new leader looks defensive – almost as though MPs know there is a risk their next leader could fall flat.
Listen to Katy Balls on Coffee House Shots, The Spectator’s daily politics podcast:
Comments