Why the Tories should oppose regime change
As a minister I lived by mantras: simple principles that summed up how I believed you got things done. Faced with a PowerPoint presentation as means of influencing policy, I'd sling it back in the box with the injunction 'Think in ink' – in other words, make a proper sustained argument on paper instead of trying to advance shonky argument with a series of unevidenced assertions, a dodgy graph and the words 'levelling up' on every page in bold. Told that the prospect of a judicial review should mean shelving a policy, I'd write on the submission: 'If the legal advice says no, get a better lawyer.' Informed by officials that 'the Treasury are opposed', I'd invariably respond: 'The building may have a view, but I'd prefer to hear from a person, and unless that person is the Chancellor, we're going ahead.'
My most frequent observation, repeated almost every hour, was: 'Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good.' It's the golden rule of politics, and the advice I'd give now to those of my former colleagues who've been indulging in that favourite Tory pastime – grumbling about the leadership. The truth is there has never been a perfect Tory leader (although Lord Salisbury comes close). But Kemi Badenoch is good and getting better.
Monday's announcement that the government would, after all, commission a national inquiry into the rape gang scandal was many things. Long overdue. An indictment of the moral cowardice of ministers. The very least the victims deserve. It was also a vindication of Badenoch. She had fought for it, forced vote after vote to try to secure it and been denounced for opportunism and dog-whistle racism as she sought only to give a voice to the women and girls betrayed for years. Finally, perhaps, a measure of justice may be coming – although, as John Power points out in his article, there are still ample grounds for fearing that the government will try even now to dodge the most difficult and important questions.
Labour's U-turn on the inquiry is only their most recent surrender to arguments Badenoch has been making. The retreat on winter fuel payments followed sustained Conservative campaigning. The belated acceptance that men cannot become women by filling in a form meant acknowledging that Badenoch had indeed been right and not the bigot they had claimed her to be. Now, it appears, they may be on the verge of accepting she was correct about the long-term damage to tax revenues their Budget inflicted.
Badenoch's leadership has been far from faultless. Spending Christmas quibbling with Nigel Farage over Reform's membership figures was beneath her. A commitment to restore tax privileges for independent schools is a gift not to disadvantaged pupils but to Labour campaigners determined to depict the Tories as the party of the privileged. The Conservatives foolishly chose last week to side with nimbys in a vote on necessary planning liberalisation, putting the interests of the asset-rich ahead of those of the aspirational. But these missteps are minor set against the government's sins, and they are all either forgettable or correctable.
Would that the same could be said of Badenoch's internal critics – the incorrigible in pursuit of the impossible. The agitation for a change of course, in many conversations quickly succeeded by the contemplation of a change of leader, is uncomfortable evidence of the persistent political immaturity of too many Tories. They display the impatience of a toddler allied to the stroppiness of a teenager without either the charm of the first or the promise of the second.
The party's desperate position in the polls is not of Badenoch's making. If there's any female Tory leader who should take responsibility for the unpopularity it's Liz Truss. There are attempts by some to revise the verdict on that brief period. And it is worth re-examining, because it was worse than many Tories are still prepared to admit. The party inflicted on the country a PM manifestly unfit for office who, whatever virtues any part of her programme may have had, implemented policy so ineptly that it toxified Tory ideas and tarnished Tory achievements. Far from being an icebreaker for another Thatcherite revolution, Truss was an ideologically-intoxicated joyrider who wrote off the country's best vehicle for necessary reform.
That is why the process of restoring confidence both in Conservative ideas, and the Tory party as the means of delivering them, will take time and care. Credibility must be restored by demonstrating intellectual seriousness and the sort of detailed plan for implementation that John Hoskyns developed for Margaret Thatcher in the 1970s. And just as he helped ensure that the economic errors of the Heath premiership could be corrected, so the party now requires a similarly comprehensive account of how to control the migration which ran out of control in the Tories' final years in office.
This will, undoubtedly, mean extricating ourselves from the European Convention on Human Rights as it stands. But that will not be enough on its own. Simply leaving the ECHR without addressing how it's become intertwined with other legal and judicial constraints on necessary executive action would be to promise transformation while being destined to disappoint – the approach of both Truss and Starmer, which has corroded faith in democracy and failed to deliver the change the country needs.
Badenoch's decision to commission David Wolfson KC, the finest legal mind in the Lords, to review our entire judicial architecture is a sign of seriousness. It is a demonstration of responsibility, not an abdication of action.
Some of the same critics who chide Badenoch for not being bolder or faster are also those who, with admirable inconsistency, complain about her combative character. Her ferocity in argument is undoubted, and it may make those Tories whose own arguments are weak uncomfortable to have them incinerated, Targaryen-style. But it hasn't put off donors, as a recent increase in financial support for the party indicates.
In any case, successful political warfare requires not just courage in the heat of battle but care in the preparation of the campaign. To invoke another mantra – the right policy is the right politics. By being consistently right on policy Badenoch is, at last, providing the politics conservatism needs.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
21 minutes ago
- The Independent
Why is Angela Rayner shifting the council tax burden from north to south?
When Angela Rayner took over her department, the first thing she did was to delete 'levelling up' from its name. But she insisted that she was committed to the idea behind the phrase, and now she is about to announce a change in local government funding to prove it. The new funding formula is expected to allocate money from central government according to local needs, including population, poverty and age, with extra weighting for rural and coastal areas with higher transport costs. The effect will be to force local councils in London and the home counties to put up council tax. Many of them are expected to increase tax by the maximum 5 per cent a year for several years, and more than before will ask Rayner for permission to hold a local referendum on an increase greater than 5 per cent. Councils in the north, the Midlands and east London, on the other hand, may be able to cut their council tax, or at least increase it by less. Is this fair? Labour argues that the Conservatives have fiddled the funding formula for 14 years, resulting in artificially low council taxes in places such as Westminster and Wandsworth – former Tory councils that attracted disproportionate media coverage in local elections. In the end, this attempt to cook the books could not hold back the electoral tide, and Labour won control of both councils in 2022. Clobbering those councils is going to make it harder for Labour to retain control, so it could be argued that Rayner is motivated purely by wanting to rebalance the national distribution of resources according to need. The new system will probably be fairer than the current one, if not perfectly fair, but any attempt to adjust local government funding throws up winners and losers – and the losers always make more noise than those who quietly pocket their gains. How quickly will the change happen? Even if the change were totally fair in principle, any sharp fall in central government funding and big increase in council tax is likely to cause hardship. That is why Rayner is expected to adjust her new formula by putting a limit on how much any council's income from central government can fall in a year. David Phillips, of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, says: 'It's been 20 years since we've had an effective system to allocate funding between councils so it is out of whack and the changes are going to be big.' That means any changes will probably be phased in over several years. What could possibly go wrong? If Rayner delivers a funding system for local government that is more closely aligned with local needs, she could deliver more radical policy substance than the Conservative slogan of 'levelling up' ever managed. But Phillips points out a philosophical problem. The more the government tries to redistribute resources from 'leafier places' to deprived areas, the more 'it is making a trade-off to prioritise need over incentives for councils to tackle need and grow their council tax base', he says. If councils receive more funding the higher their indicators of deprivation are, there is a danger of perverse incentives for them to keep those indicators high. Shouldn't council tax be revalued from scratch? Of course it should. It is based on notional property values in 1991 (in England; in Wales the reference date is 2003), so it is hopelessly out of date. But revaluation would produce even more dramatic individual winners and losers than changing funding for whole council areas. Rayner's redistribution is already what Sir Humphrey would describe as 'very brave, deputy prime minister'; a full revaluation would be several times braver – in other words, a guaranteed political disaster. The most that is likely to be politically feasible would be to revalue council tax for more expensive properties, such as the one in 20 UK homes currently on the market for more than £1m. A similar policy, called a mansion tax, was considered by the coalition government – George Osborne and the Liberal Democrats wanted it but David Cameron vetoed the idea, saying the Tory party's donors wouldn't wear it. Given that Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, is likely to be looking for new sources of revenue in the autumn Budget, this may be an option. She did rule out a mansion tax before the election, but I don't think it has been mentioned since. Look out for even greater 'fairness'.
The National
28 minutes ago
- The National
SNP councillor forces Labour to take action against Israeli arms sales
SNP councillor Naz Anis-Miah's pro-Palestinian motion was passed by Fife Council despite opposition from the ruling minority Labour administration. Labour councillors dropped their amendment to the motion halfway through the debate. The full motion called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, an end to UK arms sales to Israel, a commitment to upholding international law, and support for increased humanitarian aid to the region. READ MORE: Scottish Labour drop below Alba and Greens in Highlands by-election It also committed the leader of Fife Council, Labour councillor David Ross, to write to Keir Starmer, Foreign Secretary David Lammy and Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds over ending arms exports and instead increasing humanitarian aid. 'Obviously [Benjamin] Netanyahu and Israel are not going to listen to what Fife Council are going to say, but what Fife Council can do is apply pressure to the British government,' Anis-Miah told The National. The debate on the motion was held on Thursday, with councillors going back and forth over Labour's amendment which Anis-Miah said would have 'watered down' the SNP's motion. Speaking in the Chamber, Anis-Miah (below) told fellow councillors: 'We can't claim to champion human rights abroad while fuelling destruction with our exports. 'We can't preach peace while we enable war. We cannot turn a blind eye to the death of innocent children while our industries build machines that kill them. If we can't stop the bombs let's stop building them. If we can't end the war let's refuse to fuel it. (Image: SNP) 'If we can't undo the suffering, let us not be the ones who prolong it. I urge every member of this chamber to support the motion. "Let's send a clear message to the Prime Minister and Westminster that the people of Fife and Scotland will not be complicit in supplying arms that cause genocide.' Ross told councillors that members of the Labour group were still 'uncomfortable' with some parts of the motion. 'I think undoubtedly we are all horrified and really totally concerned about what is going on and we recognise the need to make a statement,' he added. 'In the interests of speaking with one voice from the council we're prepared to withdraw our amendment with a slight concession on the wording from the SNP motion.' The SNP group agreed to remove a call for the motion to be shared with Cosla and other councils across Scotland. READ MORE: UK scrambles to charter flights out of Israel for British citizens 'We're comfortable that we can share it with our Cosla delegates at the SNP Council group nationwide, and we've also obviously got a network of Councilors across the country, so we're comfortable that we'll share the motion ourselves,' Anis-Miah explained. We previously told how in the last quarter of 2024, the Labour Government licensed exports of more military equipment to Israel than the Tories did for all of 2020-2023 combined. This led to Lammy claiming that The National's article was 'clickbait' as he dismissed the report, which was based on UK Government figures. Several high profile celebrities, including Paolo Nutini and Ncuti Gatwa, have joined calls urging Starmer to suspend arm sales to Israel.
Edinburgh Reporter
34 minutes ago
- Edinburgh Reporter
Senior Edinburgh councillors back giving themselves a pay hike
Senior Edinburgh councillors have backed giving themselves a pay hike, with only one member speaking out in opposition. In February, Edinburgh Council agreed to freeze pay for senior councillors – including political group leaders and committee conveners – at the previous year's levels. But at Thursday's meeting all political groups except the SNP voted in favour of raising pay for senior councillors, with most getting an uplift of £4,637 to their annual pay packets – an 11.6% jump. Council committee conveners, as well as the SNP, Conservative and Liberal Democrat group leaders, will all get £4,637 added to their annual pay, bringing them to £44,644 per year, up from £40,027 from the previous year. And the depute council leader, Labour's Mandy Watt, will also get a £4,637 pay hike, bringing her total compensation to £52,669, up from £48,032 before. A council spokesperson said the increase in pay for senior councillors was intended to match the pay hike given to non-senior councillors by the Scottish Government. While local authorities have the power to set the pay of senior councillors, the rates for all other councillors are set by the Scottish Government, including the council's leader and Lord Provost, based on the fidings of the Scottish Local Authorities Remuneration Committee (SLARC). Earlier this year, it mandated that the salary for most councillors be raised to £25,982 per year, up £4,637 from their previous pay of £21,345, which stood unchanged for several years. Labour councillor and council leader Jane Meagher is paid £71,519 per year, while Lord Provost Robert Aldridge is paid £53,640. Depute council leader, Labour councillor Mandy Watt, said: 'I sat down and read the guidance, and it does say that in your approach to this, you should be doing councillor remuneration from the bottom up, not the top down. 'I very much appreciate the support that I've had [from officers] to get all this together.' An SNP source said: 'Councillors have been chronically underpaid for decades, and normally I'd take the view that we remunerate the position held, rather than the individual holding it. 'But the current crop of administration conveners are so inept that we could not support them getting a pay hike.' A council spokesperson said: 'While we don't set the rates of pay for non-senior councillor roles it's appropriate that we publish them and provide elected members with the opportunity to scrutinise rates for full transparency. 'The increase in Senior Councillors' remuneration was agreed by Council yesterday, and now includes the increase to the Councillor basic pay set by the Scottish Government.' Only one member, Labour councillor Katrina Faccenda, spoke out against the pay hikes. She said: 'I think you should take note of which councillors are getting extra money, and you should work out whether you are getting value for money from those councillors. 'Since this is public money, and I don't think anyone in here would support the misuse of public money, I'd ask the public to have a look at that, and work out if they think that in Edinburgh Council, the extra money they have to spend to subsidise councillors is being used in the right way.' Cllr Faccenda, who will not financially benefit from the pay increase for senior councillors, voted to support the hike. Meanwhile, independent councillor Ross McKenzie voted with the SNP to oppose the pay hike. Green co-convener, councillor Chas Booth, said: 'Greens think it is right that people are paid appropriately for the work they do, and we welcomed the recommendations of the Scottish Local Authority Remuneration Committee around councillors' salaries. 'Pay is a significant barrier to people from marginalised groups entering politics, and if we want to see more diversity in our councillors to reflect the rich diversity of the communities we serve, then we need to ensure people without independent income can become elected representatives. 'However, we acknowledge that while so many people in Edinburgh continue to face a cost-of-living crisis caused by years of austerity which is now being continued by the Labour government at Westminster, the Labour council administration doesn't feel that big increases in senior councillor pay were not appropriate. 'Therefore Green councillors were happy to support their proposals around this.' By Joseph Sullivan Local Democracy Reporter Like this: Like Related
