How Robert Jenrick skewered Kemi Badenoch's reboot
Kate Devlin,
The Independent
Robert Jenrick's attention-grabbing videos have angered other senior Tories as the party desperately tries to raise the profile of their beleaguered leader, Kemi Badenoch. The shadow justice secretary hit the headlines last week thanks to a stunt that saw him chase down and challenge fare dodgers on London trains. The clip, which follows others on a range of issues including bin collections in Birmingham and the government's deal to hand over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, was watched more than 10 million times. But the move overshadowed Ms Badenoch's own video meeting grooming gang victims, and is far from the first time Jenrick has garnered publicity apparently at the expense of his party leader.
A recent mishap, where hundreds of Westminster insiders were added to a WhatsApp group publicising his London marathon run, led to Badenoch being asked if Jenrick, who ran against her for the leadership of the party, posed a fresh threat to her. She laughed it off. But party insiders have told The Independent his interventions are leading to tensions with other members of the shadow cabinet. It comes as the Tories try to raise the profile of Badenoch, as even some of her closest political allies — including shadow chancellor Mel Stride — admit she needs to improve her performance. This week's tracker poll by Techne UK puts the Tories on just 17 per cent (up one per cent) — a full 14 points behind Reform on 31 per cent, with Labour also struggling on 23 per cent. The polling showed that well over a third, 37 per cent, of 2024 general election Tory voters have now deserted them for Reform.
Recent focus groups, held by the pollsters More in Common (MIC), suggest one of the problems is that very few people know who Badenoch is. When groups of former Tory voters are shown clips of the Conservative leader speaking, they like her, but for most of them, it is the first time they have seen her, MIC found. In a bid to bolster her position, insiders plan to lean into Ms Badenoch's forthright personality, in what has been dubbed the 'Let Kemi be Kemi' strategy - a nod to the famous West Wing 'Let Bartlet Be Bartlet' quote. And, like Jenrick, there is a hope that her clips will go viral. There was surprise when a video of Ms Badenoch telling two incredulous BBC Breakfast hosts that she had not watched the Netflix hit Adolescence took off online. At one point, Badenoch told them she already understood the issues highlighted by the programme, adding 'I don't need to watch Casualty to know about the NHS'.
Her supporters want her to double down on what is seen as her 'authenticity', at a time when voters appear to be turning away from career politicians to support people such as Donald Trump and the Reform leader Nigel Farage. In the background, there is also frustration about the amount of airtime Badenoch gets on the main broadcasters. The issue is one all opposition leaders struggle with, as the government is inevitably seen as more newsworthy. But it is seen particularly difficult at the moment, at a time of huge international news, with President Trump in the White House, war raging on the edge of Europe in Ukraine and the ongoing bombardment of Gaza.
Insiders claim Badenoch is relaxed about Jenrick straying into briefs that are not his own, especially given huge demands on the time of the leader of the opposition. However, sources say there have been tensions with other members of her shadow cabinet. One senior figure told The Independent: 'Some have been very annoyed... That has caused tensions. Kemi has a challenge managing the competition in her team.'
Another insider said: "There's no discipline. Basically, shadow cabinet members can do what they want with no central grid. It's causing complete chaos.' A supporter of Jenrick accused some frontbenchers of being 'jealous' that he was able to make headlines.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Today
3 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Starmer and Reeves have much work still to do
Chris Blackhurst, The Independent Rachel Reeves is to water down plans scrapping her non-dom tax rules amid concerns about the number of wealthy individuals deserting the UK. It must be true, because it's being repeated everywhere — complete with a bland, non-denial from the Treasury: "The government will continue to work with stakeholders to ensure the new regime is internationally competitive and continues to focus on attracting the best talent and investment in the UK." A key item under discussion is said to be the proposal to make non-doms' worldwide assets liable to inheritance tax, or IHT, including those held in foreign trusts. There is no doubt many rich people have gone. One analysis by Bloomberg puts the number of company directors who have left at 4,400 in the past year. Examination of Companies House filings shows departures were 75 per cent higher in April than in the same month last year. The worst affected sectors were finance, insurance and property, all of them popular with non-doms. In the most expensive areas of London, stories abound of shuttered mansions, and a knock-on effect across restaurants, hair and beauty salons, car firms and all the other ancillary services. The UK, once a favoured magnet for the world's billionaires and multi-millionaires, has fallen off its perch. A recent Oxford Economics survey found that 60 per cent of tax advisers expect more than 40 per cent of their non-dom clients to leave within two years of Reeves ending their beneficial status. With them will go their families, close staff - and their money. It was the latter that made previous governments, including Labour, seek to attract them in the first place. If they base themselves in Britain, they are more likely to spend and to invest here. That is why other nations are doing their level best to woo them. It's what the Treasury means when it refers to the new regime being "internationally competitive". What is bizarre and shaming is that this administration did not see it coming. Seemingly, ministers did not realise that non-doms would quit. They did not appreciate that, in today's world, rich people can move freely and easily and work from anywhere. Either they are guilty of extraordinary unworldliness, deluding themselves that wealthy foreigners would carry on living in the UK merely because they like it here - ignoring the effect on their finances; or they simply did not care, and allowed political ideology to prevail. Whatever the answer, they are now engaged in the sort of reversal and damage limitation exercise which is becoming all too familiar where this government is concerned. The question now is: will it be enough? Already, South Africa's richest self-made woman Magda Wierzycka, the billionaire behind UK venture capital fund Braavos, has stated she will shelve plans to leave should the chancellor U-turn on IHT: "I would absolutely stay and it's not about protecting my money from the tax man. I pay all my taxes, but South Africa has foreign exchange controls and I don't know whether [my estate] would be able to pay the IHT bill under the current rules." Whether others are so persuaded, and if Reeves does pull back entirely on IHT, remains to be seen. The problem for her and for Keir Starmer is that the tone has been set. Even if they do climb down, the feeling persists that this iteration of Labour (as opposed to that of Tony Blair, which famously declared it was "intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich") cannot abide well-off people. The purging of the non-doms followed a pattern. It joined VAT on private schools, the removal of the winter fuel allowance, hitting farmers with their own new IHT bills, and other measures, aimed at the more advantaged end of society. They can afford it, appeared to be Downing Street 's view. That will be hard to shake-off. The hope must be that the attractions of the UK will weigh heavily and the non-doms will not exit and some, many even, will return. Starmer and Reeves, having set their calamitous course, have much work still to do.
Gulf Today
2 days ago
- Gulf Today
Can I fix the housing crisis? Yes, I can...
Angela Rayner, The Independent In a recent exchange in the House of Commons, I was pressed by one of my Tory shadows on whether we will meet our target of building 1.5 million homes in this parliament. A punchy question from a party whose own record in government on housebuilding was marked by missed targets, failed targets and ultimately, "let's scrap targets altogether". My answer? Underestimate me at your peril. People have done this all my life. But this government has a bold vision to fix the housing crisis and a strategy to deliver both investment and reform. We're overhauling the planning system to speed up approvals and unlock land — a clear statement of intent. So is our commitment to the biggest increase in social and affordable housebuilding in a generation — £39bn over 10 years. And today we are taking another major step to fix a broken system that has held back too many hard-working families — and the country — for far too long. Our new national housing bank will transform housebuilding, using public funds to unlock private capital as a publicly owned arm of Homes England. With £16bn of new government investment, on top of £6bn of guarantees, the bank will attract over £53bn of private investment. That means spades in the ground, cranes in the sky — and around half a million new homes built across the country. Who benefits? People, and the places they live, as well as businesses and the economy. It's a cornerstone of our Plan for Change. We're backing small and medium builders, who are crucial for small community sites, with new lending products that will give them the certainty to plan a pipeline of future projects. We're focused on building more social and affordable homes. The bank will use part of the £2.5bn in low-interest loans announced at the spending review to build properties where they are most needed. And we're also supporting the bigger, more complex projects that help drive growth with infrastructure finance and £5bn in grants for projects that otherwise wouldn't get off the ground. We're giving the bank the tools and the scope to make long-term investments and take smart, calculated risks to reform the housing market and deliver real returns. We know, as a government, and I know, that having a home is the foundation of a stable life. I saw that growing up, living in a council house that for me spelled security. For too many people in this country, however, a home they can afford remains out of reach. We're changing that. We are investing in the skills and jobs needed to build new homes and supporting local leaders and builders to work with urgency. We're tackling the housing crisis we inherited head-on because a safe, decent home is not a luxury — it is a necessity. Our commitment to build 1.5 million homes as part of our plan for change is a stretching target, but not one I will shy away from. To those with doubts, I repeat: underestimate me at your peril. Yes — the road ahead is tough. But we are committed, as this is about more than just numbers. It's about giving fresh hope for millions of people across Britain and creating communities where families can thrive and children grow up in safety. It's about making sure a generation is no longer locked out of homeownership — and ensuring children aren't growing up in temporary accommodation. The shadow of Tory housing failure looms large. The last government failed to meet the challenge. We are rising to it. The new national housing bank is just the latest part of our plan to invest in Britain's future - and back the builders. This Labour government is turning the tide on the housing crisis we inherited, and charting a new course for housing in this country. The foundations of Britain's future are being laid today — so we can write a new chapter that we can all be proud of.
Gulf Today
2 days ago
- Gulf Today
Has Keir Starmer finally mastered the art of the U-turn?
Keir Starmer has shrugged off his unwanted label as "Mr U-turn" after his retreats over the winter fuel allowance and a national inquiry into the grooming gangs scandal. The prime minister's problem is that making one U-turn gives your party an appetite for more, and anxious Labour MPs are feeling ravenous. Today, the government is publishing its Bill to reduce the welfare budget by £5bn, including controversial cuts to disability and sickness benefits. More than 150 Labour MPs are unhappy about the cuts, and about 50 might oppose them. Ministers admit privately there will be "tweaks" — for example, disabled people will not lose their personal independence payment (PIP) for 13 weeks, rather than four — but they don't go far enough for the rebels. In public, ministers are adamant there will be no further concessions and that any changes do not amount to a U-turn, not least because Rachel Reeves is relying on the savings to stay within her fiscal rules. However, more tweaks will almost certainly be offered before the crucial vote on the Bill early next month. Why do politicians fear headlines with the U-word? They like to look strong and in control of events - even though they know they are not, especially in the world of Trump 2.0. U-turns came to symbolise weakness in 1980 after Margaret Thatcher told Tory moderates who were demanding a change of course: "You turn if you want to; the lady's not for turning." The label sticks to Starmer because he has form. His left-wing critics are still seething that, in their eyes, he ran for the leadership in 2020 on a false prospectus — seen as "Corbynism without Corbyn" — and then ditched several campaign pledges. They included higher income tax for the top five per cent of earners; the abolition of university tuition fees and universal credit; common ownership of mail, energy and water, although rail is returning to public ownership; free movement between the UK and EU; abolition of the House of Lords and a Prevention of Military Intervention Act to ensure "no more illegal wars." Since last year's general election, Starmer has also U-turned on cutting the international aid budget and gender recognition. Last night, the PM defended his latest volte-face on the grooming gangs. During the G7 summit in Canada, Chris Mason, the BBC's political editor, pointedly asked him whether he could understand "why critics say they don't know what you stand for" and see "a pattern of behaviour here about you having to be led by the nose to do the right thing?" Ouch! Starmer replied: "I don't have any difficulty in saying I'm a common sense, practical, get the job done, fix the problem politician. I am not ideological." He is hoping voters prefer his pragmatic approach to dogmatism. On the grooming affair, he could cite John Maynard Keynes's timeless defence: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" When Baroness Casey, who carried out an audit for the government, changed her mind about the need for a national inquiry, Starmer had no option but to follow. He would have been crucified for resisting and would have eventually given way. Yet there remains a question of his judgment in ruling out a national investigation in January and accusing the Conservatives of jumping on a far-right bandwagon. Some Starmer allies, Labour MPs and Andy Burnham, the Greater Manchester mayor, thought then that a national inquiry was inevitable. Politicians love to crow when opponents make a U-turn. Kemi Badenoch demanded an apology from Starmer for changing his mind on a grooming inquiry. Yet she refused to make a public apology to the victims, even though the last Tory government did not implement a single one of the 20 recommendations in Alexis Jay's 2022 inquiry into child sexual abuse. Badenoch, who was minister for women and equalities from 2022 to 24, didn't want headlines about the Tories' record, but, as on the economy, she cannot escape it. She had the brass neck to say "we should take the politics out of it" as she appeared alongside survivors of the grooming scandal a day after attacking Starmer's handling of the issue in the Commons. That was an unedifying spectacle of playground politics on such a sensitive issue. Casey was right to call out Badenoch's Commons response and call for a cross-party approach. Starmer rightly occupied the high ground by declining to ask Badenoch to apologise for the Tories' record. I think U-turns matter less than party leaders imagine. Labour backbenchers cite a tale of two by-elections. Last month, Labour lost its Runcorn and Helsby seat to Reform UK. Three weeks later, Starmer announced his U-turn on the winter fuel payment. Then Labour unexpectedly won a Scottish parliament by-election in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse. "The difference on the doorstep was remarkable," one Labour MP who campaigned in both contests told me. "The change on winter fuel meant we got a hearing. People noticed it." Better late than never; the winter fuel retreat was more damaging because it was made in slow motion. The lesson for Starmer: if you are going to do a U-turn, do it quickly to limit the political pain.
