Tory leadership race: James Cleverly knocked out - leaving Robert Jenrick and Kemi Badenoch in final two

[IwantToRetire]

There is shock and surprise after the former foreign secretary, who catapulted ahead after Tory conference, is eliminated from the contest.

Tory MPs held a final vote on Wednesday to reduce the field to a final two, who will then go to a ballot of Conservative members.

After picking up 42 votes in the final round of voting, Ms Badenoch re-established herself as the favourite after lagging behind in previous rounds.

Robert Jenrick, her close rival on the right, picked up one vote shy of Ms Badenoch, while Mr Cleverly - who was seen as a unifying candidate - won the backing of 37 MPs.

More at https://news.sky.com/story/tory-leadership-race-james-cleverly-knocked-out-leaving-robert-jenrick-and-kemi-badenoch-as-final-two-facing-party-membership-vote-13230871

What does this mean?

If she beats Jenrick she’s the leader.

TV companies loved playing over and over again the shocked groans of MPs when the result was announced.

Viewers loved watching it.

I'm glad you said that because I was confused. If they choose her, than they have done it? Right?

I'm also not sure where these assumption that whoever is chosen now will not take them into the next election comes from. They've struggled with getting a leader to stick recently as we all know but that does not mean it will carry along in that vein. A lot will depend on how the person does and probably also how Starmer does.

It does seem odd.

They each got the votes they did and sure those who miss out will be put out

As for rejoicing, Starmer’s first 100 days isn’t going too well for him and he’s got a long way to go

I'm also not sure where these assumption that whoever is chosen now will not take them into the next election comes from.

Both are too emeshed with the last, failed Tory government. As well as them being connected to their failures there's a high chance of more Tory scandals emerging where they will be implicated.

Their lack of remorse and recognition of the damage done to the country.

The party is struggling with its identity. Are they Conservative? Are they Reform lite?

The aforementioned shocked groans of MPs when the result was announced.

The Tory party's current struggles to get a leader to stick.

I think some of this is wishful thinking.

If Starmer’s trajectory remains as is it changes the political situation a fair bit, and five years is an age away.

Already after 100 days people polled Sunak higher than Starmer

Tim Stanley on brendan o'neills postcast said that Cleverly got as far as he did because he was proud of the Conservatives track record, but ultimately failed for the same reason. That the party understands where they failed and needs a leader who recognises what needs to change.

Badenoch focusing on culture, Jenrick on immigration.

If labour continue to pretend neither is a problem, and whoever is leader actually address the issues, they have a chance to gain seats in the next election.

I watched about five minutes later on of Cleverly as I wondered why he was praised re the conference

I can see he has gravitas but I don’t think he would address the two issues you mention. The latter will increase in five years

Sonia Sodha in today's Observer:

A new report last week from Conservative thinktank Onward sets out how difficult it would be for the Tories to win the next election, but contains some surprising insights about the defectors who voted for the party in 2019 but not in 2024. Defectors to Lib Dem and Reform – more likely to say they would consider switching back than those that defected to Labour – say the most important thing the party could do to win them back is reduce immigration. A hardline approach to immigration might not be election-winning territory but it might help the Tories attract back a broader range of voters than one might initially assume.

Badenoch is clearly on the right when it comes to deregulation. But some of her policy positions are more nuanced than it first appears, and may allow her to hurt Starmer in a way that Cleverly couldn’t. Often depicted as a fervent culture warrior, it is very much true she enjoys combatively participating in debates, such as on the role of empire. But on the fraught issue of sex and gender, her position is not, in the main, out of step with the public and she may be able to embarrass Starmer, who has in the past shown bewildering levels of prevarication on whether biological sex matters when it comes to single-sex services, sports and spaces.

The problem with writing off all her views on identity as culture war irrelevance is that the left might not anticipate those occasions when what she says might actually resonate. That Badenoch has become such a cartoon villain is not simply a product of her gaffes or her outspokenness; it is also to do with the fact that there are those on the left who suffer from cognitive dissonance when it comes to rightwing politicians of colour, particularly women.

To be brown or black and rightwing is seen as a betrayal. So Kemi Badenoch, Suella Braverman and Priti Patel are indistinguishably lumped together; they may all be on the right of the party, but there are important differences and the one-dimensional lens they are seen through feels linked to the fact none of them are white.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/13/kemi-badenoch-tory-leadership-contest-labour

These are just the middle section of a much longer article.

But it did make me think, as there has to be a new leader of the Tory Party, it would be great to have KB as leader of the opposition to really dig into whatever nonsense Labour comes up with about no need to clarify the meaning of the word sex in the EA.

But have to own up that on another thread today, it would be better if she didn't get the top job, then she could join the Women and Equalities Committee and try and stop them just wittering on about vulnerable trans people, and never ever acknowledging the negaitve impact trans rights are having on women's rights.

This too from today (branded as the Guardian not the Observer):

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/oct/13/conservatives-focus-group-kemi-badenoch-robert-jenrick-tory-leadership

It means even if she wins this leadership contest it is extremely unlikely that she will still be leader at the next election, and even more unlikely that she will be leader at any election that the Tories can actually win. They will likely cycle through at least one more leader before the next election and, assuming they lose that, another couple before the following election, which is reasonably the first they have a chance of winning. The party had five leaders in six years, and typically the leader churn is higher in opposition than in government.

Maybe, maybe not.

But that’s got nothing to do with post that was being replied to, which was straightforwardly about Badenoch - a Tory - prospectively being the first black female leader of a major party.

Might end up as a quiz question, but she'd still be on record as UK's first black female party leader.

oh dear, having said at least if KB was leader of the opposition, she would be able to take a stand for women's rights, seems that maybe sometime her bluntess does more harm than good.

This wasn't taken up at the time, but there was a leaflet at the Tory Party conference, with a forward from KB, saying that the swing in support of those with autism and other conditions had gone too far, which now means they have unfair "advantage" as employees.

The essay said being diagnosed as neurodiverse had gone from “an individual focused challenge” that “meant you could understand your own brain” to something that “offers economic advantages and protections”.

It said diagnoses of anxiety or autism were being treated similarly to race or sex discrimination, and that children with the conditions “may well get better treatment or equipment at school” including transport to and from home.

It added that an autism diagnosis in the workforce came with better employment protections against unfair dismissal and a requirement for workplaces to make reasonable adjustments.

The essay said it was positive there was more openness around mental health, but the requirement for schools and workplaces to make adjustments for it had “created costs and failed to improve people’s mental health outcomes”.

A spokesperson for Badenoch told the i that it was “wrong to infer any prejudice” from the report and that it was “essential that we are able to talk about these issues without the media deliberately misleading their readers for the sake of easy headlines”.

“If we are to resolve the problem of deteriorating mental health, we must be able to point out that it is happening and how society has changed its approach to it and determine whether that approach is working,” they said.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/oct/14/kemi-badenoch-conservative-leadership-autism-campaign-pamphlet

I'm reminded of when Theresa May wanted to do something about the cost and accessibility of long term care for the elderly, but it was spun as her wanting to increase tax, so it was put away and never spoke of again.

Maybe theres something in this, or maybe not. But if no-one can say anything nothing gets solved.

Maybe she should just smile, wave and promise to bring back penny mordaunt? It seems a more popular strategy with the media.

I suspect you are right.

What Theresa May proposed was actually a reality that we are still skirting round, and in fact care for older people has got worse.

Her idea may not have been the right one, but the issue needed and still needs to be fixed. But the media just used it as a way to attack her.

And suspect, from what now seems to be a pattern with KB, that she does believe in rights, and fighting for them, but doesn't like it when they are misused, exploited.

Although on this issue there is a fine line between enabling someone with a condition of any sort to be able to work, and for it not to be seen as giving someone an advantage.

Or, though not having read the actual article, when a genuine condition is then adopted by any number of people who claim they too have it.

The National Autistic Society has responded.

https://www.autism.org.uk/what-we-do/news/the-national-autistic-society-has-responded-to-kem

KB might have a point in some ways - I'm thinking of how in the USA lots of people have been unmasked for taking advantage of initiatives created to address racial imbalance in university or employment. KB's right that, if you create a category that offers disadvantaged people help, there will always be canny people looking to take advantage of that opportunity that doesn't truly belong to them.

I don't think KBs necessarily making an argument for doing away with providing this help to allow people to compete on a level playing field, I think it's an argument for having strict, objectively measured, factual criteria (that are not open to expansive readings of the qualifying measure) to ensure you're helping those who really need it.

Agree with the statement, but unfortunately haven't seen the actual pamplet her comments are based on.

So just wondering it, as with the trans issue, she is raising the possibility (fact in terms of trans) that there are those with actual issues and those who abuse this reality for their own ends.

Has anyone seen, got a link to, the actual article.

It's a 40 page document that's easily downloaded. Most of the news articles have a link.

Have found a link to the pamphlet in this article.

Politics is no longer about class in the old sense – increasingly, whether you are high income does not drive your voting patterns. Educated voters are moving left, and many private sector voters on average incomes are moving right. Brexit was a symptom of deeper currents across the West, not a cause of them, and we need to think more intelligently if we are to ride this wave of change and not be drowned by it. This voting shift is part of a series of wider changes.

In nearly every country, a new progressive ideology is on the rise. This ideology is based on the twin pillars of constant intervention on behalf of protecting marginalized, vulnerable groups, including protecting us from ourselves – and the idea that bureaucrats make better decisions than individuals, or even democratic nation states.

This ideology is behind the rise of identity politics, the attacks on the democracy, sovereign nation state, and ever-more government via spending and regulation. It is driving the economic slowdown seen across the West and social polarization in country after country. A new left, not based primarily on nationalization and private sector trade unions, but ever increasing social and economic control.

A new class of people, a new and growing bureaucratic class, is driving these changes. More and more jobs are related not to providing goods and services in the marketplace, but are instead focused around administering government rules. Often these jobs are in private sector bureaucracies, confounding the old split between the public and private sectors.

Part of the article which is quite long https://conservativehome.com/2024/09/30/kemi-badenoch-conservatism-is-in-crisis-and-we-need-to-be-serious-about-getting-it-back-on-track/ and has links to the actual pamphlet with is even longer.

It's at the bottom of page 6 in the document. Here's a not very good screenshot.

The Socialisation of Mental Health

While people talking about mental health is a positive, the socialisation of mental health so everyone has to treat you differently has failed to improve people’s mental health outcomes. As one academic put it, across the West, ‘the meaning of ‘safety underwent a process of ‘concept creep’ and expanded to included ‘emotional safety’… The subjective experience of ‘harm’ became definitional in assessing trauma’. Psychological and psychotherapy professions numbers went from 102,000 in 2002 to 223,700 in 2023. In 1999 the NHS spent £4 billion on mental health, which had risen to £16.8 billion by 2023/4.

This approach now offers economic advantages and protections. If you have a neurodiversity diagnosis (e.g. anxiety, autism), you are in a category similar to race or biological sex in terms of discrimination law and general attitudes. As a child, you may well get better treatment or equipment at school – even transport to and from home. If you are in the workforce, you are protected in employment terms from day 1, you can more easily claim for unfair dismissal, and can also require your employer makes ‘reasonable adjustments’ to your job (only revealed after you are employed). By 2024, mental health was the number 1 issue for new welfare claimants, with this as the primary claim for 41% of all new disability related benefit claims.

primary claim for 41% of all new disability related benefit claims
which is presumably a fact.

But without further research how can you claim it is about people hitching on to an issue, as opposed to what some claim, which is that life has never been so stressful.

Is that true, that life has never been so stressful? Is it even plausible?

I think modern life is uniquely stressful compared to stress in the past. I don't think life is more stressful but perhaps our ability to cope with it has also worn down?

I would argue modern society is the equivalent of the depressed polar bear in the plastic zoo enclosure. Many Westerners live in totally unnatural environments. That which threatens us is often too abstract for our evolutionary instincts to cope with. We're no longer medieval peasants worrying about gathering food for the winter and defending ourselves against the marauding horsemen from across the steppes - instead we're fretting about bills, taxation, the 24-hour cycle of bad news, and whether we might qualify for some kind of financial benefit. And many of us have no religion, community or natural survival skills to fall back on for some sense of comfort - all things our ancestors would have had.