Obadiah Mbatang writes:
Robert Jenrick was not going to become Tory leader
The very simple reason why he has made this move is that Robert Jenrick knew that he was not going to be Tory leader. When he says “I did not do this out of personal ambition”, he is not telling the truth. He has done this precisely because of personal ambition. He realised that his chance of realising his dream of becoming Prime Minister was best served by a defection to Reform rather than an attempt to seize the Tory crown. As Reform is ahead in the polls, it stands a chance of forming the next government. Nigel Farage will not be there forever. Also, if Jenrick believed that he could be Tory leader, he would not have contemplated this move. It is quite simple.
This was apparent for months, and it should have been clear to commentators who talked up the inevitability of a Jenrick succession. Much of it had been egged on by the Soho plotters who had tried to undermine Rishi Sunak after Suella Braverman’s departure from Cabinet in 2023 and had coalesced around Jenrick.
However, when Danny Kruger - who had been his campaign manager - defected to Reform, that was a clear sign that his close ally did not have confidence in his ability to become Tory leader. Had Kruger thought it was likely, he would not have made the jump. David Frost, another Jenrick supporter, openly pondered in his Telegraph column whether Kruger’s defection was a sign that Jenrick could not become leader (something he hoped would eventually happen) and whether the future of the Tory right was in Reform.
One very obvious reason why Jenrick’s path to the leadership was unclear is that the Tory parliamentary party is more left-leaning than Reform-leaning. While Kemi Badenoch was a candidate of the Right, some of her early support - Laura Trott, Jesse Norman, Andrew Bowie, Ben Spencer - had been associated with the party’s left. It is not right to say Badenoch was a “unity” candidate - indeed she explicitly criticised the notion of putting “unity” above a clear sense of direction. The “unity” candidates in that race were James Cleverly and Priti Patel. However, she was a candidate of the centre-right of the Conservative Party who was able to attract support from its left. Had Badenoch fallen on her sword, James Cleverly would have been a formidable opponent to Jenrick. He would have most likely won most support from MPs, and given hypothetical polls from the 2024 contest, it is not impossible that he could have won among the grassroots (and many of Jenrick’s supporters had defected to Reform). His return to the Shadow Cabinet showed that Cleverly was still in the game, and was an early attempt to clip Jenrick’s wings.
Jenrick claims that the Conservative Party was unsalvageable, citing its own record in Government as the reason. This does not wash. If that was the case, why did the man stand for the leadership after 2024? He harboured aspirations for the leadership and failed to rule out standing again when asked. There were people who would have supported him in that endeavour. Surely, he could have ousted Badenoch and turned the ship in the direction he wished? Even if events meant that he needed to agree a pact with Reform (as he said “unite the coalition on the right one way or another”), he could have come to that arrangement as Tory leader. There was no reason to jump ship unless he knew there was no viable path to the top. When he says otherwise, he is insulting your intelligence.
It is also worth noting that the sheer vitriol towards Robert Jenrick would have been a stumbling block too. Comments from James Cleverly, David Davis, Ben Obese-Jecty, Paul Holmes, and Bernard Jenkin show the extent of their contempt for the man who could’ve led them. Some MPs on the left of the party - Jerome Mayhew, Neil Shastri-Hurst and Graham Stuart - appeared delighted at Badenoch’s decision to kick him out. Rachel Maclean, the former minister who was Badenoch’s director of strategy, described him as a “snake”. Ruth Davidson, the former Scottish Tory leader, claims there was no sadness among her circles in the Tory Party at his defection. This may appear like sour grapes given his defection, but the reaction at Danny Kruger’s defection was incredibly tame by comparison (some of his colleagues expressed sadness and remained complimentary towards him). It would also be delusional to think that this dislike for Jenrick only occurred on Thursday afternoon. Months before his defection, a Tory described him to me with a four-letter word beginning with “c” which rhymes with “Jeremy Hunt”. Last year, one of his former shadow cabinet colleagues described him to me as a “wasteman”. While they may come from one wing of the Conservative Party (although it should be noted that some I have mentioned are on the Tory right), they reflect a body of opinion within the parliamentary party who he would have needed behind him as Tory leader. If anything, his constant angling for Badenoch’s position increased feelings of animosity towards him. His behaviour would have made them less likely to show loyalty to him even in the event of a successful challenge - if he could not show loyalty to Badenoch or Sunak, why be loyal to him?
As late as last year, his star was fading. Like his address to the Tory Party conference during the leadership contest, his conference speech was not well received. While he attracted much attention, he was not strong enough to play Andy Burnham to Badenoch’s Starmer. The “white faces” comment, which was mysteriously leaked to The Guardian, saw his shadow cabinet colleagues Mel Stride and Chris Philp go out of their way to publicly criticise him. Heads turned away from Robert Jenrick towards the rising star on the Tory right, Katie Lam. Speculation about Lam’s leadership ambitions - and her own failure to dispel them - showed parts of the Right were looking to a new champion. He may have missed his shot. Shares in Jenrick were being sold.
It is a reflection of Kemi Badenoch’s strength (and she is stronger because of it)
After a rocky start, things started turning around for Badenoch by the end of last year. Her response to the Peter Mandelson affair at Prime Minister’s Questions saw the Prince of Darkness’ (third) downfall. Her strong performances at Prime Minister’s Questions have seen her consistently best Starmer on a weekly basis. Her conference speech was a game changer, where she proved herself to be a strong performer and clearly outshone Jenrick. Her humorous response to the Budget was very well-received by her party, the commentariat and members of the public who saw it. Far from Badenoch being seen as a liability at the dispatch box (or Raheem Sterling-like at best), the Tory leader was being compared to one of her predecessors William Hague. There are signs of increased support for her party in the polls (albeit still poor) but there has been a noticeable bounce in her own personal approval ratings. Even among Labour and Lib Dem voters, her approval ratings have improved. She is narrowly the most popular party leader in some polls, with more people preferring her to Nigel Farage and Keir Starmer when asked who they think would make the best Prime Minister. She is certainly not out of the woods yet but it is a remarkable change of fortune for a woman once widely written off as a lame duck.
It is no surprise, therefore, that the letters did not flood into Bob Blackman’s office as many predicted. The commentators who thought a change of leadership was a racing certainty were proved wrong. She is still in post. There was no vote of confidence. Some say that even if the May local elections are disastrous for the Tories, her leadership remains secure. Consequently, speculation about Robert Jenrick’s position declined. The stronger she grew, the weaker he was. If he believed he could pounce, he would’ve done so. Her strong position meant that he could not. Defection was an entirely rational response. It was, bizarrely, a reflection of her strength not of her weakness.
Even more bizarre, is that the defection further strengthens Badenoch. Ordinarily, a big beast on your frontbench defecting to a rival party, which is well ahead of you in the polls, would be seen as a crisis. However, Badenoch has emerged strengthened by this affair. The most obvious reason is that it removes an internal rival who was destabilising and openly disloyal. More importantly, the Tory leader’s response was strong and decisive - proving she has key qualities of leadership. Even more, she turned what should have been a crisis into a clear strength. When presented with intelligence of his plans, she swiftly sacked him from the Shadow Cabinet and removed him from the Conservative Party.
This revealed two things about Badenoch. First is that her strong position in the Tory Party made this possible. A weaker leader would have considered negotiating with him or pleaded with him to remain a Tory. She had the political space to dismiss him because her internal position was already fairly robust.
Second, she demonstrated good judgment. Her response to the crisis allowed her to get on the front foot. By taking such decisive action, rather than panicking or not responding, she left Jenrick in limbo for a few hours (although fortunately for him Farage let him join Reform). Both men were caught off-guard. It was not even clear that Jenrick had formally agreed to jump ship. Although he claims he had resolved to go, Farage says he was unsure of Jenrick’s plans (“60/40 he will join at some point”). Very often people back out of these things at the very last minute (for eg. Culture Minister Ian Murray who changed his mind about defecting to The Independent Group on the morning of its founding). By acting in such a swift manner, Badenoch effectively controlled the narrative about the defection, shaped the narrative around Jenrick, prevented him from leaving on his own terms and inflicting further damage on her party.
It should be noted that this action is not usual. Party leaders have not tended to issue preemptive strikes on potential turncoats from their tribe. Michael Foot did not expel the founders of the SDP even though their plans were well known. Douglas Carswell and Mark Reckless were not booted out by David Cameron before joining UKIP. Tom Watson considered defecting to the Liberal Democrats (even his friend Michael Dugher openly said so at the time). Did anything happen? No. Westminster knew for ages that there would be a breakaway from Corbyn’s Labour Party. The names of those who would later defect - and those who considered defection - were well known. Did anything happen? No. Otherwise Liz Kendall, Heidi Alexander and Ian Murray would be unlikely to be serving in government right now. The approach - on both Labour and Conservative sides - was to plead with them to remain in their parties (as Jenrick did with Anna Soubry). What Badenoch did here was the exact opposite.
However, even if one still disagrees with the point made here, that almost does not matter. The reaction to her move has improved her standing in the eyes of erstwhile detractors. Former Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson, a critic of Kemi Badenoch, tweeted “fair play” in support of her leader. Even Labour MP Karl Turner publicly praised Badenoch for her leadership (in contrast to his frequent attacks against his own Prime Minister). Mark Francois, a former Jenrick supporter, not only praised Badenoch but attacked the character of his friend who he supported for the top job. Even members of the Government are now urging Starmer to follow Badenoch’s example and sack Wes Streeting and disloyal ministers.
This could still kill the Tory Party and Jenrick may have the last laugh
Nonetheless, Jenrick’s move to Reform is not without significant risks for the Conservative Party. Although some (Andrew Marr) have said triumphantly that this is the moment Badenoch has saved her party, this could still be the beginning of the end for the Tories. Farage has made May 7th the deadline for Conservative MPs to defect to Reform, which opens the door for others to follow suit. While it would be rude to compare Robert Jenrick to the Gang of Four, his defection could encourage those who are on the fence. Andrew Rosindell, the long-serving pro-Jenrick MP for Romford, who endorsed Farage as a potential “excellent prime minister” who he would serve under, has joined him. Many of Jenrick’s supporters in the Tory grassroots - it would be quite absurd to deny that had he had a strong following - could join him too.
Some of his supporters in Parliament have pledged loyalty to the Conservative Party. Jack Rankin, once an ally of Jenrick, has also pledged to stick with the party. Richard Holden, the shadow transport secretary who supported Jenrick, has come out in support of Badenoch. Esther McVey, who was once Jenrick’s boss and then became his junior minister, has ruled out defecting and sworn fealty to Badenoch. McVey is significant as she has been a supporter of Unite The Right. Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg has also said that he will remain a Conservative, although still advocates Unite The Right. Neil O’Brien - who broke with his friend Kemi Badenoch to back Jenrick in 2024 - has retweeted attacks on the man he once supported for the leadership. John Hayes, who ran Jenrick’s campaign with Kruger, has expressed sadness at his decision but has vowed to remain a Tory.
Some have not been so forthcoming. Eyes will be on former Home Secretary Suella Braverman. Father of the House Edward Leigh has spoken of a pact between both parties and publicly suggested that’s the outcome Jenrick supporters want. If a few more Tories take the plunge in the wake of Jenrick’s defection, it could provide Reform with greater momentum. It could also make those 2024 Conservative voters who have since defected to Reform since the last election, more likely to stick with Reform.
Even if Jenrick is the sole prominent defector, there is still a world in which he has the last laugh and his detractors bend the knee to him. If Reform becomes the Official Opposition after the next election, Jenrick would undoubtedly be a contender to succeed Farage. If he becomes the Leader of the Opposition, the rump of remaining Conservatives could find it in their interests to unite behind his new party. In this scenario, Jenrick’s defection could be the moment which secures his future as the leader of the British Right. Or even the next rightwing Prime Minister.
But this could still be a very big mistake for Reform
However, Jenrick’s move is not without problems for the insurgent rightwing party. By accepting him, it strengthens the narrative that Reform is the Conservative Party 2.0. Even a few Labour defections, which may interest nerds, will not change this overall image.
Farage may believe that this dents a perceived weakness which is that his party lacks experience in government. He overstates his case here. Previous governments have been elected in Britain which had few ministers with previous government experience. It is also simply incoherent to argue: “we are fresh, new and unique yet we are so inexperienced that we need the old guard who destroyed the country”. It is similarly absurd to claim: “the Tories broke Britain but Britain needs the very people who broke it.” It simply does not work.
Such defections also provide risks for their voter coalition. Despite talk of Unite The Right, Conservative and Reform voters are much more distinguishable and much less interchangeable than Labour and Liberal Democrat voters. Many 2024 Reform voters are not former Conservatives. Many are non-voters who have been politically reengaged by the thought of something different and which more closely reflects their values (or their frustrations). Around six percent are anti-system voters who may even consider the Greens (and could have even voted for Jeremy Corbyn’s vehicle before it collapsed). While such voters lean more “cultural conservative” (in a crude sense of the term), an element of their support for Reform is rebellion against the status quo and the establishment. How Robert Jenrick fits the bill is hard to see.
While a clear majority of Reform voters prefer the Conservative Party to the Labour Party, around five percent of their 2024 vote prefer Labour. Around a third of likely Reform voters opposed doing any kind of deal with the Tories. Even 15% of current Reform voters would not support a Conservative-Reform coalition even if it was headed by Nigel Farage. Just over a quarter of 2024 Reform voters have a favourable opinion of Andy Burnham. Since the election, 11% of Labour’s 2024 vote has gone over to Reform. Will Jenrick’s inclusion make Reform a more attractive proposition to those voters? No.
If Jenrick becomes Reform’s Shadow Chancellor, there are further risks too. He would pull the party to the right on economics, a move that would shrink the potential support. Rightwing populist parties tend to do better if they move to the left economically than if they have an economically rightwing platform. How is a more orthodox Tory approach to economics reconcilable with Reform’s recent flirtations with nationalisation and dirigisme?
It is also worth looking at Jenrick’s own popularity. Since defecting, his popularity has fallen. He is one of the most unpopular politicians in the country. His popularity with Conservative voters has significantly fallen. Over a fifth of Reform voters have a negative opinion of the new Reform MP. Sixty percent of voters, including a third of 2024 Reform voters, think he and the other Tory defectors have joined Farage in order to “further their own political ambitions”. Previous focus groups find that former Tory voters - including some who went to Reform - find him off putting.
Jenrick’s defection also undermines the credibility of Reform too. Far from appearing as men and women who “tell it how it is”, it makes them look like normal politicians. The convoluted answers, the hypocrisy, the inconsistency - it creates an aura of dishonesty around people who present as plain speakers. Leave aside the insults and vituperations that Jenrick has directed at Zia Yusuf. Or Yusuf’s relentless and obsessive (and amusing) attacks on his record and character. This September, Jenrick said of Farage: “he is not the bloke you want to have running your kids' schools or running your local hospital or... trust your savings, your pension, your small business too.” In May, he said: “I want to put Reform out of business. I want to send Nigel back to retirement." In October 2024, he said: “I don't think he's a serious politician. I don't think he's got the answers to the problems that our country is facing”.
Nigel Farage called Jenrick a “fraud who is not to be trusted”. Just this summer, Farage described him as “no friend of Epping” because he “got up to 56,000 people who crossed the Channel by boat living in hotels, he put more people in hotels than even this Labour Government”. Allowing him into Reform jars with Reform’s own charge against the Tories on illegal immigration. If he was even worse than Labour when it comes to asylum hotels, why let him join? Previously, Farage said Jenrick was a “man who believes in nothing” who acts out of “political gain not conviction”. Reform London Mayoral candidate Laila Cunningham explicitly said she did not want Jenrick in Reform. All of this paints a clear picture of incoherence and inconsistency. Attempts to explain it away not only stretch credulity but insult the intellect of the voters.
There is also a risk that this could blow up in both Jenrick and Farage’s faces. The whole history of Nigel Farage is that he is someone who cannot bear to be gainsaid. In every party he has led, he has been incapable of building a team. Those with independence of mind, ambition, strong personalities or seen as potential rivals find themselves crushed. Most recently we have seen fallouts with Rupert Lowe and Ben Habib. Douglas Carswell, Suzanne Evans, Patrick O’Flynn, Neil Hamilton and Godfrey Bloom all found themselves on the wrong side of Farage. Marta Andreasen, Nikki Sinclaire, Mike Nattrass and David Campbell-Bannerman (interesting that he has not defected to Reform) also have the scars on their backs from their UKIP days. That’s before we get into his rivalry with Alan Sked in the Anti-Federalist League. What makes Jenrick think this will be any different? One thing we know about him is that he is self-promoting, with voracious ambition and has aspirations to be Prime Minister. His Saharan thirst for power has led to a record of dishonesty and disloyalty (as both Rishi Sunak and Kemi Badenoch can attest). How can Farage and those close to him have any faith in him? If he brings an army of former supporters into Reform, it will foster suspicion in the party’s ranks that he has a rival base that could challenge Farage. If Jenrick is thought to be crossing Farage (a man who hates tall poppies), it could be fatal for his career. Rivalry between the two can derail Reform. This is far from risk-free.
Even without this defect in Farage’s personality, defections and forming new parties are not easy. We have seen the fallout between Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana in Your Party. A movement which plausibly could have reshaped the radical left is now a far left husk riven by squabbles, factionalism and sectarianism. The Independent Group - which could have, in alliance with the Liberal Democrats, supplanted Corbyn’s Labour - saw a split between the faction aligned behind Chuka Umunna and the faction behind Chris Leslie. The party lasted a few months. Douglas Carswell was a dead man walking in UKIP within less than a year of his defection. The SDP saw splits between David Owen and his followers, and the rest of the Gang of Four (especially Roy Jenkins). Combined with Farage’s character flaws, we should expect challenges ahead.
Overall, last Thursday could be the moment which leads to Robert Jenrick becoming the King of the British Right. It could also be the moment when Robert Jenrick blew up his career. We shall see.
It’s been a week since the defection of Robert Jenrick to Reform. What it confirmed is a belief that I have long held: Robert Jenrick is a dishonourable man. Despite the attention he has garnered over the last couple of years, the man once seen as the saviour of the Tory right embodies the worst of British politics.
This behaviour has been demonstrated throughout his defection. One could mention the things he said about Nigel Farage while in talks to defect. They could bring up the harsh words directed at Zia Yusuf. One could even mention his attendance at Shadow Cabinet away days, pretending nothing was going on when his mind was elsewhere.
It is unnecessary to dwell too much on that, though. One just needs to look at the press conference where he announced his defection. On the Friday before his defection, the journalist Camilla Tominey put rumours of his defection to him, Jenrick provided a very clear response: “never”. Now no one believes that Jenrick had to be upfront to Tominey. Providing an exclusive scoop to The Telegraph was unnecessary. But it is not beyond the wit of man to provide a form of words that could have dealt with the issue. He could have simply ignored the text. Instead, he said the opposite of what he knew to be true. When Tominey challenged him on this at the press conference announcing his defection, he patronised her in front of her colleagues. Earlier that day, when Tory Chief Whip Rebecca Harris sacked him, he protested his innocence before slamming down the phone.
The dishonesty does not end there. In his speech, he singled out two of his former shadow Cabinet (and Cabinet) colleagues Mel Stride and Priti Patel for criticism. Stride oversaw “the explosion of the welfare bill and blocked the reforms needed.” Patel was responsible for the record immigration of the last Conservative government. Their presence on the Tory frontbench was evidence, in his view, that the Tories had failed to change.
Now it is not for me to defend the Conservative Party or the records of Stride and Patel. But if Jenrick had an issue working with them, why did he serve on the frontbench alongside them? If he genuinely believed that Patel was responsible for the “greatest failure” of any postwar government, why sit alongside her on the front bench? Indeed, when he was running for the Tory leadership, he tweeted out strong praise when each of them dropped out of the contest. He said of Patel: “My friend Priti Patel is a relentless champion for Conservatism whose experience will be invaluable as we rebuild”.
He said of Stride: “Mel has showcased the best of the Conservative Party. As Work and Pensions Secretary, Mel enacted reforms that made our welfare system fairer and meant we could cut taxes responsibly. In opposition we must reclaim our reputation for fiscal responsibility which has inspired the confidence of voters for decades.”
If we take him at his word, and what he said at the press conference reflected what he really thinks, there are only two possible explanations. One possible explanation is that Jenrick was lying when he praised his colleagues. The other explanation is that he was too clueless to realise that these were the very people who would inhibit the change he desired. When he was asked whether he would include defeated leadership rivals in his frontbench team, he said he would offer them jobs. One of the briefings during the contest was that Mel Stride, the man he attacked at his press conference, was a candidate to be his Shadow Chancellor. Something does not add up.
Much of his pretext for defecting to Reform was railing against the ancien regime in the Tory Party. The Conservatives had not changed enough. It is obvious to point out that Jenrick was part of the ancien regime. He was a long-serving minister, who sat around the Cabinet longer than any of his former shadow Cabinet colleagues. It is as if he believes that everyone else should bear responsibility but not him. “Not me, guv,” seems to be his mantra. Yet even this line is irreconcilable with other positions he’s taken since leaving Government in 2024. Jenrick was very happy to ingratiate himself with members of the ancien regime. When there was speculation about a possible coup against Badenoch, there were briefings that Jenrick had dinner with David Cameron, George Osborne and Greg Barker - the idea being that he was courting their support in the event of another contest. When he ran for the leadership of the Conservative Party, he offered Jacob Rees-Mogg (a leading cheerleader for Boris Johnson and Liz Truss) the party chairmanship. He said that he would bring back Penny Mordaunt. He publicly promised to appoint Boris Johnson to his Shadow Cabinet. The very people were key members of a regime which he said failed the country. The very Prime Minister whose immigration policy he claimed to be adamantly against and who left office in disgrace. Yet he complained about there being an insufficient break from the ancien regime. One does not need to be a genius to see the contradiction.
The irony is that the Tory position had changed. On Net Zero, the European Convention on Human Rights, fiscal policy, immigration - there has been change in the very policy areas he complained about. The Tory leader, who he has claimed has not changed his former party, has apologised for previous decisions. So much so that Theresa May and Boris Johnson have criticised her policy changes. When challenged on this by Christopher Hope for GB News, his response was to say “the Tory Party does not truly believe it”. Why? Tory MPs were unconvinced of the need to leave the ECHR in the 2024 leadership contest. If changing one’s mind, or stated position, proves that you are not genuine, then by his own admission Jenrick ought to look in the mirror (more on that later).
Since defecting, Jenrick has recently cited Liz Truss’ continued membership of the Conservative Party as evidence of insufficient change. Now this is a clever move from Jenrick. It sows doubt in the mind of many a Sensible centrist. There is just one problem. Most former Conservative MPs who backed him supported Liz Truss. The majority of Tory MPs who supported him in 2024, but were members of the 2019-24 Parliament, voted for Liz Truss. His campaign managers - Danny Kruger and John Hayes - supported Liz Truss. And guess what? Nigel Farage - the man who Jenrick is inviting us to make Prime Minister - endorsed Liz Truss in that contest. Farage also praised the disastrous mini-budget as the best Conservative Budget since 1988. If support for (or alignment with) Liz Truss is a sign of unsoundness, what does that say of his supporters? Or the man who leads the party he defected to? The contradiction is stark and undeniable.
Those who are surprised by the mendacity and hypocrisy of this man should not be. This is, of course, the same man who after the erroneous decision to ban Maccabi Tel Aviv from Birmingham, suggested that there was no scourge of football hooliganism in the 1980s and 1990s. There was just a little “rough and tumble”. Such authentic, words of wisdom from the Wolves fan who could not name “Thomas Tuchel” when asked about the England manager. But the clues as to the man’s character have been littered throughout his career.
In 2014, Jenrick entered parliament as, in the words of one Tory adviser, a ‘parody-level Cameroon blandy’. Or in the words of his former ally and mentor, former arch-Remainer Tory MP Anna Soubry, a ‘full-fat subscriber to David Cameron’. Nickie Aiken, the former Tory MP and leader of Westminster City Council, said: “I was quite surprised how militant he became as immigration minister as he has always been centrist”. He won the Newark by-election in 2014 by urging Labour and Lib Dem supporters to lend him their votes to stop the ‘extreme’ UKIP from winning. In that by-election, he said: “we are all, well many of us, are certainly immigrants to some extent. My name’s an unusual one but I think my ancestors just caught an earlier boat than other people’s. This country’s been built by great immigrants.” His idol Ken Clarke - the Europhile Tory grandee who represented the neighbouring Rushcliffe - was put on his election literature. Commenting on his victory, the young Jenrick said: ‘You win elections at the centre.’ Two years later, in 2016, he campaigned for Remain alongside Clarke. Jenrick even signed a letter ahead of the EU referendum, along with 16 other MPs, denouncing ‘Farage’s Britain’ as ‘angry, intolerant, limited [and] sepia-coloured’.
In 2017, he said in a Commons debate that Brexit requires a “managed but liberal immigration policy that seeks to attract the most highly skilled people that we need.” He said the focus should be on “who they are and the skills they bring, not necessarily on how many”. He also called for a “tone that welcomes people into this country rather than repelling them.” This is extraordinary. It is worth examining the context at the time. Britain had voted to leave the European Union, a decision in large part to control immigration. Net migration was north of 200,000. Jenrick was calling for immigration to be further liberalised. He was calling for the net migration target to be ditched. Even more importantly, he was doing so as the PPS to Amber Rudd, the then Home Secretary. Let us be clear: this is a man on the government payroll arguing against government policy on immigration - calling for it to be more liberal - while an underling of the Home Secretary.
At the time, he was believed to be working on Rudd’s putative Tory leadership bid which she had been organising in the wake of the 2017 election disaster. Others included Damian Green, Nick Boles, Margot James, Nicholas Soames, Nicky Morgan, Oliver Letwin, Stephen Hammond and Anne Milton (most of whom lost the whip over Brexit). Rory Stewart had urged Rudd to stand. George Osborne, John Major, Michael Heseltine and Ruth Davidson were also believed to be supportive. Cameroon special advisers, Catherine Fall and Craig Oliver, were advising Rudd’s campaign. When Anna Soubry was planning to defect to The Independent Group, Jenrick tried to persuade her to remain a Conservative. Such was the closeness between the two, that when his messages went unanswered, Tory high command knew attempts to keep Soubry were doomed. I mention this merely to further underline which side of the Tory divide he was on.
Jenrick ended up supporting Boris Johnson’s bid for the Tory leadership in 2019. He wrote an op-ed with his friends, Rishi Sunak and Oliver Dowden, hailing Johnson as the embodiment of ‘One Nation’ values. Given his background, this intervention gave Boris credibility on the centre and left of the Tory Party. Some who were critical, or sceptical, of Boris felt they had permission to back him. The op-ed led Theresa May to tell a colleague - perhaps despairingly - “Boris is going to be the next Prime Minister”.
Just over three years ago, in the autumn 2022, Jenrick supported his friend, Rishi Sunak, to be Tory leader. He was then offered the job of immigration minister by Sunak to keep an eye on the then Home Secretary, Suella Braverman – or in the words of one strategist, ‘To make sure she didn’t do anything too stupid’. What is often not known is that Jenrick initially refused the job because the Rwanda policy was “too cruel”. Credible witnesses say that Jenrick even shed tears over the Rwanda policy.
Later that year, he publicly broke with Braverman when she described the small-boats crossings as an ‘invasion’. ‘I would never demonise people coming to this country in pursuit of a better life’, he said, warning that politicians should ‘choose [their] words very carefully’. Braverman claims that Jenrick told her, in 2023, that he was not in favour of leaving the European Convention on Human Rights. In a fringe event at Conservative Party conference later that year, Jenrick was publicly sceptical of a cap on immigration. Then he resigned from government in 2023, citing Rishi Sunak’s weakness on the Rwanda policy. Although what is often left out of this story is that it followed a reshuffle in which he had asked to be promoted but remained immigration minister. There were three previous opportunities for promotion where he was overlooked.
This is an incredible shift in position within an extraordinarily short space of time. Some say this is down to radicalisation by the Home Office. This does not wash. Various politicians on the left and right have served in the Home Office without subsequently undergoing the psychological transformation that happened to Jenrick. (One of his predecessors Caroline Nokes went from the Eurosceptic right of the Tory Party to embracing the politics of gal-dem). Neither does it explain his change of heart on various unrelated issues (for eg. Net Zero, the Windsor Framework) or that he suddenly piped up on issues he never once spoke about. It also ignores the fact that Jenrick was also Communities Secretary under Boris Johnson. That meant he was the Cabinet minister responsible for community cohesion and Afghan resettlement. In that time, did he talk about extremism, “multiculturalism” or the perils of mass immigration? No. Instead, he welcomed an Afghan family to live with his family - and his daughters - something which he recounted as a “moving” experience. He was also in charge of faith policy in that role. In April, he wrote about the importance of Christianity in British public life - and attacked the Government for failing to mark “Psalm Sunday” (the festival is actually Palm Sunday). Yet the only time he ever mentioned Christianity in Parliament was in support of a £30 million cultural fund in Syria.
Besides, are we seriously to believe that Jenrick would have resigned in 2023 ‘on principle’ had he been promoted to a senior cabinet job? Come off it.
But there’s something darker and more insidious about Jenrick. Something unpleasant. Now I am no fan of political correctness. We should be free to talk about sensitive issues. One ought not to gratuitously offend, but that does not mean we should not say things which may offend. One ought not to go out of their way to be divisive or create ill-feeling, but that does not mean one should never say anything which may be divisive or uncomfortable. That one ought not engage in dogwhistle politics does not mean anything which one may perceive to be “dogwhistle” should not be said. There is a fine line. A subtle difference, sure, but an important one too.
Worse, political correctness can be deeply immoral: the covering up of grooming gangs, refusing to face the realities of the Victoria Climbié case, turning a blind eye to so-called “honour” crimes, showing weakness in the face of Islamist intimidation, ignoring the emergence of biradari politics, complicity in the harms of gender ideology, the negative unintended consequences of state multiculturalism, and the illiberalism of cancel culture. These are issues that I engaged with years before Jenrick found his taste for the controversial (and when some of his young admirers and others on the Online Right were probably in Key Stage 3). I engaged with them to the extent that I have been branded a “coon”, “transphobe”, “fascist” and “bigot”. Nonetheless, it should be in a way which is honest, morally consistent, rigorous and thoughtful. Our leaders, in particular, have a duty to do so responsibly. Doing otherwise risks bigotry and legitimising hatred. Robert Jenrick has failed that moral test.
He has said colonised countries should be grateful to the British Empire. There is a difference between rightly pushing back against the narrative that the West is the source of all the world’s ills, that everything the British Empire did was evil, and completely ignoring the crimes of colonialism. There is a difference between opposing demands for ‘decolonisation’ or ‘reparations’ and implying that Africans and Indians should be grateful for being civilised by The White Man. It is worth noting that in 2021, Jenrick sent messages to an old friend, the journalist Sathnam Sanghera, praising his book Empireland - a typically liberal left account of the British Empire. This is not something which he had spoken publicly about before 2024. Perhaps we could put that down to Home Office radicalisation too.
He has described grooming gangs as entirely the product of ‘mass migration’ and of importing ‘alien cultures’. Now one should rightly talk about the cultural aspects of violence against women and girls in certain communities. One must reject the denialism over this issue for fear of political correctness. It was a grave sin for the liberal left to do otherwise. But to generalise about entire demographic groups? To pin this entirely on all immigration as if all immigrants since Windrush (and their descendants) must be held responsible for one of the worst crimes in recent years? Really, Rob? That is something else. The first may have seen you falsely accused of racism. The second? I’m not so sure.
The “white faces” remark is another of a similar genre. While he may have plausible deniability (he did in fairness later say “it is not about colour”), one has to ask why he racialised the issue in the first place? One can make a point about integration and community cohesion, even start an evidence-based informed discussion about cultural practices in certain groups. One can talk about a lack of integration among certain groups. One can even address the impact large-scale immigration can have on social cohesion. Or that if the pace of change is too rapid, it can be disorientating for those settled and rooted in their local community. All of this is fair game. As someone who is somewhat communitarian, I am sympathetic to those views. Even Labour grandee Roy Hattersley - one of the staunchest critics of Enoch Powell’s - himself said “integration without limitation is impossible, equally, limitation without integration is indefensible.” The philosopher, Kwame Anthony Appiah, a champion of cosmopolitanism, has also made similar arguments. It should be discussed. We may be paying the price for avoiding some of these issues rather than substantively addressing them. But it should be done without resorting to generalisation, crudeness and anecdote. Why insinuate that a lack of white faces - or a preponderance of non-white faces - is necessarily a problem? The irony is that this comes from the same man who told young Tory activists during the leadership contest that he would not take his party down a ‘rabbit hole of culture wars’.
Worse than all of this, there is a possible subtext to the man’s schtick which many have noted. That Jenrick - in his desire to oust Badenoch - was hinting and winking at darker things. You only have to scroll through social media to see that there are plenty on the Online Right who think a black woman should not be leading the country, let alone the Conservative Party. Nigerian heritage? A-List! DEI hire! Almost (though not quite) a first generation immigrant? You must be joking! Braids? Step in “Tory modernisation” too far!
Leave aside Benjamin Disraeli’s Jewish immigrant heritage or that Edmund Burke was a child of an Irish Catholic, we know such attitudes - while not widespread - existed in the Tory rank and file in the first 2022 Tory leadership contest with Rishi Sunak. Only a fool would pretend that Jenrick is unaware of such undercurrents. It is noticeable that he refrained from condemning it, even when done in his name. One Tory grandee - once close to Jenrick - told me they were concerned that was a component of the support Jenrick was courting. Not a majority, or even a significant minority, but still a component. No serious person would regard this individual as “woke” - far from it. One journalist told me of a Jenrick supporting MP who told them: “I can’t believe we’ve picked the Nigerian girlie”. Perhaps this is all coincidental. Maybe I’ve read too much into it. But for that to be true, it would demonstrate an extraordinary level of naivety and cluelessness. It literally must never have occurred to him. We cannot peer into men’s souls, but some may say that it stretches credulity.
Nonetheless, it would not be right to compare him to another ex-One Nation Tory and pro-Marketeer who also hailed from Wolverhampton and ended up defecting from the Conservative Party. A former health minister who talked irresponsibly about race and immigration, having been somewhat liberal on both. Who had a rivalry with a Tory Leader of the Opposition who defeated them in a contest after an election loss. Who then sacked him. Drawing such equivalence would be a mistake. At least, the other one was most likely “driven mad by the remorselessness of their own logic”. For Jenrick, the changes in position are not only more rapid and more varied. They coincide with personal advancement.
As I have said, there is a world in which Jenrick’s defection proves to be an astute move. There are, however, reasons to doubt it. Polls have shown Jenrick’s popularity has fallen. An Opinium poll for The Spectator found that 59% of voters believe that Badenoch was right to sack Jenrick, with 11% disagreeing. 79% of 2024 Conservative voters, and even 61% of 2024 Reform voters agree. Badenoch’s ratings as “strong leader” and “decisive” have increased. More in Common’s polling since the defection also supports this.
This is not very surprising. Voters saw through the man’s facade. Most polls consistently found him to be less popular than Badenoch and other potential rivals for the Tory crown, even when his stunts and social media campaigning attracted wide publicity. Ahead of last year’s Tory leadership election, More in Common held focus groups of voters who defected from the Conservatives at the General Election. Their view of Jenrick was clear: he was among the least popular of the candidates. One participant in Great Yarmouth said that, ‘He was saying all the right things’, but also described him as ‘smug and smarmy’. ‘Slimey’, ‘hypocrite’, ‘not relatable’, ‘not keen’, ‘not likeable’, ‘out of touch’, ‘creepy’, ‘wooden’ – these were the kinds of words that kept occurring in the focus groups, irrespective of whether voters had sympathy with some of his (latest) ideas. As Steven, a store manager from Welwyn, said: ‘[Jenrick] was saying all the right things but felt like an AI-generated script kind of thing. Just hey, what would make me sound popular?’
Steven was right. As was Nigel Farage when he described him as a man who “believes in nothing” and a “fraud who is not to be trusted”. A man for all seasons, he is the worst of British politics made flesh. Cynical, opportunistic, weathervane, charlatan, voracious ambition in place of values, a void in place of integrity - this encapsulates the character of the guy. Regardless of whether Thursday’s events lead to his ascension to the very top, Robert Jenrick remains a dishonourable man.
No comments:
Post a Comment