Why is Kemi Badenoch so bad at politics?
Kemi Badenoch has spent five years as a government minister, two of them in the Cabinet. This is relatively extensive government experience – more than most of the people in Keir Starmer's administration, given Labour's long time in opposition. She is not an ingenue.
All of this is worth emphasising because it is incredibly easy to forget all of it when you hear Kemi Badenoch speak. More specifically, Badenoch at the weekend managed to make a series of comments so staggeringly stupid and counterproductive that the only usual excuse would be that the person saying them is vastly inexperienced, out of their depth, and being asked a question they can't reasonably be expected to answer.
Suggested Reading The Tories are dead
Matthew d'Ancona
So it is important to remember that Badenoch is none of these things. She is an experienced cabinet minister and the leader of the opposition. In other words, she has no excuse to be giving answers as bizarre as the ones she's giving out – and any remaining tolerance for her nonsense from her party should be wearing out.
Let's get to the remarks, as Badenoch made one that was merely stupid, followed in very quick succession by one that was calamitous, both in an interview with Sky News on Sunday.
The first was to claim that 'Israel is fighting a proxy war on behalf of the UK' with its aggression against Gaza. This is such a bizarre claim that it would merit an article-length dissection in itself. Israel retaliated against Gaza because of the attacks of October 7, 2023. Its untrammelled aggression and prolonged conflict has fuelled both antisemitism and Islamophobia across the world, and undermined Israel's standing even among its allies.
It is widely regarded as a senseless loss of life, motivated in part by Benjamin Netanyahu's desire to cling onto power and forestall his own prosecution over corruption. Explaining how any of this represents the UK's interests – let alone to anything like the extent of being a 'proxy war' on our behalf – would be quite the task.
This remark alone was thoughtless, callous and inane – but Badenoch was just getting started. To complete her thought, she added 'just like Ukraine is on behalf of Western Europe against Russia'. This is one of the talking points Russia and its advocates have been keen to push ever since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022. It is a talking point of the Stop The War and Corbynite left, and is pushed by apologists for Putin.
The Kremlin was obviously delighted. The Russian foreign minister posted on Facebook that 'Kemi Badenoch has finally called a spade a spade… Ukraine is indeed fighting a proxy war against Russia… The objective of Russia's Special Military Operation is to put an end to the proxy-war and restore peace'.
This is calamitously bad from Badenoch, and it will be used time and again by Russia to suggest a former cabinet minister has somehow given the game away. Early in the invasion, Putin admitted its reason – that he regards Ukraine as part of Russia and wants to subsume it. But claims of a Russia versus the West proxy war allows the country to reframe it as a defensive project, or even an anti-imperialist one. Badenoch has, when trying to make a bizarre point about a different conflict entirely, endorsed Russia's favourite talking point.
There are several possibilities as to how this happens, and none of them are good. One is simply that Badenoch said what she thinks, and this is her true belief – meaning that on top of everything else, the Conservative Party elected a Corbynite as its leader. This seems unlikely.
The other is that Badenoch was speaking fast and loose, and didn't really stop to consider what 'proxy war' meant. This could be because she was woefully unprepared, or because she is unwilling to choose her words carefully. Either would make her unfit for the office she currently holds, let alone the prime ministerial office to which she aspires.
Kemi Badenoch puts her foot in her mouth almost every time she opens it, which is a poor trait in an opposition leader. Usually, though, the consequences of that mostly affect only her and the Conservative Party – but this time was different.
The simple truth is that the Tories have a leader who shouldn't be allowed to speak in public, right at a time when they are in a battle for their very survival as a political force. For how much longer can that be allowed to continue?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
30 minutes ago
- Reuters
Oil pauses rally as markets weigh Trump's ultimatum to Russia
NEW DELHI, July 30 (Reuters) - Oil prices took a breather in Asian trade on Wednesday after the previous session's spike of more than 3%, as investors awaited developments from U.S. President Donald Trump's tighter deadline for Russia to end the war in Ukraine. Most active Brent crude futures rose 8 cents, or 0.12%, to $71.81 a barrel by 0419 GMT, while U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude gained 8 cents, or 0.12%, to $69.29 a barrel. The Brent crude September contract expiring on Wednesday was up 18 cents at $72.69 per barrel. Both contracts had settled on Tuesday at their highest since June 20. On Tuesday, Trump said he would start imposing measures on Russia, such as secondary tariffs of 100% on trading partners, if it did not make progress on ending the war within 10 to 12 days, moving up from an earlier 50-day deadline. "The $4 to $5 per barrel of supply risk premium injected in recent days can be expected to be sustained, unless Putin makes a conciliatory move," said Vandana Hari, founder of oil market analysis provider Vanda Insights. The United States had warned China, the largest buyer of Russian oil, it could face huge tariffs if it kept buying, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told a news conference in Stockholm, where the U.S. was holding trade talks with the EU. JP Morgan analysts said in a note that while China was not likely to comply with U.S. sanctions, India has signalled it would do so, putting at risk 2.3 million barrels per day of Russian oil exports. The United States and the European Union averted a trade war with a deal for 15% U.S. tariffs on European imports, easing concerns about the impact of trade tension on economic growth and offering support to oil prices. In Venezuela, foreign partners of state oil company PDVSA are still waiting for U.S. authorisation to operate in the sanctioned country after talks last week, which could return some supply to the market, so easing pressure for prices to rise. "The oil market is keeping an eye on the U.S. trade deals and talks and on the Fed, but those are marginal influences on sentiment," Hari added. Despite President Donald Trump's objections, the U.S. Federal Reserve is expected to hold interest rates steady at its policy meeting later on Wednesday. On Tuesday, the International Monetary Fund raised global growth forecasts slightly for 2025 and 2026, but warned the world economy faced major risks, such as a rebound in tariff rates, geopolitical tension and larger fiscal deficits.
The Guardian
33 minutes ago
- The Guardian
An effigy of refugees, burned by a crowd: this is where Europe's brutal fantasy of border control has led us
The burning of an effigy of refugees on a boat to the cheers of a riled-up crowd in Moygashel, Northern Ireland shows where we are today. A decade has passed since Europe's border crisis in 2015 and the shock caused by the image of Alan Kurdi, whose little body was found washed up on a Turkish beach. Sentiments of welcome and solidarity were short lived and have given way to a seemingly never-ending obsession in Europe with 'stopping the boats' and reducing the number of migrant arrivals. In the decade since Angela Merkel's 'we can do it', we have become used to hearing that 2015 must not be allowed to happen again. Across Europe, politicians routinely vow to fight migration, 'smash' smuggling gangs, ramp up border controls and build up detention and deportation capacities. A much-criticised migration pact was agreed upon while the annual budget of Frontex, the EU border agency, has seen a staggering increase, from €97.9m in 2014 to €922m in 2024. Entire border zones have become militarised and the guarding of borders has been 'externalised' so that non-EU countries can prevent migration on Europe's behalf. In this past decade, we have also become desensitised to the inevitable consequences of such repressive policies in terms of human suffering and loss. Reports and images of people forced into Libyan torture and rape sites, described by German diplomats as 'concentration camp-like' in 2017, no longer prompt a public outcry. Neither do the deaths of thousands in the Mediterranean every year or the criminalisation of activists who seek to avert mass drowning. Shipwrecks have become so common that they hardly make it into the news. What does make the news, however, is the discourse on migration that characterises it as an emergency. Often dominating headlines, it has become a permanent feature, a sort of enduring state of exception that far-right forces capitalise on. Instead of offering alternative visions of migration, parties of the so-called 'centre' or 'mainstream' amplify such crisis talk, catering to simplistic control fantasies and offering one solution only: more borders. Whether it's the Christian Democrats or the Social Democrats in Germany, Labour in the UK or Emmanuel Macron's government in France, mainstream parties seek to outdo parties to the right of them by pushing increasingly extreme and racist narratives, at times dangerously close to invasion and 'great replacement' conspiracies. In January, the French prime minister, François Bayrou, spoke of a 'feeling of submersion' in view of the migrant presence in France. In May, the British prime minister, Keir Starmer, suggested that the UK was at risk of turning into an 'island of strangers'. In June, the German chancellor, Friedrich Merz, claimed on Fox News that the past decade's migration to Germany had led to 'imported' antisemitism, so that fighting antisemitism meant fighting migration. Promising to solve societal problems through repressive migration policies and more borders, these 'centrist' or even 'progressive' political leaders are selling a dangerous fantasy. In a world riven by war, genocide, economic disparity, a climate catastrophe and growing authoritarianism, borders will never succeed in averting people's desire and need to migrate or flee. Indeed, the fantasy of borders is met, time and again, by reality: ongoing migration. Distracting from the inability to address any of the structural issues underpinning migration and displacement, and in ever-greater desperation, we are being served 'border spectacles' – performative but nonetheless violent and racist acts of exclusion, demarcating those who supposedly belong and those who do not. In the long shadow of the 'crisis' of 2015, we see intersecting developments across Europe that should worry us. First, a shift to the far right and growing authoritarianism. In Germany, the extremist Alternative for Germany (AfD) has comfortably established itself as the largest opposition party, at times leading in the polls, as do the Reform UK and National Rally parties in the UK and France respectively. Supposedly mainstream political parties have not only failed to stop the rise of the far right, they have contributed to mainstreaming their rhetoric and authoritarian policies. More than that, by intensifying migration cooperation with repressive regimes outside Europe, they have contributed to the rise of authoritarianism elsewhere. Tunisia serves as one of many examples where Europe's financial and political support has strengthened the security apparatus of its authoritarian leader, Kais Saied, who himself has spewed great replacement theories on migration. Second, a shift away from the idea of a 'post-national' community. The constant promise that borders will solve migration has reinforced the illusion that renationalisation is the answer. The departure of the UK from the EU, whose disastrous 'taking back of control' in fact prompted an increase in migration post-Brexit, may be the most obvious example. Sign up to Headlines Europe A digest of the morning's main headlines from the Europe edition emailed direct to you every week day after newsletter promotion However, throughout the EU, we see an increase in 'borderisation' – the erection of barriers and border controls between member states – as a way to supposedly reclaim 'lost' sovereignty. The very core of the European project – internal freedom of movement – is at risk and points to a growing estrangement from the idea of Europe as a post-national community. Third, an assault on legal norms and institutions. The normalisation of anti-migration violence, including through mass pushbacks, has led to a clear erosion of human rights. Indeed, some EU member states have legalised human rights violations at borders while Greece decided to temporarily suspend asylum altogether this July. International institutions meant to protect refugees, including the UN refugee agency, have been under assault while we see a concerted hollowing out of international rights standards and the gradual death of asylum. Even if the European obsession with borders fails to do what is desired – effective deterrence – it has real and dangerous consequences, for those seeking refuge and for us all. The burning of an effigy of refugees is what happens after a decade of dehumanisation. In the intervening years, many – from the supposed centre to the far right – have implanted a dangerous border fantasy that will continue to divide, hurt and kill. Dr Maurice Stierl is a migration and border researcher at the University of Osnabrück, Germany
The National
40 minutes ago
- The National
Victorian approach to welfare shames Labour
With more than seven million low-income families still going without essentials, the JRF's cost of living tracker shines the spotlight on just how acute this situation is for low-income families with three or more children, with almost nine in 10 going without the essentials, and the highest number of families in arrears or holding a loan for essentials since their tracking began. This is a terrible indictment of Keir Starmer's government – no progress, no change, the very opposite of what Labour promised. Indeed, what strikes me most is just how little has changed since they came into power – the SNP are still pushing the UK Government to scrap the two-child cap and implement a similar benefit to our transformational Scottish Child Payment; Westminster is still digging its heels in. READ MORE: Keir Starmer commits to recognising Palestinian state after intense pressure My former colleague Alison Thewliss was dogged in challenging the Tory government on the two-child cap; yet here we are under Labour, and the asks remain the same while the situation is getting worse. The JRF says their modelling does not include impacts of cuts to health-related elements of Universal Credit for future claimants currently working its way through parliament. Damning reports like this should focus minds ahead of the delayed publication of the Child Poverty Strategy, with its recommendation to get rid of the two-child cap and strengthen the foundations of the social settlement. But is the Government listening, are they reading these reports, are they paying attention to best practice elsewhere, i.e. in Scotland? (Image: PA) On paper Labour say they are – for instance, the secretaries of state for work and pensions, and for education, say in their foreword to the introduction ahead of this new strategy that there is a lot they can learn from action already taken in Scotland. But in the chamber, it's a whole other ball game. Not a week goes by that I don't think of that phrase 'people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones' while I'm sitting in the House of Commons listening to what seems to be a coordinated strategy by Labour to attack the Scottish Government in Holyrood at every available opportunity even when the focus is very much on their own failures at [[Westminster]]. That's politics I hear you say, but it's more than that. In fact, I'd go as far to say it's like a kind of 'blame shifting' to use psychological terminology. A perfect example comes from just a couple of weeks ago, when the Secretary of State for Scotland, Ian Murray MP, was answering questions in the chamber on the Government's Spending Review. My colleague, MP Stephen Gethins, challenged Murray on his party's failure to scrap the two-child cap only to be met with a defensive volley on the number of children that are homeless in Scotland. A little rudimentary digging on Shelter England's website and you can see that of course Murray failed to highlight that in England, there are 164,040 children living in temporary accommodation with their families, which is the highest number on record and represents a 15% increase in the last year alone. Additionally, there are 126,040 households in England experiencing homelessness in temporary accommodation, another record high and a 16% increase in 12 months. This is hardly a record to be proud of, and not a position of strength from which to point the finger at other governments. Fortunately, a decent amount of finger pointing has already been done by Labour's own MPs, with their welfare cuts described as 'Dickensian'. Those MPs have been punished subsequently, more blame shifting rather than addressing the key problem which is Labour's terrible policy decisions. And only one of them was a Scottish Labour MP, while the others continue to bow and scrape to Number 10. Even the UN has waded in to highlight how Labour's welfare cuts could threaten the human rights of disabled people. And this from a government led by a former human rights lawyer. It reminded me of the UN's comments on the Tory government's welfare policies, with the special rapporteur on extreme poverty describing 'workhouse' conditions and the 'systematic immiseration' of the British population thanks to austerity. Red or blue, it's the same old same old. Collaborating with Scotland on best practice on social security – not just with our Scottish Child Payment but with our efforts to reinstate the Winter Fuel Payment for pensioners before Labour's major U-turn, and now our upcoming mitigation of the two-child cap – would change the narrative on Labour's Victorian approach to welfare. This would signal a more grown-up approach to politics than the current tribal mudslinging variety that Labour favours. Don't hold your breath. So, every time you hear a Labour MP, particularly the Scottish ones, have a poke at Scotland and the SNP Government at Holyrood, remember this coordinated blame shift. Because behind every snide and spurious comment about Scotland lies a truth that Labour can't deny – they're failing to make any progress, and fast. All the more reason for Scotland to be rid of Westminster for good.
