Cleverly hits out at populist ‘fantasy' amid London mayor bid speculation
Sir James also declined to rule out a bid for City Hall or another run for the party leadership as he was questioned about his political future following his defeat in the contest to replace Rishi Sunak last year.
Appearing at the Institute For Public Policy Research (IPPR) think tank on Tuesday, the senior backbencher called for greater accountability in politics by reducing the 'cloud of quangos' in the system.
Sir James said the 'go-to excuse for populist politicians' is to pretend 'difficult choices and trade-offs don't exist' and attack the Civil Service.
'I have lost count of the number of political gurus who said we should smash the system and start again from scratch,' he told the audience.
'Tempting though that may be, it is totally unrealistic, because all we need to do to deliver that is mobilise the alternative, anti-woke, right-wing civil service that's waiting in the wings to take things over when the Civil Service that we currently have is got rid of.
'Simple. It's also a fantasy. It's a complete nonsense. It's excuse-making, and it's weak.'
Instead, he said further action was needed to tackle the 'tangle of quangos, commissioners, panels advisory bodies, all making decisions, almost none of whom have been voted for, and none of whom can be voted out.'
Delighted to welcome @JamesCleverly to @IPPR – he is arguing for more honesty and more accountability in politics. https://t.co/tZuKPDA5GC pic.twitter.com/z4Z0T8ApqU
— Harry Quilter-Pinner (@harry_qp) July 15, 2025
He warned a 'disconnect between decision-making and accountability' introduces 'moral hazard' and 'erodes the very institutions upon which we rely'.
In a Q&A following the speech, the former Cabinet minister insisted he had 'reconciled' himself to his defeat at the leadership election and would not 'jump' into his next career move as he faced questions about his future.
Asked whether his plans entailed a bid for London mayor, another run for the Tory leadership or remaining on the back benches, he said: 'I like being in government.
'I don't like being in opposition, which is why I'm clear that I will play my part in helping to get Conservatives back into government, at every level of government.
'Exactly what I do next? I've forced a discipline on myself which is not to jump at something.
'I ran for leader. I didn't get it. I reconciled myself to that and I promised myself that I would spend some time thinking about exactly what I would do next.
'I know everyone will write into that 'Cleverly refuses to discount dot dot dot' – nothing I can do about that, you're going to write what you're going to write.
'But the simple fact of the matter is, I am focused on what I've always focused on, which is getting a Conservative government at every level to serve the British people, and that's my mission.'
He sought to strike an optimistic note about the future of the Conservative Party as it flounders in the polls, arguing it is 'the oldest and most successful political movement in human history' because 'we adapt, we evolve, we fight back'.
Sir James acknowledged opinion poll momentum for Reform posed a challenge for the Tories, but insisted Nigel Farage's party faced its own dilemma in seeking to be both 'new' and 'a repository for disgruntled former Conservatives'.
The rise of Reform is not unique to the UK, @JamesCleverly tells @harry_qp.
"'Smash the system' is an excuse, it's an easy way of ducking the problem" he says. pic.twitter.com/me59ht1guh
— IPPR (@IPPR) July 15, 2025
The senior Tory said: 'If their sales pitch is 'we're not like the old political parties', but they are mainly populated with people from my party, it's going to be really hard for them to reconcile that sales pitch.'
He hit out at former party members defecting to Reform, adding: 'I don't think it's smart. I don't think it's right.
'I think people lose credibility, particularly with people who have… very, very recently (stood as Conservatives) who then basically say 'the thing that made me realise I wasn't really a Tory was being booted out of office by the electorate'.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
22 minutes ago
- Spectator
Tories end their term on a high
Labour woes mean Tory smiles. The Conservatives have ended the parliamentary session on a (reasonable) high, after last week's benefits debacle. At the shadow cabinet yesterday, frontbenchers were treated to a presentation by Mark McInnes, the new chief executive, and Paul Bristow – the only real success story from May's local elections. This evening, it was the turn of Kemi Badenoch to address the 1922 Committee for their final meeting before the summer recess. Badenoch's speech was an upbeat affair. She pointed to the U-turns secured on welfare, grooming gangs and winter fuel. Progress was highlighted in a number of key areas, after the shambles of the last election. Following the betting scandal, the Tories have now rebuilt their candidates' team. Social media has been overhauled; a new external agency has been brought to offer advice. There was much talk of the importance of principles unlike the (implicitly) populist Reform. Little reference was made to the recent local elections, in which the party won 15 per cent of the vote. The Tory leader also used her speech to set out a plan for the next three months. She urged attendees to return to their constituencies this summer, to get their name out there and ensure that Nigel Farage does not dominate the airwaves. Then there will be conference, when the party's new stance on membership of the ECHR will be revealed. Badenoch told MPs a variation of the same formulation she has used many times previously. She is prepared to leave the ECHR if it is deemed necessary. But, she stressed, it will not act as a magic bullet for any of Britain's current woes. She noted too that the last time the Tories were in opposition, the 1998 conference was a much more gloomy than 1997, owing to the distraction of the leadership contest. Badenoch told her MPs that she wanted to see all 120 of them in Birmingham this October. Around 70 had piled in today to Committee Room 14 to hear her speech. Thirty seconds of applause greeted her arrival, while questions were a mix of fawning and politeness. James Cleverly fulsomely praised Kemi Badenoch's leadership while Edward Leigh inquired about Lord Wolfson's role in deciding the ECHR policy. Afterwards, it was back to the shadow cabinet room for farewell summer drinks. A positive, if slightly pedestrian, end to a long term. After a tricky 12 months for the Tories, that is no bad thing.
New Statesman
23 minutes ago
- New Statesman
Why Keir Starmer has purged Labour rebels again
Photo by Isabel Infantes - WPA Pool / Getty Images. Keir Starmer's premiership began with discord, not harmony. Just three weeks after Labour's landslide victory, seven MPs had the whip suspended for voting in favour of a SNP amendment backing the abolition of the two-child benefit cap (something Starmer has since described in private as his personal priority). Almost exactly a year on, and in the aftermath of the mass welfare revolt, Starmer has enacted new reprisals. Four Labour MPs – Neil Duncan-Jordan, Chris Hinchcliff, Brian Leishman and Rachael Maskell – have had the whip removed for 'repeated breaches of party discipline' while an additional three – Rosena Allin-Khan, Bell Ribeiro-Addy and Mohammad Yasin – have lost their trade envoy posts (all seven were among the 47 Labour MPs who voted against the welfare bill in its amended form). The latter move is unsurprising: trade envoys are appointed to support the government and, as such, are expected to follow collective responsibility. More contentious among MPs is the renewed targeting of backbenchers. But one Starmer ally was unrepentant: 'These people were openly and publicly organising against the government whose programme they were elected to deliver,' they said (three of the four whipless MPs were elected for the first time in 2024). 'Government doesn't work unless they feel the weight of rebelling against it in the flagrant way these guys did'. In language that enraged some inside Labour, Maskell wrote in the New Statesman: 'What happened last Tuesday, on 1 July, was more significant than a policy climb-down. Power shifted. Keir Starmer's government was forced to recognise that autocracy is no way to rule: power is given by consent and can equally be taken away.' By acting now, No 10 has sent a warning to would-be ringleaders of anticipated rebellions over special educational needs reform, the two-child limit and the forthcoming immigration bill. But the timing – a week before the summer recess – has stunned MPs who believed Starmer had entered a more conciliatory phase of his premiership – more carrot and less stick (Downing Street has spoken of 'the need to bring people with us'). And there are at least two unflattering historical comparisons that are being made among MPs. The first is with Tony Blair who endured numerous revolts but allowed rebels such as Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell to retain the whip even as they broke it hundreds of times. 'Both Blair and [Gordon] Brown were relaxed because they were always confident that they could win the argument and didn't need threats,' John McDonnell, who lost the Labour whip last July, told me. The second is with Dominic Cummings. It was Boris Johnson's strategist who in recent history pioneered the tactic of removing the whip from rebels – 21 Conservative MPs suffered this fate in September 2019 after seeking to thwart a no-deal Brexit. This was ruthlessness but for a clear purpose: removing all obstacles to the UK leaving the EU. The challenge for Starmer – after multiple U-turns – is that even sympathisers remain uncertain what his is. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Related
The National
29 minutes ago
- The National
Legal rights without enforcement are merely political ornaments
For some time now, I've argued that legal reform, by itself, cannot deliver sovereignty. Now, with Andy's letter, it seems RSS recognises that as well: that the legal route must be paired with political mobilisation capable of exerting real pressure on the British state. READ MORE: UK ministers told to increase Scottish Government borrowing limits This is important because we must be honest about the nature of law itself. Legal scholars from HLA Hart to Carl Schmitt have stressed that law does not rest on morality or even democratic will – it rests on enforceable authority. And in the UK, that authority is centralised in Westminster. The Scotland Act – our entire devolution framework – is Westminster law. It can be amended or repealed at will. That's not a flaw in the system. That is the system. International law offers no guaranteed escape route. Instruments like the UN's human rights covenants are politically useful, but not enforceable within the UK. The Supreme Court made this crystal clear in 2022. Even the Kosovo precedent – often cited by independence supporters – didn't rest on legal entitlement, but on facts created on the ground, then recognised by other states. READ MORE: Richard Murphy: I called out BBC Radio Scotland for bias – here's how it went That's why I keep returning to civil resistance, direct action, and mass mobilisation. Legal rights without enforcement are political ornaments. In systems based on parliamentary sovereignty, change does not come from what's written down. It comes from what people are willing to do. Ireland understood this. Lawyers or polite resolutions didn't carry the Irish revolution – it was driven by a living relationship between the people and political actors who were willing to act. Sinn Fein, the Irish Volunteers, Cumann na mBan, and the unions moved in coordination, across multiple fronts. They built their institutions, asserted authority, and forced the British state to confront a new reality. And yet in Scotland today we're left with a political class that either won't or can't rise to that level. The SNP govern like they are managing devolution, not ending it. The Greens talk radical, but avoid confrontation. Even Alba, for all their rhetoric, have not led any real mobilisation. The people are ready, but the parties are not leading. READ MORE: Yes supporters need to avoid the rhetoric of nihilism and despair So yes – legal groundwork matters. However, unless it's backed by civil resistance, direct action, and a willingness to escalate, it remains just that: groundwork. Scotland must now confront a simple question: are we still asking, or are we preparing? If we are serious about being sovereign, then we must act like a sovereign people – by organising internally, building strategic alliances and, if every constitutional route is shut down, being willing to keep revolution on the table as a last resort. In constitutional history, when law becomes a barrier to justice, the people reserve the right to act outside it. That principle should remain part of our strategy, not discarded, but held in reserve. James Murphy Bute
