Kemi Badenoch's lack of empathy over Rachel Reeves's tears will come back to haunt her
There she was at Prime Minister's Questions, facing an open goal for a change, and attacking the prime minister, who, even three days later, can look after himself. Then she spots the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, her lip quivering, seemingly on the brink of crying. Straight in goes the Badenoch boot – she said Reeves looked 'absolutely miserable' and described her as Starmer's 'human shield'. After Starmer failed to confirm Reeves in post for the rest of the parliament – a tall order for any appointee – Badenoch piled on the punishment: 'How awful for the chancellor that he did not confirm she would be in post.'
Surely it might have crossed the mind of the Tory leader that the reason the chancellor was displaying unusual emotion might not have been all to do with politics. Most of us, I'm sure, wondered if there'd been some other explanation, some other bad news of a personal nature, as No 10 later disclosed. Even if it was all about the welfare reform fiasco, is it right to treat parliamentary exchanges as blood sports? To revel in the misery of an adversary? To mock them personally for a show of emotion?
In fact, it's emerged that in the post-PMQs huddle with the press, Badenoch's spokesman seemingly urged the journalists to go after Reeves. Asked, 'So no matter what is going on in your personal life, you should disclose that to the public?' he replied: 'I think we should find out what's going on'.
I was going to say, 'We're all human,' but, giving as good as Badenoch does, there are times one wonders if she is. Through the debates about disability benefits – we're talking about some people in deep despair here – Badenoch sounded arrogant and dismissive. She implied they're all lazy. This was her message to disabled people last week, on X: 'The world owes no one a living. Millions of people cannot just sit on welfare and expect to be paid to do so. And if they don't like it, that's their problem, not the state's.' It was Badenoch at her very worst.
Yes, it could work, politically, because there is a callous, wilfully ignorant strand of public opinion that resents any kind of social security system, full stop. Well, excluding the bits they're likely to use, such as the state retirement pension, thoroughly inflation-proofed under its 'triple lock'. Badenoch bangs on about welfare reform, but the biggest element is the old age pension, at three times the spending on sickness and disability benefits. Taming the welfare bill is practically impossible without doing something that hurts pensioners. But does she ever mention that? No, because they're the only demographic voting for her.
I'm not sure that either her party or the public likes the Badenoch style. It can misfire, causing sympathy for the victim of her scorn rather than support for her argument. It's possible her aggressive approach to Tuesday's vote reminded some Labour rebels just how dangerous she is, and persuaded them to back the government after all. When she senselessly slagged off Starmer after the last Nato summit, where he had helped keep Donald Trump onside, she sounded negative and, as the PM put it, 'unserious'. One of her own MPs mildly rebuked her for putting party first.
Badenoch doesn't connect with the public in the way Nigel Farage does, or Boris Johnson in his heyday. Robert Jenrick, who's continuing with his informal leadership campaign, is better at campaigning and forcing change on the government. Mel Stride is better in the Commons. She was fortunate this week that the government had been so useless that she had no alternative but to succeed. When she stumbles again, as she will, her party might start kicking her when she's down.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scotsman
22 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Why Labour incompetence created welfare Bill disaster – and worse is to come
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... As a former Chief Whip, I often tell colleagues that the first rule of politics is to know how to count. You have to be able to add up the votes on your side of the aisle and the numbers on the opposite side – and make sure that your figures add up. That may appear to be a pretty low bar to clear but it is one that Keir Starmer's government has spectacularly failed to pass this week. Incompetence at the top of the government created utter chaos over the welfare Bill – but there may be far worse yet to come. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad A Bill that set out to cut back support for people with disabilities and health challenges was always likely to meet resistance from both inside and outside of Labour. That is why it is astonishing that the government only began to realise the scale of its miscalculation towards the end of last week, when more than 100 Labour members – led by several senior, moderate MPs – signed an amendment which would have brought down the Bill entirely. Chancellor Rachel Reeves was clearly emotional as Keir Starmer was grilled about the Labour rebellion over the welfare Bill (Picture: House of Commons/UK Parliament) | PA Wire High-handed ministers In one fell swoop, the massive Labour majority in the House of Commons was gone – and all because of the high-handed, contemptuous approach taken by those at the top. For a government to be blindsided in this way is a total failure of party management. It suggests that whips are either not doing their job, or are being ignored by those above them. Above all, it smacks of a government that thinks it is a lot cleverer than it really is, and that does not believe it is accountable to the MPs who make up their majority. What is so concerning about this week's debacle is that ministers appear to be unwilling to make the case for their policies, either with the public or with their own MPs. To govern, after all, is to choose. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Sometimes cuts have to be made, tough decisions taken. If the planned cuts in the welfare budget were so necessary, as the government claimed up to the last minute, why were ministers so unwilling to win the argument with their colleagues? A lack of conviction This matters, because now that the government has shown that it cannot control its own party, every difficult vote becomes that much more difficult. The rebels have had a taste of successful rebellion – why would they stop here? What we are witnessing is a government that does not have the courage of its convictions. It may, in truth, not even have convictions to begin with – and a government that has neither the ideas nor the votes has a rocky road ahead of it. All indications, however, are that this poor management is going to continue. Just hours after the government turned tail on the welfare Bill, anonymous messages were circulating from the higher-ups, threatening that the two-child limit on benefits – one of the greatest drivers of child poverty in this country – would have to be kept in place to teach a lesson to rebellious MPs. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad If the government think they have the numbers to bully their MPs, they may have another thing coming. The first rule of politics is to know how to count.
The Independent
44 minutes ago
- The Independent
Analysis: Will Labour's 10 year plan for the NHS succeed?
As Sir Keir Starmer unveiled his government's 10-year plan for the NHS to a room of journalists and health staff, the prime minister set out a hopeful vision for the future of the service. The NHS is going to be one of Labour 's biggest gambles and, as the second largest area of government spend, one of its most expensive bets. The prime minister, hot off a tumultuous 24 hours over his government's welfare bill, appeared confident this new plan to save the NHS would work and achieve the improvement last seen by his Labour predecessors in the 2000s. But experts were clear that there is little new in it - in terms of ideas - and warned it lacks much of the necessary detail to make any real judgement over its success. The respected Institute of Economic Affairs accurately described the plan as 'mostly a reaffirmation of long-running policy goals…things that their predecessors and their predecessors' predecessors would also have said.' Sarah Woolnough, chief executive for think tanks the King's Fund, told The Independent: 'I think the plan lacks some of the detail around the house, and for people to believe in it, I think there's a huge consensus. This is the right direction of urgently need more details on how and why it will be different this time?' Jacob Lant, chief executive for charity National Voices, pointed out that it isn't necessarily a bad thing that the plan rehashes past policies - if they are good ones. He pointed out that the focus on the patient's voice is a step change to what has come before: 'Some new proposals on deciding hospitals' funding levels based on patients' experience, good and bad, are rooted in the right idea.' But he too pointed out the plan does not spell out what outcomes will be measured. What will and won't work? The neighbourhood health centres proposed in the plan – there will be around 200 across the country – will require a number of components to work, including the investment and staffing to flow to them. The problem is that when winter or a crisis hits, the NHS has always struggled to divert these resources. Much of what the 10-year plan banks on in its bid to save the NHS is rooted in the use of technology, most prominently AI and an all-singing, all-dancing NHS app. Several promises on the NHS App include that by 2028, it will be a 'full front door to the entire NHS' and act as a 'doctor in my pocket' for patients. The app should also give people access to a single patient record, choose a preferred provider to have their treatment, manage medicines and manage appointments for children. The expanded use of AI features prominently, including 'Ambient AI' which can record patients and health professional appointments and put notes directly into care records. This is sold as a way to unburden clinicians. On tech, Ms Woolnagh said: 'They are clearly really going for it on tech and I do welcome that because the NHS app is getting better, but a pretty slow pace and it has to be the way one of the major ways that we drive for form you just think about how the NHS compared to every other sort of service we use in our life It's quite frankly embarrassing that is still paper but whether it stacks up I think the jury is out.' One issue in the expansion of health tech is health leaders being 'bombarded' by medical tech companies trying to sell them new devices – how do we know which are quality tools and which aren't? The single patient record is an issue that successful government policies have grappled with, one barrier being that those who hold the data have been reluctant to let it go. However, if the government were successfully able to fulfil this, it would be very important to patients and could drastically improve their experience. What is it missing? The plan has some very big omissions, the key ones being workforce numbers, costing, and, as usual, social care. The document appears to be thin on ambitions around mental health services – the two main points are mental health A&Es and the further rollout of mental health teams in schools. The main nod to the workforce, outside of 1,400 GPs, is an admission that there will be fewer staff than projected in the long term, as the workforce plan published in 2023 under the former government. The King's Fund chief pointed out the omission of the number of staff needed to deliver the plan was, in one sense, welcome honesty from the government over the lack of money to pay for the workforce. However, she warned, 'Too often the workforce follows the main plan, but who is going to deliver this plan?' she said. Without workforce details, the plan requires the government's 'bets to come off', such as those around technology freeing up staff time. Experts speaking with The Independent also said it is short on detail about prevention ambitions, which touch on tabacco, junk food and a 'moonshot' on weight-loss. Ms Woolnagh said: 'I think that the measures they have talked about are welcome and I think, for example, it's easy to dismiss because tobacco and vapes don't feel terribly new. It's easy not to give it the kind of due it should have, but it's a big step.'It's a big deal, so they are welcome. I think taken together, this doesn't represent the radical mission that we were promised, and if you think the headline ambition in the government's manifesto was half the gap in healthy life expectancy between the wealthiest and most deprived.' Overall, much of the verdict on this plan rests on the additional detail needed, and so the jury is out on whether this will be Labour's shining achievement and finally deliver reform for the
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Disraeli should be on our banknotes. Sadly he won't be
The Bank of England has asked the public's help in designing its new bank notes and suggesting which historial figures should grace them. Having worked as a professional historian for over 40 years and as the author of over 100 books, I venture that I am rather well qualified to offer advice. Indeed I was the historical adviser to the Royal Mail for the set of stamps they issued to mark the millennium. There is one standout candidate who should be honoured by the Bank of England: Benjamin Disraeli. His head on a banknote would be very welcome. It would be a true celebration of Britain's almost unparalleled genius for integration. Disraeli was a highly talented man of Jewish descent, born way outside the purlieux of the elite. This outsider became party leader, prime minister and Peer of the Realm – the Earl of Beaconsfield. A politician able to write effective novels about his country and national heritage, Disraeli believed in and sought to implement modernisation and continuity. He was Edmund Burke transposed into power and policy. Disraeli also helped save British politics from the course that was to wreck so much of Europe in the first half of the twentieth century, that of blood and soil conservatism counterpointed by socialism. Instead, his was a conservatism that rested on the values of an imperial community and a politics of prudence. Moreover, in contrast to William Gladstone's grim, humourless self-righteous Puritanism for the people – think Gordon Brown plus a sideline in assisting fallen women – Disraeli had elan, style and sympathy. Disraeli represented Britain when it was great, tackled international problems with aplomb, and kept the ship of state proudly and powerfully afloat. That all explains why there is no chance Disraeli will go on a banknote. The reasons tell us much about our decline, and loss of sound purpose. The fact is that the new inclusiveness, the politics of Diversity, Equality and Inclusion or DEI, clearly does not apply to Jews any more – if it ever did. DEI is generally thought to permit discrimination against just two groups: white people, especially middle-aged males, and Jews. Disraeli also suffers as a Conservative, indeed the founder of modern Conservatism, for that is not a heritage that is now acceptable in the ' never kissed a Tory' age. It will not help that the great statesman's new biography will be by Andrew Roberts who is a Tory Peer as well as the country's ablest public historian. Recognition of Disraeli will also be rejected due to the prevailing modern opinion that Britain before the appearance of modern socialism was a vicious colonialist oppressor, monstrously cruel both to its own people and any others with whom it dealt. We see this constantly, as with the pejorative use (this occurred in the Commons just this week) of the word 'Dickensian'. The past has always been contentious, but I did not have these problems when advising the Royal Mail just 25 years ago. Since then almost everything prior to 1945 has been peeled away and thrown aside. We all suffer from this. Disraeli would never have made this mistake. He was honoured by contemporaries and should continue to be recognised and honoured today.
