Tag Archives: Reform

Conservative Party Conference: Can Kemi Badenoch’s ‘Right Way’ Win Back Britain?

This year’s conference season saw one of the clearest ideological divides in British politics for some time. The prime minister delivered a speech that many on the left had long wanted to hear, making the case for a more active and interventionist state. In Birmingham, Kemi Badenoch offered an equally unapologetic defence of Thatcherism.

The Conservative leader’s speech gave a sense that the party is finally off life support and up for the fight, with a renewed appeal to the shires through promises of tax cuts that will undoubtedly energise the Tory core vote. At the same time, Badenoch sought to challenge Reform UK on questions of values and integrity. Clearly adored by her party members, she remains behind in the polls and continues to fight for attention from the country.

More significant than any individual announcement was the moral case set out in The Right Way, Badenoch’s conference policy document, and echoed throughout her speech. Almost every policy proposal was rooted in a belief in personal responsibility and the value of individual endeavour. Badenoch argued that individual effort is not only the source of economic prosperity but also of human fulfilment and opportunity. In that sense, her speech was about more than policy. It was a battle of ideas, with Badenoch presenting conservatism as a competing vision ‘for the soul of the country’.

The headline-grabbing policy announcement was Badenoch’s pledge to abolish inheritance tax on family homes and raise the amount an individual can pass on tax-free to £500,000. Under the proposals, a couple would be able to leave their main residence to direct descendants free from inheritance tax, alongside a further £1 million of assets to other beneficiaries. Long criticised by many on the right as Britain’s least fair tax, inheritance tax is often portrayed as a form of double taxation, applying to assets accumulated from income that has already been taxed.

Badenoch also identified the eventual abolition of inheritance tax as a long-term ambition. Critics argue, however, that the benefits would be concentrated among the wealthiest and not ‘ordinary’ families. The Institute for Fiscal studies estimated that the wealthiest 1% of estates, worth £2.1 million or more, would receive around half of the gains from full abolition. Some also worry that the proposal could encourage older homeowners to remain in larger properties, limiting the availability of family-sized homes.

The Leader of the Opposition also argued that too many people are being written off by a welfare system that discourages work. Her reforms would remove access to out-of-work benefits immediately after school or university, introduce ‘back to work’ cards for long-term claimants, and require those able to work to engage with employment programmes. Badenoch aims to couple these welfare reforms with plans to halve the jobs tax for under-25s and repeal Labour’s Employment Rights Act.

Badenoch said that cutting the welfare bill would help fund higher defence spending, something that was notably absent from Burnham’s conference speech. Central to this was a £10 billion commitment to build ‘Britannia Shield’, an integrated UK air and missile defence network. The proposal would initially focus on protecting critical national infrastructure and military bases before being expanded to cover the UK mainland and British territories overseas. However, with the programme expected to be delivered over ten years, it represents a long-term ambition rather than a rapid build-out.

The proposal is more ambitious than the government’s current plans, having previously identified missile defence as a priority while allocating less than £800 million to the capability over four years. This comes despite a recent commons Defence Committee report warning that the UK has ‘next to nothing’ in place when it comes to missile defence, particularly against the growing threat posed by drones.

Despite the non-nonsense tone of Badenoch’s speech and the long list of policy commitments unveiled at conference, all of it ultimately depends on the Conservatives returning to power. With Badenoch ruling out an electoral pact with Reform UK and the party still polling below its performance at the 2024 general election, the central question remains whether voters are willing to give the Conservatives another hearing after fourteen years in government.

Steve Brine, GK’s Strategic Adviser and former health minister said: ‘What struck me was the attempt to give the Conservatives a clearer organising argument: that Britain’s problems stem from weak growth and an overextended state, and that the answer is greater economic freedom, lower taxes and firmer choices about public spending. The speech also sought to present Kemi as someone prepared to make the case for a distinct Conservative identity and one that her party feels wholly comfortable with. In that, the two main parties are in lock-step. The test will be whether that argument can be turned into a credible and coherent programme for government.’

Robert Halfon, GK’s Strategic Adviser and former education minister said: ‘Kemi Badenoch leaves conference with her leadership secure and her party more united than it has been for years. The direction is clear: firmly Conservative, and clearly distinct from Reform. Skills are part of that offer. Badenoch put apprenticeships in her leader’s speech, and the plan to move money from poor-value degrees into apprenticeships gives the Education team a concrete policy to drive forward. Employers will now want to see it costed and funded.’

Barriers to the Reform-quake

GK’s James Allan assesses some of the barriers of populism in British politics and explains why the political hype about Reform UK might be overstated

‘Campaigning is different than governing’ – so said President Obama to reporters on Air Force One in a targeted message to Republicans looking to gridlock his legislative agenda on Capitol Hill. The same goes for any political organisation that looks to exploit grievances and stir up public anger to secure votes and electoral support. It was a dynamic at play in the 2016 Brexit referendum and Reform UK is reviving the grievance playbook in the lead up to the next election.

How the Labour government, and the Conservative Party in opposition, respond and deal with the challenge posed by Reform UK is undoubtedly shaping the course of this parliament. The government published its immigration white paper only moments after the local election result and the so-called ‘Reform-quake’ that saw 677 Reform councillors elected. As noted in last month’s newsletter, the government’s political objectives were clear: to appear tough on immigration, shatter the public perception of Labour being pro-asylum and pro-migration, and outflank Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage.

With all the subsequent political and media crystal ball gazing about the future of Reform UK, it is unsurprising that investors and businesses are curious. Importantly, the next election is likely to take place in the second half of 2028 or at some point in 2029. It is too early to predict the outcome meaning current polling warrants cautious interpretation. Amid the uncertainty, it is worth stepping back to consider why the political hype about Reform UK may be premature.

Four reasons why the Reform panic is overblown

1. The UK is bucking the global populist trend

The year 2024 was mega for elections across the globe. It was a year that largely saw incumbents punished for achieving marginal levels of economic growth, governing during a global health pandemic, and a cost-of-living crisis. This created opportunities for the ring-wing populist parties that sought to challenge to status quo, capitalise on grievances and promise radical change without providing credible plans for doing so. However, unlike most swings experienced in other western developed democracies, the UK swung to the left. The election of a Labour government brought an end to 14 years of Conservative governments.

The UK’s anti-incumbent sentiment at the election meant that one in four Conservative voters in 2019 went to Reform UK and one in five went to the Labour Party. This indicates a more fragmented split in the national vote and the UK’s first past the post electoral system means that Labour’s majority should be understood as broad but thin. It reflects a characteristic of our electoral and constitutional DNA that makes it harder for third, fourth and fifth political parties to perform well and win seats at general elections, including a right-wing populist challenger party. The bar is therefore high for Reform UK. It would need to overcome this fragmentation and more comprehensively supplant the Conservative Party to succeed.

2. No party has ever lost a 174-seat majority in modern British political history

Starmer’s majority is the third largest landslide win since the turn of the 20th century. From 1945 onwards, history would suggest that majorities such as this typically endure at least one more election before the colour of government changes. Labour’s majority of 145 in 1945 survived one other election before being unseated and its majority of 179 seats in 1997 endured for two more elections. The Conservative majority of 144 in 1983 also endured for two more elections and was whittled down to a majority of 21 before the party was catapulted out of power.

Historical precedents should be taken with a pinch of salt. The third-party challenger in all these elections were typically the Liberal Democrats (or its predecessors). A more fragmented electorate and Reform UK could challenge this historical precedent but even its predecessor UKIP never won any seats in the House of Commons at its peak in 2015 despite holding a number of seats in the European Parliament elected under a proportional representative system. This further underscores the difficulty these challenger parties face.

3. Grievance politics only gets you so far

Reform UK’s playbook of grievances is blunt and polarising: immigration and borders; issues of national identity and community cohesion; taking on establishment orthodoxy and perceived elite indifference; and underscoring the cost of net zero policies. Playing on grievances can mobilise discontent, and without credible solutions, Reform UK will struggle to translate its momentum into enduring political support.

The coming years will be a test of Reform UK’s operational effectiveness, party discipline and credibility in local government. Its success at the May local elections is significant. It won 677 council seats out of roughly 1,600, took control of ten local authorities and successfully elected two mayors. But beyond the grievances espoused by its candidates, Reform UK’s credibility is now at stake and already showing early signs of dysfunction. For instance, Reform UK-controlled Kent County Council recently suspended a councillor and nine of the 22 council meetings have been cancelled within the first nine weeks of them gaining control. These are meetings where important decisions, such as budget allocations and service provisions were expected to be made.

Local government plays a vital role in the operational delivery of frontline local public services that most of the electorate use and engage with. From adult social care and children’s services, to bin collection and public protection, a lot is at stake for Reform controlled local authorities. Political leaders in Westminster will be watching closely to exploit any opportunity to batter Reform’s credibility. Added to this is immense pressure on local government finances, meaning that any misstep will be amplified. Reform UK not only has to prove it can win votes but also that it can govern responsibly under intense scrutiny and fiscal constraint.

4. Expect mid-term blues

It is reasonable for voters to flirt with protest parties between general elections and Reform UK is likely to maintain its momentum in local elections over the course of this parliament. Local elections offer a safe outlet for public frustration, but general elections are different. Not only will voters who are less politically engaged (or enraged) turn out to vote in a general election, but the national conversation will shift from registering voter discontent to who can govern the country effectively. It was a dynamic in 2024 and a key part of Starmer’s pitch to voters, citing his record of restoring Labour’s credibility from the Corbyn era of Labour leadership and criticising the Conservative’s mismanagement of the economy.

While Reform UK may have reshaped the political conversation, structural barriers and historical precedents mean that translating this discontent into enduring electoral support that can survive the test of a general election will be a significant challenge for the populist right-wing party.