As an MP for 40 years, and immersed in many leadership elections from Margaret Thatcher onwards, I am clear that the Tory Party members must have the final say on who leads them.
Leadership elections are important to the Conservative Party, but also the country itself. This one is more important because the last failed government lost by a huge margin.
Landslides have happened before. Churchill lost in 1945 but won again within six years. Given the current Labour Party shambles and unpopularity, and their derisory 34% vote share on a 60% turnout, they may have a large majority in the Commons, but their credibility has plummeted. Self-inflicted failure cost the Conservatives about 100 seats, benefitting Reform through voter frustration.
Reinstilling confidence in the Conservative Party which has so successfully represented the national interest for generations is fundamental. It is not about right-wing or left-wing. It is about who governs Britain in line with the democratic wishes of the voters.
Nor is it about a compromise. It is about getting it right, governing with practical answers, clearly defined principles for the whole country, proper Defence while exercising fairness, tolerance, conviction, courage, stability and statesmanship.
Robert Jenrick has proved that he has these qualities in abundance, with his 10 Conservative principles and values including sovereignty, the economy, health and defence, as did Mrs Thatcher. I was deeply trusted by her on the backbenches and, as patron of my European Foundation, stated: “Researching and publishing information about European issues is vital both to the Conservative Party and the country”.
Moreover, Robert demonstrated immense integrity by resigning his Cabinet position over the last government’s flawed immigration policy. In doing so, he put his country before his political career, having repeatedly explained to the government why the policy did not work. Nothing compares with resignation on principle – a hallmark of leadership. Past great Tory PMs changed their minds, including Robert Peel on the Corn Laws in 1846 and Mrs Thatcher on Europe after 1975.
Jenrick has also demonstrated his debating skills, essential for any party leader or PM. He does not make rash assertions or say what people want to hear. A serious lawyer, he understands positive, clear legal analysis and is a leader by nature and by example.
Unlike Kemi Badenoch, he understands the vital issue of immigration, which is not about the misconceived remnants of Europhiles, but an inescapable global matter of constitutional and territorial jurisdiction.
He argues that our unwritten constitution enables us to override international obligations, unlike EU countries, following judgments of our leading jurists, including their dismissal in the Supreme Court Judgment on Rwanda of an Iraqi national’s claim because it was overridden by a sovereign Act of Parliament.
Attempts by Kemi and others to suggest there is an option on European Convention on Human Rights are simply wrong. Robert rightly states it is remain or leave, as with Brexit itself.
Of similar importance is Retained EU Law, that deals with the massive volume of EU law rubber stamped by the UK between 1973 and 2020. As I repeatedly said in the House, these laws were made in the Council of Ministers by majority vote or forced consensus behind closed doors without a transcript, unlike Hansard.
This is how we were governed for so long, and not one single EU law was ever rejected or amended. This was fundamental to Brexit and competitive business – large and small – and immigration.
The REUL Act 2023 really matters. It enables us to revoke these unacceptable, obstructive EU laws which the Government states covers 400 policy areas.
As Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee for 14 years, under Standing Orders our task included reviewing the progress of this Act. Kemi Badenoch had personal accountability as former Secretary of State. This is on the committee’s website today, including the deeply critical letter written to her in May regarding her performance and “failure to get the job done”. She, too, could have resigned.
Defying Parliamentary rules, she failed to appear before the committee following three formal invitations and I had to call on the Commons Leader to secure her attendance during which she received criticism.
In the leadership election (refusing a one-to-one debate with Jenrick), she has made exaggerated and contradictory claims as to her asserted Brexit achievements. Her own department’s June 2024 report to the House of Commons, states that a mere 1,461 EU laws were repealed.
At one event, she stated: “I managed to achieve so much in my department on Brexit regulations, getting rid of 4,000”. At the GB News hustings event, she stated “over 2,000”.
Integrity and accuracy as a potential prime minister really matters and is a resignation issue.
