In a shocking twist, James Cleverly has been knocked out of the Tory leadership contest. Despite topping the previous poll of MPs, it is now Robert Jenrick and Kemi Badenoch who will face off in the final leg of the leadership race. However, it is unclear what triggered this reversal, amid rumours of backroom manoeuvring and Conservative MPs being described as the most “duplicitous” and “unpredictable electorate in the world”.
The race so far
On July 5, after a devastating loss in the general election, Rishi Sunak stood down as the leader of the Conservative Party. This fired the starting pistol for a leadership contest that, unlike the previous four Tory races, would not determine the Prime Minister, but rather the new Leader of the Opposition.
Like all things Westminster, the process for a selecting a new Tory leader is confusing at best. Before the contest even begins, hopeful candidates must acquire nominations from fellow MPs. In this contest, the threshold was set at ten endorsements, far from the 100 MPs needed in October 2022, reflecting the Tories’ much-reduced parliamentary delegation.
Six candidates found the necessary backing: Kemi Badenoch, James Cleverly, Robert Jenrick, Priti Patel, Mel Stride and Tom Tugendhat. The candidates first faced a series of votes amongst Conservative MPs, with the candidate with the least support exiting the contest. First out was former Home Secretary Priti Patel, followed swiftly by Mel Stride, known for his time chairing the Treasury Select Committee.
The four remaining candidates went on to face the Conservative Party Conference in Birmingham, beginning on the 29th of September. The event was described as a “beauty parade“, with prospective leaders lobbying for support amongst fellow MPs, Tory hacks and the rank-and-file members.
Overall, it seemed Cleverly came out best. The only candidate to explicitly apologise for the Conservatives’ record in government, his speech garnered the longest standing ovation out of the four. Moreover, members seemed receptive to his more down-to-earth approach, seeking to “be more normal” and selling “Conservatism with a smile“.
Following the conference, this momentum propelled James Cleverly into the lead. In the third round of voting, he overtook both Jenrick and Badenoch with 39 votes, placing him one away from a guaranteed place in the membership poll, whilst Tom Tugendhat was knocked out. However, Cleverly’s success was short-lived since he placed last in the final round of voting by MPs.
What happened to Cleverly?
In truth, the clandestine nature of the contest means that no-one entirely knows what happened. One thing is certain: the outcome shocked not only commentators but also the MPs themselves with gasps heard in Parliament as the results were announced. However, this has not prevented mass speculation.
One potential cause of Cleverly’s loss is “vote lending”. In the Tory leadership contest, it is not uncommon for MPs to back candidates other than their preferred option. This is usually done to prop up a weaker candidate through earlier rounds, giving their favoured candidate an easier fight in the end. It is possible that supporters of Cleverly voted for either Badenoch or Jenrick, believing one of the two would be easier to beat in the membership ballot.
This has led to some criticism of Grant Shapps, Cleverly’s campaign manager, with accusations campaign mismanagement through vote lending. However, this may not be the case, as both Jenrick and Badenoch gained votes, whereas coordinated lending would likely have boosted only one of them. At the very least, this cannot be the factor in Cleverly’s defeat.
Perhaps more likely is that individual MPs engaged in vote lending. This would reflect how both Jenrick and Badenoch made gains. Individual MPs, believing Cleverly’s win was assured, chose to vote for whoever they thought was weaker. However, as these votes were uncoordinated, too many jumped ship, ultimately leaving Cleverly short of votes.
Possibly, the answer is more simple. Following his shock victory in the third round, Cleverly may have simply gotten complacent. Given his placement on the more moderate wing of the party, it was widely assumed that he would take the lion’s share of Tom Tugendhat’s votes. This might’ve have been misguided; while both were certainly on the centrist wing of the party, they were not identical candidates.
It could be argued that while Cleverly hailed from the modern “Cameronite” strain of centrism, Tugendhat perhaps resembles more of a traditional moderate. Backers may have chosen him for his hawkish foreign policy and patriotic streak. This likely led to a complacent Cleverly campaign that took his support for granted, leaving him vulnerable to competition from Badenoch and Jenrick.
Another perspective suggests that Cleverly’s lead in the third round was not as solid as previously believed. A temporary “poll bounce” may have occurred following the conference, based on momentum rather than concrete belief. This may have meant his supporters were not fully committed to his campaign and could easily be swayed away from him.
There are also rumours that Cleverly’s lead was not only inflated, but rather entirely artificial. “Vote lending” may have occurred during the third round, with talk of Badenoch backers seeking to lull Cleverly into a false sense of security.
Overall, a concerted conspiracy is unlikely; instead a mixture of mistakes and natural election uncertainty led to Cleverly’s exit. However, what is certain is the future of the race: the two hardline candidates, Kemi Badenoch and Robert Jenrick, will face off to determine the new Conservative leader.
