Conservative Party leadership hopefuls talk migration while Starmer calls for reset
Kemi Badenoch and Robert Jenrick (Photo: Getty Images)
By Sunder KatwalaOct 23, 2024
A RESET moment was declared in Downing Street – though not of the Labour government itself.
That may be chancellor Rachel Reeves’ challenge in her first budget next week.
“To fix the foundations of our country, we need a fundamental reset of the relationship between government and civil society,” prime minister Sir Keir Starmer told a gathering of charity leaders.
A new Civil Society Covenant will set out principles for partnership on shared goals such as tackling disadvantage, driving cohesion and engaging more people with policymakers. Many of those present saw a constructive opportunity to move on from a fractious and polarised period, though how far a shift in tone makes a practical difference remains to be seen.
Asked “is it time to end the culture wars?” elsewhere that same evening, Conservative leadership candidate Kemi Badenoch pushed back.
“When people use the phrase, it is a dog whistle to attack the right. We are defending our culture, we are defending our country,” Badenoch told a GB News leadership debate.
Tory leadership candidates Robert Jenrick and Badenoch had an hour each with a studio audience, but did not debate each other direct. This will be the first party leadership election with no headto-head televised debate between the candidates.
BBC political editor Chris Mason confirmed that Badenoch turned down the Question Time invitation which Jenrick had accepted.
That illustrates how both campaigns share the perception that Badenoch is the frontrunner again. Around three-quarters of the GB News audience of party members backed her in a show of hands at the end. The London studio audience may not have been representative of the party membership overall, but the bookmakers shifted the odds further towards Badenoch, now giving her a 75 per cent chance of victory.
Jenrick will hope this topsy-turvy race will have one final twist in the tail. The selection could turn on small margins with party membership falling. The party does not publish the figures – but the campaigns estimate that around 115,000 ballots may have been sent out, a third fewer than two years ago. With under 100,000 votes likely to be returned, 50,000 votes should prove more than enough to win the leadership. Expect the winner to have fewer votes than the 60,000 that Rishi Sunak received in defeat last time.
Badenoch’s risk-averse tactic to duck a TV debate has a cost, too. This leadership contest has largely passed the general public by. An Opinium poll of the general public found Jenrick on 14 per cent and Badenoch on 13 per cent. ‘Neither’ and ‘don’t know’ were well ahead.
The GB News audience peaked at 145,000 viewers – a decent reach for a news channel – but many more would have seen a BBC debate.
This campaign may rather fizzle out before the result is announced next Saturday (2), squeezed between the UK budget (next Wednesday, 30) and the US election just a few days later.
Jenrick’s pitch on GB News was focused almost exclusively on immigration and his pledge to leave the European Convention on Human Rights as a top priority. It was necessary to “deliver on migration to get a hearing for the rest of the change we need,” he said.
Sunder Katwala (centre) at the Downing Street reception with Enver Solomon (right) of the Refugee Council and the Scottish Refugee Council’s Sabir Zazai
But the Conservatives, now in opposition, can deliver only words, not action. Jenrick has said one root cause of broken promises after 2010 was that politicians “knew full well they could not keep their promises”, such as reductions in net migration that were out of their control while part of the EU. His language on the campaign trail – no visas to be issued if net migration is more than 100,000, and the ambition to remove every person here without legal status – has repeated the cycle of impossible promises.
Despite broadly similar politics, the rival candidates have had distinct strategies in this contest. Jenrick has focused on his policy pledges for a future government; Badenoch on the voice and values she would bring to leading the opposition, avoiding policy details.
She has spoken about a vision of a colourblind society, but the recent Daily Telegraph headline on an interview with Badenoch saying “I’m Labour’s worst nightmare – they can’t paint me as prejudiced” found a distinctly colour-conscious way of making that argument.
Whoever leads the opposition, Labour’s challenge is whether they will remain mostly reactive to the right’s agenda-setting on immigration, identity and integration – or whether a new government can compete with the opposition to reframe these issues itself.
If Jenrick or Badenoch next declare multiculturalism to have been a failed experiment, would the new government’s instinct be to defend multiculturalism, to critique it, or to propose a different language of their own?
Starmer’s ministers have so far been clearest about how they do not want to talk about identity – lowering the volume and reducing the temperature. An ambition to reset the conversation would mean the Labour government also now finding a more confident voice and narrative of its own.
(The author is the director of British Future think tank)
ONE reason I watched the BBC documentary Amol Rajan Goes to the Ganges with particular interest was because I have been wondering what to do with the ashes of my uncle, who died in August last year. His funeral, like that of his wife, was half Christian and half Hindu, as he had wished. But he left no instructions about his ashes.
Sooner or later, this is a question that every Hindu family in the UK will have to face, since it has been more than half a century since the first generation of Indian immigrants began arriving in this country. Amol admits he found it difficult to cope with the loss of his father, who died aged 76 three years ago. His ashes were scattered in the Thames.
Amol, who is 41, was born in Calcutta and was brought to Britain when he was three.
“My dad was my hero, totally and utterly,” he declares.
He recalls: “Very suddenly, three years ago, he got pneumonia, went into hospital, spent five dreadful weeks in intensive care, and died. This was really shocking to me because it was the first time I’d ever lost someone I loved.” Watching the grand final of University Challenge, in which Christ’s College, Cambridge, beat Warwick 175–170 in an exciting finish, we saw Amol’s intellectual and secular side as a BBC TV presenter.
He says he is an atheist, but nevertheless undertook a pilgrimage to the Ganges to see if he could emancipate his father from the eternal cycle of birth, death and rebirth and help him gain moksha. He couldn’t get to the confluence of the Ganges and the Yamuna at the Kumbh Mela because of a stampede in which 30 people were trampled to death and hundreds injured. But he participated in pind daan and took a dip in the Ganges.
Rajan offers the pind daan in honour of his father and ancestors
He says: “I think that one of the things that I wanted to go to the Kumbh Mela to do, was to confront my grief, reconnect with my dad, but also to try and work out what the next 38 or 40 years of my life would have to do with the first half.”
Expressing grief on camera, as Amol does, is a little odd, but he explains: “I think there are three things I want people to take away from this documentary. One is about grief, the other is about faith, and the final one is about family. Every grief is different, and everyone grieves for somebody they’ve lost in a very unique way, but I do think there are certain rules about grief. I do think it does get easier over time, and I do think that sharing grief by talking about it, by connecting with other people that are aggrieved, is a really valuable thing. This documentary is a way of trying to grieve in public, not for vain reasons, but because I think there’s something that people could learn from that.”
By clicking the 'Subscribe’, you agree to receive our newsletter, marketing communications and industry
partners/sponsors sharing promotional product information via email and print communication from Garavi Gujarat
Publications Ltd and subsidiaries. You have the right to withdraw your consent at any time by clicking the
unsubscribe link in our emails. We will use your email address to personalize our communications and send you
relevant offers. Your data will be stored up to 30 days after unsubscribing.
Contact us at data@amg.biz to see how we manage and store your data.
Do not expect any parties in Downing Street to celebrate the government’s first birthday on Friday (4). After a rocky year, prime minister Sir Keir Starmer had more than a few regrets when giving interviews about his first year in office.
He explained that he chose the wrong chief of staff. That his opening economic narrative was too gloomy. That choosing the winter fuel allowance as a symbol of fiscal responsibility backfired. Starmer ‘deeply regretted’ the speech he gave to launch his immigration white paper, from which only the phrase ‘island of strangers’ cut through. Can any previous political leader have been quite so self-critical of their own record in real time?
This unconventional approach could be a reminder of Starmer’s best quality: that he is the antithesis of US president Donald Trump. Trump has a narcissistic need to be the main character, a hyperactive addiction to conflict, the attention span of a toddler and no interest in policy substance beyond the television and social media optics. So Trump is the disruptor in chief of global trade, security and the US constitutional order. Given a binary choice, it is infinitely better to have the serious sobriety of Starmer, trying to cooperate with allies to limit Trump’s chaotic contributions to increased insecurity.
Yet, it is a contrast that could be taken too far. Trump realises that politics is about what you say as well as what you do. What Starmer is palpably still missing is a clear public story of what his government is for. This was partly a matter of choice. A gritty public mood has little appetite for new visions, unless shown tangible progress first. It reflects the taciturn character of the leader too. Yet the issue is not simply one of communication. The challenge of finding a narrative reflects uncertainty about the strategic direction of the government.
Judged by its actions, this is a centre-left government. It has made many decisions that the previous Conservative government would not have taken. It changed the fiscal rules, borrowing much more for investment. Despite the constraints of its manifesto pledges on most taxes, it did raise taxes so as to have more to spend on the NHS, and on housebuilding. The government is committed to higher defence spending, and also to net zero, to closer UK-EU relations, within the ‘red lines’ which Labour set out, as it takes care to check if it can take the public with it. It will work with multilateral institutions, rather than quitting treaties and conventions. If this is a centre-left government in its deeds, it may prefer to self-identify as something else, without quite managing to articulate what that is.
So this has been a very tactical government, which has changed its mind about most of its tactical choices. The Comprehensive Spending Review was intended as a reset moment, in giving the government clearer priorities, though it has been challenging to make the numbers add up. But the parliamentary rebellion over its welfare bill could prove a more significant turning point. A government which won a landslide had lost its majority once 125 of its MPs - a majority of the backbench - declared they were unable to pass a government bill without a significant change. This was about the substantive impact of heavy income losses for disabled people - and the lack of a rationale beyond saving money. This rebellion is also about the political strategy of the government. Much of the parliamentary group seem diminishing returns in actively picking fights with progressives who Labour will need to keep the populism of Reform leader Nigel Farage out.
Can Starmer fix his government? The prime minister is 62 years old. He cannot change his personality or working style, not metamorphosis into a visionary speech-maker. There is little point in advisers inventing hypothetical strategies - such as choosing to present Starmer as a radical insurgent, rather than the sober incumbent, which cannot fit with the prime minister they have got, and his gradualist agenda for long-term change. Yet Starmer could use his evident capacity for self-reflection to identify feasible changes. He needs to repair how his Downing Street operation makes decisions - and now knows that backbench support is not unconditional.
Facing a fragmented opposition, Labour’s chances of re-election in four years time may be underestimated. Yet most of Labour’s tactical mistakes have come from trying to run a permanent election campaign in government, four years early. The government needs to govern to generate the substantive record and future agenda it would defend from the populist right in 2029. Australia's Anthony Albanese, who faced many similar criticisms to Starmer, bounced back to get re-elected, though the Canadian Liberals changed leaders to defeat the right. How many years Starmer has left in Downing Street is anybody’s guess. This time next year, he would need a stronger story to tell.
Sunder Katwala is the director of thinktank British Future and the author of the book How to Be a Patriot: The must-read book on British national identity and immigration.
Ed Sheeran and Arijit Singh’s ‘Sapphire’ collaboration misses the mark
The song everyone is talking about this month is Sapphire – Ed Sheeran’s collaboration with Arijit Singh. But instead of a true duet, Arijit takes more of a backing role to the British pop superstar, which is a shame, considering he is the most followed artist on Spotify. The Indian superstar deserved a stronger presence on the otherwise catchy track. On the positive side, Sapphire may inspire more international artists to incorporate Indian elements into their music. But going forward, any major Indian names involved in global collaborations should insist on equal billing, rather than letting western stars ride on their popularity.
Ed Sheeran and Arijit Singh
Aziz Ansari’s Hollywood comedy ‘Good Fortune’ could be a sleeper hit
Last year, I predicted that the Hollywood film Good Fortune would be one of this year’s big sleeper hits. The positive early response to its recently released trailer confirms that writer, director, producer and lead star Aziz Ansari is onto a winner. The body-swap comedy features Keanu Reeves as a bumbling guardian angel who lands in trouble after interfering in the lives of a ruthless venture capitalist (Seth Rogen) and an overworked, underpaid employee (Ansari). Due for release on 17 October, the film is expected to be a major hit – and could well establish stand-up star Ansari as a serious Hollywood power player.
Aziz Ansari’s Hollywood comedy ‘Good Fortune’
Punjabi cinema’s power-packed star cast returns in ‘Sarbala Ji’
Gippy Grewal, Ammy Virk, Sargun Mehta and Nimrat Khaira starring together in a film is reason enough to get excited about Sarbala Ji. These four hugely popular stars – all of whom have delivered some of the finest Punjabi films in recent years – have teamed up for a comedy packed with drama, emotion and entertainment. The trailer for the film, which is set for release on 18 July, has received an expectedly positive response and is likely to ensure a strong box office opening. The success of Saunkan Saunkanay 2, which featured Mehta, Virk and Khaira in leading roles, has only added more momentum to Sarbala Ji.
Punjabi cinema’s power-packed star cast returns in ‘Sarbala Ji’
Pakistani stars deserve better than ‘tacky’ London events
One thing that rarely gets discussed is how Pakistani stars visiting London often end up at the tackiest venues for events and film promotions. Earlier this year, Hania Aamir – like many of her contemporaries – headlined an event at a banqueting hall that looked more like a disorganised wedding than a celebrity showcase. More recently, Mahira Khan and Humayun Saeed, in the capital to promote their film Love Guru, somehow found themselves in a horse-drawn carriage en route to a restaurant. Several Pakistani celebrities have also been on the receiving end of dubious awards from unverified individuals and organisations. Taken together, this suggests they may not fully realise their worth – and are being guided by all the wrong people.
Mahira Khan
‘Housefull 5’ proves Bollywood is trolling its own audience
The recently released Housefull 5 is a prime example of how some Bollywood producers appear to be trolling their own audiences. Instead of raising the bar after years of subpar Hindi cinema, this brainless comedy leans on a cast of has-been stars and is so shoddily made that it feels like the filmmakers no longer care about delivering quality. Far from making audiences laugh, the self-indulgent nonsense came across as mockery – as if the film were laughing at anyone foolish enough to spend money on a ticket.
‘Housefull 5’ proves Bollywood is trolling its own audience
Brilliant indie film ‘Chidiya’ suffers in Bollywood’s broken system
The mafia mentality in Bollywood has meant that great low-budget films rarely receive wide distribution, meaningful marketing or proper backing. While audiences are regularly subjected to poorly written blockbusters fronted by big-name stars, genuinely entertaining, story-driven films are often sidelined. That is why the new film Chidiya took nearly a decade to secure even a limited release. The modestly budgeted drama, about two young brothers who transform a junkyard into a makeshift badminton court, earned widespread acclaim on the international festival circuit and received strong reviews upon release. Yet it failed to reach the audience it deserved – a casualty of the broken state of Indian cinema. If Chidiya eventually finds its way onto a streaming platform, it will be well worth watching.
Brilliant indie film ‘Chidiya’
John Abraham keeps landing roles – but can he still deliver?
Headlining flop films as a solo hero has not stopped John Abraham from landing more Bollywood projects. The actor recently announced that he will star in a film based on the comic book Munkeeman, as well as a biopic inspired by the life of police officer Rakesh Maria. While Abraham can hardly be blamed for cashing in, the producers backing these ventures are certainly taking a risk – the star is clearly past his prime and no longer drawing significant audience attention.
John Abraham
Hina Khan’s wedding is a quiet symbol of unity in divisive times
The recent wedding of popular actress Hina Khan and her long-term partner Rocky Jaiswal carried a deeper meaning that many may have overlooked. At a time of rising communal division in India, this interfaith marriage between two high-profile individuals stood as a quiet but powerful symbol of unity. Hina also found her happily ever after following a difficult battle with cancer. The couple wore Manish Malhotra-designed outfits for their intimate ceremony and received warm wishes from well-wishers across the globe.
Hina Khan and her long-term partner Rocky Jaiswal
Shanaya Kapoor’s troubled debut raises red flags
It really does seem like newcomer Shanaya Kapoor is jinxed. After her initial film launch was shelved, she signed on for Aankhon Ki Gustaakhiyan opposite Vikrant Massey. Unfortunately for her, the teaser trailer for the romantic musical drama has generated very little buzz. She spends most of it wearing a blindfold in various scenes. As the daughter of flop actor Sanjay Kapoor, Shanaya may be heading towards a similarly underwhelming debut when the film releases on 11 July.
Shanaya Kapoor's troubled debut
Pakistani female influencers face dangerous realities
Social media platforms like Instagram and TikTok have opened up new pathways for many individuals in South Asia to earn substantial incomes. While content creators in India have largely thrived, female influencers in Pakistan continue to face threats from right-wing extremists and stalkers. This was tragically illustrated by the recent murder of 17-year-old social media influencer Sana Yousuf, who was shot dead by a man after she rejected him. The incident is a chilling reminder of the dangers faced by female creators in the country, and highlights the urgent need for stronger protection and support. Many continue to pursue their work but must remain extremely cautious.
Sana Yousuf
Keep ReadingShow less
Portraits of Iranian military generals and nuclear scientists, killed in Israel’s last Friday (13) attack, are seen above a road, as heavy smoke rises from an oil refinery in southern Teheran hit in an overnight Israeli strike last Sunday (15)
THERE is one question to which none of us has the answer: if the ayatollahs are toppled, who will take over in Teheran?
I am surprised that Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Hosseini Khamenei, has lasted as long as he has. He is 86, and would achieve immortality as a “martyr” in the eyes of regime supporters if the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, succeeded in assassinating him. This was apparently Netanyahu’s plan, though he was apparently dissuaded by US president Donald Trump from going ahead with the killing.
One thing I do know about the regime in Teheran is that it is deeply pragmatic when it comes to its own survival. Right now, it faces the greatest threat to its existence since the Islamic Republic was founded in 1979, after the Shah fled the country.
There was a point in my life when I was spending so much time in Teheran – as the Daily Telegraph’s Iran correspondent – that my hotel suggested I leave my tin trunk behind rather than keep hauling it back and forth between Teheran and London. I suspect it is still somewhere in the basement of the Intercontinental Hotel. I am referring to 1979, when I first arrived in the city as a young reporter on my first major foreign assignment. What was meant to be a three-month stay turned into nearly two years, after militant students captured the American embassy and kept the hostage crisis going for 444 days. I also reported on the long and bloody war between Iran and Iraq, in which a million people died.
My contacts book tells the story of contemporary Iran – and tragically, almost everyone listed in it met a violent death. For example, foreign minister Sadegh Ghotbzadeh was executed by the regime for allegedly plotting a coup against Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the revolution’s spiritual leader. Ayatollah Mohammad Beheshti, the second most powerful figure after Khomeini, was blown up in a bombing that destroyed the Islamic Republican Party’s headquarters in Teheran. (When I once asked Beheshti for help in extending my visa by a week, he picked up the phone – and I ended up staying for another year.) I know all too well the parts of Teheran now being bombed by Israel.
Although most of my reporting was from the capital, I did travel outside Teheran, particularly to the holy city of Qom. This was where Khomeini was based in the early days until for health reasons he was moved in April 1980 to Jamaran, a village in the foothills of the Alborz mountains north of Teheran, near the Niavaran Palace – the former residence of the Shah. Khomeini issued his fatwa against Salman Rushdie over The Satanic Verses on February 14, 1989, and died on June 3 that same year, aged 86. Since then, Khamenei has ruled. Given the Shia reverence for martyrdom, his death could only enhance his symbolic power – and there is no guarantee it would bring down the regime. My guess is that the ayatollahs are in a dilemma. They know that while they can inflict civilian casualties, they cannot win a war against Israel. As ever, they will be searching for a face-saving way to end the nightly hostilities. The Israeli prime minister, who has likely been planning a strike on Iran’s nuclear sites for years, may not be ready to stop now.
When I first went to Iran, the population was 37 million. Today, it stands at 90 million. Undoubtedly, there are Iranians who would welcome the overthrow of the ayatollahs. But equally, most of the population have known nothing but life under an Islamic regime. The Revolutionary Guard Corps is largely drawn from the younger generation. Iranian scientists almost certainly possess the fundamental knowledge needed to build an atomic bomb. Their facilities may have been destroyed, but their collective expertise cannot be erased. Iran could also withstand the loss of a million lives in a prolonged conflict with Israel.
Israel, to be sure, has a powerful military backed by the United States. But its population is just 10 million, compared to Iran’s, which is approaching 100 million.
The Islamic Republic is built to take advantage of chaos. If I had to make a guess – based on years of reporting on the ayatollahs and watching the regime adapt – it is that politics in Iran is going to move from a state of chaos to even greater chaos.
Keep ReadingShow less
A woman poses with a sign as members of the public queue to enter a council meeting during a protest calling for justice for victims of sexual abuse and grooming gangs, outside the council offices at City Centre on January 20, 2025 in Oldham, England
WAS a national inquiry needed into so-called grooming gangs? Prime minister Sir Keir Starmer did not think so in January, but now accepts Dame Louise Casey’s recommendation to commission one.
The previous Conservative government – having held a seven-year national inquiry into child sexual abuse – started loudly championing a new national inquiry once it lost the power to call one. Casey explains why she changed her mind too after her four-month, rapid audit into actions taken and missed on group-based exploitation and abuse. A headline Casey theme is the ‘shying away’ from race.
The (Alexis) Jay inquiry (in 2014) found ethnicity data too patchy to draw firm conclusions. Casey shows that too little has changed. Ethnicity data on perpetrators is published – but the police fail to collect it in a third of cases. That low priority to ethnicity data collection is a problem across policing – forming an impediment to scrutiny of ethnic disparities of every kind.
In Greater Manchester, Casey reports perpetrators of sexual abuse generally reflect the local population, but with a disproportionate number of Asian perpetrators in group-based offending. There was a misplaced ‘political correctness’ when police forces and councils were responding to group-based abuse by British Pakistani perpetrators. Yet, there was nothing ‘politically correct’ about a sexist, classist culture that did not believe the victims. They were often vulnerable, adolescent girls with a history of living in care or with repeated episodes of going missing – and were seen as wayward teenagers, treated as ‘consenting’ to sex once they had turned thirteen.
Our society was much too slow to act on the abuse of children in every setting. The trigger for the national inquiry into child sexual exploitation was the outpouring of allegations about Jimmy Saville. In every setting, the instinct was more often to cover up rather than to clean up. Care homes failed to protect the most vulnerable. Prestigious public schools put containing reputational damage first. The focus on institutions meant that group-based offending formed only one strand of the national inquiry, without the scale to dig fully into local experiences.
There is a key difference between group-based and individual offending. Groups are a joint enterprise, so depend on a shared rejection of social norms among the perpetrators. It is important to be able to talk confidently about toxic sub-cultures of misogyny and abuse within British Pakistani communities, and to support women from within Asian communities and feminist allies who have been seeking to challenge and change it. So why has it seemed so difficult to say this – and to have taken too long to act upon it?
When writing my book How to be a patriot a couple of years ago, I suggested that one key driver of this misplaced reluctance to discuss cultural factors over this issue reflects a confusion and conflation between ethnicity, faith and culture. If people intuit that talking about cultural factors must mean something like ‘the inherent properties of an ethnic and faith group’, there is a fear that this will inevitability generalise about and stereotype whole groups. Yet, few people would struggle to acknowledge the role of cultural factors in the role of the
Church in twentieth century Ireland. A social norm that saw sex and sexuality as a taboo subject, combined with institutional deference to the church, left children unprotected – until there was significant pressure for change. So ‘cultural factors’ were part of the problem – but that did not mean that all Catholics were child-molesters. The trial in France of 51 men involved in raping one woman similarly illustrates the culture of misogyny in France among a sub-group of men willing to join in a rape gang when invited to do so.
So the irony is that it would perpetuate precisely that kind of ethnic stereotype to fail to police the law so as not to offend the Pakistani Muslim community, by seeming to turn the behaviour of a criminal sub-group into a community characteristic. Failing to address sexual exploitation for fear of extremist exploitation of the issue was always self-defeating. Being able to address the issue is a key foundation for being able to challenge effectively those whose motive is to spread prejudice.
The reviews by Jay and Casey into group-based exploitation in Rotherham had profile and consequences in 2015. The entire council leadership resigned. In most other places, victims went and felt unheard. There was a sound logic that local inquiries were most likely to have the granular focus to deliver accountability – but few areas volunteered to host them. Those that did happen lacked the teeth to compel cooperation.
Casey’s proposed model is essentially for local hearings, backed by statutory national powers. It is a chance to move on from partisan blame games and ensure that the victims of historic abuse are finally heard – rebuilding confidence in policing and prosecuting without fear or favour.
Sunder Katwala is the director of thinktank British Future and the author of the book How to Be a Patriot: The must-read book on British national identity and immigration.