The Observer's take on the Tory party: In Tory leadership race, candidates ignore Britain's pressing problems | Editorial of the Observer

BElectoral defeats almost always plunge political parties into existential crises: who do they represent, what are they for? However, the Conservative Party had found itself in difficulty on these issues well before experiencing its worst electoral defeat in its history in July. The party now remains engaged in its long race to choose its next leader.

The disastrous election result saw the 2019 vote share inflated by Boris Johnson's populist promise to deliver Brexit. lowest since 1832; Conservative think tank Highlights ahead how a significant number of the wasted votes went not only to Reform, but also to Labor and the Liberal Democrats, while others stayed home rather than vote Conservative. The 2019 election coalition turned out to be a temporary gathering that included traditional Conservative voters, but also some Labor voters who voted for Brexit in the EU referendum and believed Johnson's promise that Brexit was the response to the country's structural problems. The outcome of the 2024 elections was a crushing verdict on their record from 2010 to 2024, sluggish economic growth, stagnant living standards, strained public services and a desire for change.

It is likely that the Conservatives will not be heard by the public as a future government for some time. The scale of the electoral mountain they must climb is enormous. But like Labor for much of its long period in opposition, they seem determined to talk among themselves rather than understanding the scale of their defeat and the voters they will need to attract again if they are to win again.

This is reflected in the leadership race. The three most centrist candidates from a single nation were eliminated in successive rounds of MP voting. Party members must now choose between two right-wing candidates, Robert Jenrick and Kemi Badenoch, the winner of which will be announced on November 2. The vote is structured in such a way that, as in the Labor Party, it is the members who have the last say. Candidates must appeal to this tiny part of the electorate, much further to the right than the average voter. This is reflected in the position of the two candidates.

Jenrick has two main commitments. The first is to withdraw Britain from the European Convention on Human Rights and ban anyone who disagrees with him on this from joining his shadow cabinet. This is a marginal commitment which lack of public supportwould violate the Good Friday Agreement and risk harming the key rights of British citizens, including the rights to privacy, freedom of expression, democratic protest and a fair trial. This would mean the UK would join Belarus and Russia as the only two European countries outside. the convention. The second commitment is to introduce a legally binding cap on legal immigration, bringing it down to tens of thousands, an unachievable target without painful consequences for the economy, the NHS and social services.

Badenoch had less to say on policy, although she distanced herself from Jenricks' commitment to the ECHR. However, her interventions also placed her clearly to the right of the electorate, for example by appearing to suggest that statutory maternity pay had gone too far (she later distanced herself from her comments). She also published a leaflet which seemed to imply that it was wrong that a diagnosis of autism in children could unlock access to specialist treatment, equipment or transport to and from school. sentenced by the National Autism Society, which highlighted the long delays in children accessing the educational support to which they are entitled.

Neither candidate has had much to say to the country about the dire economic situation and big budget hole their party has left the new Labor government. This is an unedifying competition that will do them few favors, with voters being the only electorate that matters.