Boris’s approach to border control has been a pain point for Tories (Image: Getty)
A stench of decay emits from Westminster. Our traditional, two-party duopoly now feels rotten to the core. The sense of breakdown is all too clear on the Labour benches. Under Sir Keir Starmer’s shambolic leadership, they have combined spectacular mismanagement with ideological folly. Their reckless tax-and-spend policies have left a huge black hole in the public finances and paralysis in the economy, just as their failures on immigration are causing real public anger.
Sir Keir himself has now been revealed as a man without courage, conviction, competence – or a moral compass. In recent days, as the Downing Street machine becomes increasingly dysfunctional, he has managed to lose his credibility, as well as ambassador to the US and his Deputy Prime Minister, yet the Conservatives have gained no ground from Labour’s crises. Despite some sharp performances from their front bench in the Commons over the departures of Angela Rayner and Peter Mandelson, they remain hopelessly trapped in the wilderness.
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
So great is the damage caused to their reputation by their final years in office that it is possible they will never recover. Indeed, their defiant attacks on the Government often seem more like a death rattle than the beginnings of a revival.
Kemi Badenoch, their beleaguered leader, pleads for patience but with her party sinking far below 20% in the polls, time is not a luxury she can afford. Others, like Jacob Rees-Mogg, call for unity on the right through an electoral pact with Nigel Farage’s insurgent Reform movement. But there seems little chance of that.
Millions of Reform followers are just as hostile to Badenoch’s party as they are to Starmer’s, believing that the last Conservative government eagerly promoted mass immigration, woke identity politics, record taxation, and the green agenda.
Particular anger is focused on Boris Johnson, who, instead of “taking back control” after Brexit, opened the borders even more widely during hapless premiership. This policy resulted in the so-called “Boris Wave,” a revolutionary influx of non-EU nationals, complete with rights to welfare, social housing, education, and NHS treatment.
So within large sections of Reform, the Tory party is viewed as a foe rather than a friend. Reform would have little to gain and much to lose from any electoral agreement. It is the Tories who are in the desperate position and battling for survival.
Reform’s ascendancy is illustrated by the string of senior Tories moving into Farage’s party, including former Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries, and ex-MPs Maria Caulfield and Henry Smith. But this week saw by far the most important defection when Danny Kruger, the MP for East Wiltshire, announced his switch of allegiance.
Kruger’s step was doubly significant, because not only is he the first sitting MP to defect, but also he was the Tories’ leading intellectual. As the author of several acclaimed books and ex-Downing Street adviser, he will bring gravitas to Reform’s development of policy.
But what must be even more worrying for the Tories is that a figure of his calibre sees no future for them. His “tragic conclusion,” he said on Monday, is that their brand “is toxic” which meant that “the Conservative Party is over, over as a national party and over as the principal opposition to the left.”
Defectors have always played a vital role in our politics by illuminating patterns of change. The departure of the radical Joe Chamberlain from Cabinet in 1886, over his opposition to Irish Home Rule, heralded a major realignment at Westminster as Liberal Unionists banded with the Tories to block self-government in Dublin.
In 1904 Winston Churchill moved in the opposite direction, His abandonment of his Tory allegiance presaged the colossal Liberal landslide the following year. More recently, in 1981 the Social Democratic Gang of Four, led by Roy Jenkins, almost managed to reshape the centre-left, but Labour eventually prevailed.
Today, the two main parties are far weaker than they were forty years ago, regularly falling below a combined share of 40% in the polls, With serious heavyweights like Kruger on board, Reform is sailing towards power, while Labour and the Tories struggle to stay afloat.
A full blown Tory crisis has erupted – and one person is to blame
The Conservative Party is facing a prolonged struggle over its political identity, its relationship with Reform UK and the leadership of Kemi Badenoch, with internal divisions continuing to shape the party’s position in opposition.
The most obvious pressure point is the steady movement of prominent Conservative figures towards Nigel Farage’s Reform UK. Robert Jenrick, Andrew Rosindell and Suella Braverman have all left the Conservatives for Reform, while Badenoch has repeatedly rejected the idea of an alliance between the two parties. The departures have raised questions about whether the Conservatives can rebuild their support while competing against a party occupying much of the same political territory.
Some Conservative critics have therefore placed responsibility directly on Badenoch, arguing that her leadership has failed to prevent defections and establish a sufficiently distinctive Tory identity.
That interpretation, however, is contested. Badenoch has argued that the Conservatives need to change after the party’s heavy defeat at the 2024 general election and that she is deliberately separating the party from figures and practices associated with its previous period in government.
The dispute over who is responsible for the Conservatives’ difficulties therefore reflects a much bigger question: what should the modern Conservative Party actually stand for?
The Jenrick rupture
The most dramatic episode came in January 2026 when Robert Jenrick was dismissed from Badenoch’s senior team and suspended from the Conservative Party.
Badenoch said she had been presented with what she described as “clear, irrefutable evidence” that Jenrick was secretly planning a defection designed to damage the party. Jenrick subsequently joined Reform UK, becoming one of the highest-profile Conservative politicians to make the move.
Jenrick had previously been a prominent figure within the Conservative Party and had challenged Badenoch for the leadership in 2024.
His departure consequently had significance beyond the loss of one MP. It demonstrated that one of the party’s senior figures believed Reform offered a more suitable political home.
Jenrick also used his departure to launch a broader criticism of the Conservatives. He argued that the party had failed to change sufficiently after its 2024 defeat and accused it of refusing to confront the reasons for its electoral collapse.
Badenoch’s supporters, however, interpreted the episode differently. From their perspective, removing a senior politician who was preparing to leave was an attempt to prevent an internal leadership struggle from paralysing the party.
Sky News political editor Beth Rigby described the episode as a crisis that Badenoch managed to turn into an opportunity by acting before Jenrick could stage his departure on his own terms.
More defections followed
Jenrick was not the only prominent Conservative to move.
Andrew Rosindell and Suella Braverman subsequently joined Reform, contributing to a growing number of former Conservatives on the Reform benches. The Institute for Government noted that several recent defections had increased Reform’s number of MPs and that five of its eight MPs at the time had previously been Conservatives.
For Badenoch, the defections created a difficult political problem.
Every departure allowed Reform to argue that established Conservatives were recognising the appeal of Farage’s party. At the same time, the Conservatives could argue that Reform was absorbing politicians who had failed to accept the need for a new direction.
Badenoch has chosen the latter argument.
In August, she described some defectors as “some of the most dishonest people” she had encountered and ruled out allowing those who had left for Reform to return to the Conservative Party. She also rejected the idea of a Conservative-Reform coalition.
That position represents a significant strategic choice.
Rather than treating Reform as a potential partner, Badenoch has attempted to establish a clear boundary between the two parties.
The question of Reform
The Conservative dilemma is particularly difficult because Reform has established itself as a major competitor on issues traditionally associated with the political right.
Immigration is perhaps the clearest example.
Reform has made reducing immigration and tightening border controls central to its political message. It has also attacked the Conservative record in government, arguing that previous Tory administrations failed to deliver on promises to reduce migration.
Badenoch faces a balancing act.
If the Conservatives move too far towards Reform, they risk appearing to follow Farage rather than develop their own programme. If they refuse to compete aggressively on issues such as immigration, taxation and national sovereignty, they risk leaving Reform with substantial room to attract voters who previously supported the Conservatives.
The party’s leadership has therefore tried to present itself as distinct from Reform while still addressing concerns that overlap with Reform’s agenda.
Badenoch has said that her priority is not simply “uniting the right” but “uniting the country”, while arguing that Conservatives and Reform differ on policy as well as political standards.
Is Badenoch really responsible?
The headline claim that one person is to blame for the Conservative crisis simplifies a much longer story.
The party’s problems did not begin with Badenoch.
The Conservatives suffered their worst general-election result in decades in 2024 after 14 years in government. The party entered opposition with a reduced parliamentary presence and a large number of voters looking elsewhere.
Reform benefited from dissatisfaction among some former Conservative voters, while the Liberal Democrats made major gains in traditionally Conservative constituencies.
Badenoch inherited that difficult position when she became leader.
Her critics can nevertheless argue that leadership decisions have influenced how the crisis has developed.
The removal of Jenrick produced a spectacular confrontation, while subsequent rhetoric towards defectors has made reconciliation with former Conservatives more difficult. Badenoch’s refusal to contemplate a deal with Reform also means the Conservatives are committed to competing against Farage independently.
Her supporters would respond that these are deliberate choices rather than evidence of failure.
The argument is that a political party cannot rebuild its identity if senior figures are simultaneously preparing to leave for another party. From this perspective, disciplining or excluding defectors is intended to establish clearer organisational boundaries.
The bigger Conservative identity crisis
The central problem is therefore not simply Badenoch herself.
It is the question of whether the Conservatives can occupy political territory that is distinct from Reform while remaining attractive to voters who are dissatisfied with Labour.
The answer depends partly on what issues dominate the next election campaign.
If immigration, national sovereignty and opposition to Labour remain central, Reform may continue to exert pressure on the Conservatives from the right.
If voters place greater emphasis on economic management, public services, taxation or government experience, the Conservatives have an opportunity to emphasise areas where they believe their record and policy offer differ from Reform.
Badenoch has increasingly attempted to make that distinction explicit.
She has argued that Reform’s programme is not simply a continuation of traditional Conservatism and that the two parties differ on important questions of policy and political conduct. She has also rejected suggestions that Conservative and Reform support can simply be added together to create a single bloc of voters.
A party under pressure
Recent political developments demonstrate that the Conservative crisis is real in the organisational sense: prominent MPs have left, the party has experienced internal disagreements and Reform has become a major competitor.
But the claim that Badenoch alone is responsible cannot be established from those developments.
The Conservatives’ current difficulties have multiple causes, including the 2024 election defeat, the party’s record in government, competition from Reform, changing voter coalitions and disagreements about the direction of the opposition.
Badenoch has nevertheless become the central figure in the debate because she now has responsibility for deciding how the party responds.
Her strategy is increasingly clear: reject a formal alliance with Reform, refuse to welcome back prominent defectors and attempt to rebuild the Conservatives as an independent political force.
Whether that strategy succeeds will depend on developments that have not yet occurred, including future polling, policy debates and the eventual election campaign.
For now, the Tory crisis is less a story about one individual than a struggle over the future shape of Britain’s political right. Badenoch is at the centre of that struggle, but the forces driving it existed before her leadership and extend well beyond her personally.