Why Priti Patel failed to become Tory leader

The former home secretary was supplanted by Robert Jenrick as the candidate of the right.

OK, I have to admit it. I got it wrong.

For months, I argued that Priti Patel was a good bet to win the leadership of the Conservative Party. When I first did so, she was a rank outsider at 50-1 but I thought she would be well-placed to emerge as the candidate of the Conservative right (supplanting Suella Braverman), winning the support of Boris Johnson and offering the prospect of a re-unification of the right by reaching a deal with her friend Nigel Farage.

After a successful prediction of the fall of Johnson and the rise of Liz Truss, I felt confident enough to share my thinking with New Statesman readers and encourage you all to take advantage of my perspicacity. If you did follow this advice, all I can say is sorry. Last week, Patel finished last in the first ballot of leadership candidates for the Conservative Party.

What went wrong? In my defence, I was right to think that Braverman would implode but wrong to think that Patel would be the one to seize the opportunity. There are five reasons why.

First, the Farage relationship ceased to be an advantage. The nature of Reform UK’s campaign in the general election and the prominent role Farage played meant that the Tories concluded that they would not – or could not – do a deal with him. Patel was one of the first to reach that conclusion. Her unique selling point was no longer of any value.

Second, her support was perhaps disproportionately diminished by the general election defeat. Liz Truss and her supporters would likely have endorsed Patel, which might have been a mixed blessing in general but would at least have given her a good number of MPs. Few Trussites survived 4 July.

Third, the closeness to Johnson did not come into play. It may be that Johnson no longer has the sway that he once did but this was only likely to be a factor at the membership stage, and Patel fell a long way short of getting there. As it happens, being Johnson’s home secretary at a time when immigration policy was remarkably liberal proved to be an impediment.

Fourth, Patel did not campaign as a right winger. In fact, on issues such as membership of the European Convention on Human Rights and the policy of an immigration cap she has been more responsible than some candidates supposedly to her left. She presented herself as a unifying candidate offering practical experience, becoming a more appealing and less successful candidate than I expected.

This brings us to the fifth reason for Patel’s campaign to fail to get off the ground – the rise of Robert Jenrick. I underestimated him and his ability to become the right’s candidate. His reputation was that of an ambitious figure from the centre of the party; sufficiently capable and driven to be a senior frontbencher but neither a natural leader nor a figure to appeal convincingly to the party’s right wing. But he has fought an energetic campaign and convinced the right that he is one of them. Given that they are usually suspicious that newcomers to their cause will sell them out, persuading them of his sincerity is no mean achievement.

The combination of these factors meant that it was not to be for Patel and the momentum is currently with Jenrick. Later today, another candidate will fall (presumably Mel Stride) but the race remains open.

Jenrick is now the candidate to beat but he has run a campaign that makes him a polarising figure. I suspect that if one were to ask Conservative MPs to list the remaining candidates 1-5 in order of popularity, he would appear prominently in first and fifth places and not much in between. Many of his colleagues are trying to work out how to stop him.

Kemi Badenoch was the favourite, but is by no means guaranteed to make the final two. She fought a low-key campaign over the summer which has not helped her. There are persistent reports that she was not the hardest working business secretary, her combative personality worries some colleagues and the prioritisation of cultural issues leaves many cold. The counter-argument is that she has charisma and is potentially popular enough with members to defeat Jenrick. If she emerges as the darling of the conference, she can still recover to secure a top two finish.

James Cleverly was, in addition to Jenrick, the big winner from the first round of voting. Well liked across the party, he may attract votes from Patel supporters. He conveys a blokish normality that might make him the British, centre-right version of Tim Walz. Again, a strong conference performance that suggests he is well-placed to beat Jenrick gives him a good chance to make the final two.

As for Tom Tugendhat, the first round was a double disappointment both in finishing fourth and in Stride surviving. Many of Stride’s votes would have been expected to go to Tugendhat which would have given him momentum from today’s ballot for the party conference. But he can still point to the evidence that among the wider electorate he is the most popular option available. A party ambitious for power would pay this fact some attention.

All of this leaves the race very open. And, of course, only a fool would make a prediction on the winner of a Tory leadership race.