Tom Tugendhat is the Member of Parliament for Tonbridge and Malling, in Kent. He is a Conservative, has been in the Commons for the past seven years, and is the chair of the influential Foreign Affairs Select Committee. That is the body that overlooks and reviews bills regarding Britain’s role in the wider world through the lens of the administration, funding, and policy of the Foreign and Commonwealth Development Office.
Since the resignation of Prime Minister Boris Johnson on July 7, 2022, there are several MPs that have declared themselves to be running to succeed him, including Tugendhat. While people like Jeremy Hunt have served in Parliament for a decade longer than Tom, he has some great and somewhat unparalleled experience from outside Westminster that comes in useful for the controlled handling of global affairs in its fragile state.
Now, you may be asking, given I am a Labour member, “if you want Labour to win the next election, why are you supporting a good candidate?” The reasons are simple, but it’s a reasoning that needs explaining in order to be useful; this country has been in a downward spiral for the past two years. More families in poverty. Fuel prices reaching space. And all we’ve had in the news is scandal and no announcements of concrete fixes or plans for these issues.
Yes, I want Labour to win the next election. But we have had three years of mania, economic downturn, and continuous barring of social rights, from the failure to ban forced transgender conversion to the prohibition of ‘noisy protests’. As Labourites, we cannot — in the name of ‘winning the next election’ — afford to support an abominable candidate who will give us instability and further throw this country head-over-heels into hell in the two years the Conservatives have left of running it.
The leadership contest
Boris Johnson, following the resignations of Chancellor Rishi Sunak and Health Secretary Sajid Javid, came under heavy pressure to let the premiership go due to a mountain of scandals. Those two rather involuntarily opened the floodgates to the quitting of sixty-three ministers, trade envoys, and parliamentary aides from their roles — more than a third of Government — within the space of just 72 hours, along with the firing of one: Michael Gove.
Through what felt like an eternity, Johnson held on to the ropes, excusing himself by saying he had a ‘colossal mandate’ with a large agenda from the 2019 election, and that leaving the post during crises like Ukraine, COVID, and cost-of-living would not be a good idea.
Owen Paterson’s corruption, Partygate, the alleged misleading of Parliament, prorogation, the 2022 local election, and by-election losses in Wakefield, Tiverton and Honiton, Chesham and Amersham, and North Shropshire all led to the mounting pressure on the government; it was, however, the Chris Pincher scandal — where an MP with history of sexual assault was promoted to an office which would have the possibility to hear similar complaints with the knowledge of the Prime Minister — that ripped the curtains from the rail.
He stood at the podium outside 10 Downing Street on the seventh and declared his intention to step down, obviously disappointed in the desires of his fellow caucus members.
“The herd is powerful, and when the herd moves, it moves” — Boris Johnson
Suella Braverman, the Attorney-General, announced her campaign the day before his resignation — the sixth — while Tugendhat announced his on the same day as the resignation — the seventh — followed in chronological order by:
- Kemi Badenoch, a backbench minister
- Rishi Sunak, just-resigned Chancellor
- Jeremy Hunt, Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee
- Sajid Javid, just-resigned Health Secretary
- Grant Shapps, the Transport Secretary
- Nadhim Zahawi, the Chancellor
- Rehman Chishti, a backbencher
- Penny Mordaunt, a backbench minister
- Liz Truss, the Foreign Secretary
As the second-biggest name in politics for the past two years, Rishi Sunak is currently running ahead with declared supporters, followed by Penny Mordaunt and Tom Tugendhat. All have a minimum of 20 allies.
The 1922 Committee, the group of senior backbench MPs, set out the rules for the election on July 11, stating that 20 nominations are required for the first round of votes, and 30 for the second. The new Prime Minister will be announced on or around September 5, 2022.
With so many Cabinet ministers in the fight to replace Johnson, why should Tugendhat take to the nation’s highest honor?
Military knowledge
In Parliament, Tom is quite renowned and well-known thanks to his military service. He played major roles in the Territorial Army, now Army Reserves, from 2003 to 2013, partaking in combat and behind-the-scenes work in Iraq and Afghanistan. He was also deployed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in a civilian nature to help create Afghanistan’s government and the National Security Council of the country. As a speaker of Dari, Pashto, and Arabic, he was able to bring a lot of influence and knowledge to these Middle Eastern conflicts. Tugendhat additionally served in an advisor post to Afghanistan’s first ‘non-warlord’ governor since the Soviet era.
He reached the rank of Lt Col by the time he left the Territorial Army.
He was also a key part of the Iraqi economic rebuilding in 2011 after the end of the war; he ran the Baghdad region’s redevelopment, funneling $4.5 billion into the city and surrounding areas.
Not only does he have international knowledge, but he has served as an advisor and aide to both the Chief of General Staff, the military head of the British Army, and the Chief of Defense Staff, the professional head of the British Army.
All of this equips Tom with a unique amount of insider information on how the army is structured both here and abroad; not to mention, before all of this, he was a journalist in Lebanon and the regions adjacent, taking a perspective on the nation’s economy and politics, which teaches him the reality of international aid and what it’s worth.
With the current crisis between Ukraine and Russia, Tugendhat — as Prime Minister — will be able to make well-informed decisions about aid and intelligence that other candidates for the job will not have. The Middle East region is still reeling from warfare and conflict, and Western nations are still dealing with the Taliban and the aftermath of the war’s end there. On that front, with the help of civil servants and currently-serving employees of the FCDO, he can make not only militaristic but diplomatic choices regarding how to negotiate with the Islamic Emirate and countries with a similarly authoritarian style of government.
Welfare and social rights
It’s good having military knowledge to be able to advance on international issues, but what about everything that’s going on at home?
The welfare system is not an inherently political part of this country. After all, governments have more-or-less protected the National Health Service, created by Clement Atlee’s socialist government of the 1940s. It remains a beacon of advancement to the nation and the Western world. Still existing today are welfare benefits such as those for people out of work, those who are disabled, or those who have children.
Candidates at this leadership election, unlike others, are not so keen on conserving the current system and appealing to the status quo, even while Britain faces cuts to Universal Credit and more families meet the bread line face on. A comment from the Attorney-General:
“There are too many people in this country who are of working age, who are of good health, and who are choosing to rely on benefits.” — Suella Braverman
One of the largest issues troubling British families is the cost-of-living crisis; more people are being driven into poverty over changes in tax that are crippling those less fortunate. Tugendhat is the only person in this race to have voted against the rise in National Insurance.
In a Telegraph op-ed dated February 5, he called the rise “a false economy that offers little security to younger, poorer workers,” and slammed inheritance protections and other shieldings for high earners and businesses in opposition to the negative economic stances taken towards the poor.
From the way in which he has campaigned, it is obvious that Tom will be much more liberal than he was seven years ago when he was elected. In 2015 and 2016, his voting record is shown to be much more conservative and anti-welfare than his campaign suggests, but — as we have seen with Michael Gove’s sacking and previous events—rebelling against your party too much, or in the wrong instances, will lead to a political career suicide. That op-ed projects a very different view to his 2015 record.
With Tom calling the shots in terms of what the whips tell the caucus to vote, Britain could reasonably expect a much more progressive approach to social rights and welfare from the Conservative Party. He has always voted for minority rights, according to his record, including the right for same-sex couples to marry in Northern Ireland and the UK as a whole.
Why not another candidate?
It is important to remember that this leadership contest is happening due to severe erosion of trust from Boris Johnson and his closest friends — the Cabinet — to the British public. For the most part, these ministers and aides only jumped from the sinking ship in the final days, or… not at all. Rishi Sunak and Sajid Javid were right to resign, but this had come after two years of the same shtick. People like Foreign Secretary Liz Truss did not leave their post at all, having been by Johnson’s side the entire way through.
Johnson’s approval ratings are at record lows following all of these revelations. Therefore, it is not difficult to say that Britain and — more importantly here — the Conservative membership base are looking for someone who just isn’t Johnson 2.0. Those in Cabinet have been much more influenced by his rocky leadership; they have been forced to make decisions that they may not have wanted to take, and they have listened to him for the past two years and grown a liking to his policy approaches.
You cannot say the same for committee leaders like Tom. While committees have a fair bit of political bias and argument to them, the whole purpose of these groups are to criticize and change bills according to the needs of the public and the Civil Service. Unlike Cabinet, his decisions were not influenced by Boris Johnson, and nor could Johnson — like a puppet — control how he voted on the committee. Therefore, for a member of the public seeking independence from the ruling ideology of the past two years but also a lot of experience that you won’t get from a young backbencher or a role-less MP elected in the 90s, Tugendhat is the perfect man.
He has also proved himself so far to be truthful and respectful. This is a gear change from the administration of the past two years.
Rishi Sunak has a lot of support from Conservative MPs. This is deeply contrasted with the view of the public and the membership base. The former group sees Sunak as being able to grow the economy and capitalize on Brexit — a huge target for Johnson’s administration and their “Build Back Better” program. However, the latter sees him as a deeply hypocritical and lying character, as he pledges to fix the economy despite having been Chancellor of the Exchequer (the nation’s top financial policy job) for the past two years.
Nadhim Zahawi was Sunak’s replacement after he resigned in the face of Johnson’s Chris Pincher scandal. It is safe to say he is not only a bad candidate for the premiership but a dangerous one. In the past two days, he has come out and said two main things: he will reverse the planned rise in corporation tax, and he will institute a 20% public services cut.
On the sixth, he immediately initiated a ‘review’ into a corporation tax rise arranged by Sunak. He said that he wanted the UK to remain as competitive as possible and be a hub for investment; he is showing his true colors as a fiscal conservative by doing this, as he has also projected his desire to limit borrowing, which would bring government spending to a new low. He opposed a windfall tax on oil and gas companies to decrease fuel prices for common people, going alongside his former work in advising the oil industry.
That isn’t the dangerous bit — the 20% service cut is. Britain is already famously struggling with underpaid and overworked medical workers, as hospitals severely lack the amount of staff to be able to, well, run. Former Prime Minister David Cameron already cut into emergency services and welfare with his austerity program from 2010 to 2016, and it is only in the past three years that politicians have tried to resurrect the sector shortages arising from that. This includes Boris Johnson’s pledge to bring 20,000 more police officers to the street and build dozens more hospitals.
When asked whether he would implement 20% cuts in every single government department, including health and education, he said:
“Well, that’s what I want to make sure we get to [cutting every department]— that will give me the headroom to be able to deliver tax cuts which I want to deliver.” — Nadhim Zahawi
Such a reckless cut would murder — and I mean murder — this nation for all it’s worth.
He has also stoked fear by saying he will, in quasi-Trumpian language, ‘protect children’ from ‘radical’ agendas. From this, some activists are afraid that Zahawi could implement a modern version of Section 28. The phrase comes from an amendment to the Local Governments Act 1988 passed by Margaret Thatcher that increased discrimination towards the LGBT community by prohibiting the ‘promotion of homosexuality’. The original law was intended to dispel the influence of Stonewall and the gay rights movement in the UK.
Jeremy Hunt and Liz Truss endorse a similar economic policy that involves severe cuts in corporation taxes, leaving little room for the little guys — those in poverty — to prosper. And, from earlier on, we’ve already seen Suella Braverman’s view on welfare. She hasn’t given much in terms of detailed numbers, but the perspective based on what she said would point to a plan not far off Zahawi’s drastic and unimaginable cuts.
And, of course, there would be no conservatism without the mentioning of the word ‘woke’. Braverman offers a campaign on just that; she has voted against the rights of gay people and other minorities in the UK and opposes both the Human Rights Act and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights, despite being of minority descent herself.
She wants to unilaterally block Scotland from passing reforms such as those on the Gender Recognition Act… despite the fact Scotland has a devolved government that, if she were to meddle in what Nicola Sturgeon passes in Holyrood, would undermine and be a sickening affront to the democratic devolution rights upheld since 1997.
Patrick Harvie, the Scottish Green leader — whose party is part of a coalition with the SNP in Edinburgh — said:
“They don’t believe in Scotland’s right to make decisions, even in devolved areas.”
As a Labour member, I support Tom Tugendhat for Conservative Party leader and Prime Minister of the UK.
