Why did Kemi Badenoch attack maternity pay? Ask Tory Members… | Zoe Williams

KEmi Badenoch refined her reputation as the undisputed candidate for Conservative leader by saying: “Statutory maternity pay is a function of tax; The tax comes from the people who work. We take from one group of people and give to another. I think that’s an exaggeration.” She spoke to Times Radio, which she perhaps saw as a safe place where disembodied voices could play with words and not have to worry too much about what they meant, somewhere between politics and a dream .

Reality intervened when people rudely insisted on those words did actually matter, and politicians, even those who, God willing, are years away from power, still have an impact on people’s lives. After all, isn’t that what taxes are all about – distributing resources from one group to another? Isn’t that what pensions are for? Isn’t that society? If maternity leave represents an excessive reallocation of resources, what is the right amount? Nobody?

Badenoch’s rivals cheered; One told a journalist that he had had a great day without even having to say anything. Her allies complained that others wanted to “use select quotes from an interview to score political hits,” showing that they simply weren’t “serious about returning to government,” ending with, “Kemi obviously supports maternity benefit.”

It really wasn’t obvious at all, nor was it clear how listening to this interview without analyzing it for its meaning would have helped the party return to government. For himself, Badenoch said on

Her outrage was audible, but her target was unclear. Another ally, Julia Lopez, called it a “contrived pregnancy story” that could mean just about anything. Were the comments fabricated to provoke outrage? Was the outrage invented to undermine the speaker? It sounds like a catalog description of one of those fluffy nursing pillows.

What should a Conservative member who elects a party leader and wants to one day start a family think of this? Should they believe the regulatory cuts interview Badenoch, who will take away their maternity rights? Or the more sensible post-interview Badenoch who wants the world of workplace rights to stay as it is, except with less regulation? An imaginative question, of course: it would be impossible to find out specific intentions from any of the conservative top candidates.

Badenoch not only hates bureaucracy, but is also tired of all cultures being treated equally. There is little attention to detail, such as which cultures we would consider superior and how we would collectively point out inferior cultures (could we wear color-coded uniforms? Or would some of us have to be interned?).

Robert Jenrick, meanwhile, wants to bring about “a change” in young people’s attitudes by launching an “air war” against the “progressive values ​​that have dominated thinking in education and social media”. James Cleverly is on a crusade against “sacrificing pragmatic governments in the national interest on the altar of ideological purity.” Tom Tugendhat wants to reduce immigration and also “get the economy pumping again,” although it is unclear whether these desires are related.

Scientist Tim Bale has today published a study into the differences between Tory members and the general public, finding unsurprising but large differences in how likely they are to make statements such as “Leaders must be able to “Dominating people and showing a little aggression” agree every now and then” (public: 43% disagree vs. 28% agree; members: 29% disagree vs. 47% agree) and “It is important that leaders are able to manipulate situations to get their way” (public: 48% disagree vs. 21% agree; members: 28% disagree vs. 43% agree).

All this talk of war, sacrifice, altars, blood and guts doesn’t come out of nowhere. Tory candidates speak to an electorate that values ​​or rejects dark traits (Machiavellianism, narcissism and psychopathy) in inverse proportion to all others, so it is not unreasonable for them to deploy images and metaphors that would send everyone else running.

Badenoch wastes no time with analogies. Her methods are simpler: Find something, anything, that you can’t hate (motherhood, tolerance) and performatively hate it. If it doesn’t work, don’t worry – just say you were misunderstood.