Six months is a long time in politics. Six months ago, the British political landscape seemed wholly different. The 14 years coalition and then Tory governments had turned into a Calvary. Three successive Prime Ministers had failed. Theresa May was a weakling, Boris Johnson a mountebank - and as for Liz Truss... The shortest Premiership in history, she was also the least lamented. In retrospect, historians will ask one question about her. How on earth did she make it to No.10?
Then came Rishi Sunak. Clever, likeable, effective in debate: he had all the attributes necessary for a senior politician, except for one. He was no good at politics. He failed to fix the blame for Britain's economic difficulties where most of it belonged: on the two 'F' words, Covid and Putin. He then called the General Election months before he needed to, while there was reasonable economic news on the way.
Meanwhile, the Labour Party was looking as if it could be fit for Government. Under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn - one might call him a Marxist, but that would imply a wholly absent degree of intellectual rigour - Labour had seemed doomed. But the recovery from long Corbynism was surprisingly rapid.
Sir Keir Starmer had been the Director of Public Prosecutions: that seemed to supply heavyweight credentials. One of his aides was Rachel Reeves, who claimed to be an economist. Economics is the dismal science. Reeves is serious-looking, so no-one questioned her credentials, as she went round the City assuring everyone that a Labour government would be committed to economic growth.
Before the July election, the Tories knew that they would lose. The only question was by how much. The answer was: worse that you could imagine. The party suffered the worst defeat in its history, winning only a quarter of the votes and only just over a fifth of the seats. The Left was jubilant. Surely, they would have at least 10 years to reshape the country. Mired in gloom, a lot of Tories would have settled for 10 years.
Then the tectonic plates began to shift. Labour had a clear political strategy: to blame everything they could think of on the Tories, from the growth-rate to the weather. But this did not work. Reeves insisted that the figures proved that the Tories had knowingly left a £22 billion black hole in the public finances. It was rapidly pointed out that the figures showed nothing of the kind.
The new Chancellor then created a black hole by awarding large public sector pay settlements without any attempt to justify them by insistence on higher productivity. She filled the black hole which she had created by piling taxes on businesses and employers, insisting that this would not affect ordinary workers. That is not economics. It is fantasy. There is also the grey hole which has now emerged in her own CV.
But that was only her worst offence. Economics may be the dismal science, but there are two factors which are crucial while being hard to quantify: economic confidence and animal spirits. Reeves and Starmer have spent five months undermining the first and depressing the second.
As a result, the public mood has changed. Instead of talking about the certainty of 10 years, people are wondering whether this government will last its full term. There are rumours of a challenge to Starmer. Within his own party, he has never been regarded with much affection. But he has been seen as an election winner. If that were to change, the plates could continue to move. Moreover, Labour won just over one-third of the votes. A lot of people were voting against the Tories rather than for Labour. The British electoral system is good at turning pluralities into majorities, and volatility can have dramatic consequences. There may now be a dramatic outcome.
Traditionally, the Tory party has been led by aristocrats, or at least by those drawn from the wealthier classes. In recent decades, that had ceased to be the case. It was not true of Ted Heath or Margaret Thatcher. But one might have thought that tradition would place limits on recruitment. But not so. The party produced its first Asian leader. Undiscouraged by his failure, it has now moved on to an African.
Kemi Badenoch has been winning golden opinions for a number of years. I could name a number of Tory grandees, whose titles predate Britain's involvement in Africa, who have been discreetly lobbying for her and one can see why. She is highly intelligent and is also a first-rate platform performer. She also has one quality in which she exceeds the young Margaret Thatcher: she has more self-confidence.
Badenoch faces a daunting challenge. In order to win a bare majority, she has to gain an extra 200 seats, at a time when the political Right is divided between her party and Nigel Farage's Reform. But there is every sign that she is, and will remain, undaunted.
Under the last phase of the Tory years, she was Secretary of State for Business. It was a frustrating time. When a government is visibly dying, paralysis begins to set in. Officials see no point in bothering. Ministerial colleagues succumb to disillusionment. That was not Badenoch’s way of conducting business. She developed a certain reputation for abrasiveness. Yet - that was equally true of Margaret Thatcher.
Badenoch has, quite rightly, decided to take time to work out her policy programme. Principles, yes: details later after hard thinking. But she must say enough to win the voters' attention. That cheeky chappie Nigel Farage will be promising the moon and sixpence: assuring people that everyone would be fine and dandy if only he was in charge. Badenoch has to appeal to the British people's tough-minded realism. Yes, we must have a government which deals with immigration. promotes sound economic policies, ensures that the public services do far more to serve the public - and above all, proclaim the people's right to that vital human right, the right to aspiration. She should also pour scorn on wokery and proclaim her heartfelt pride in this country: our country, her country.
All this will take time. But I believe that she will offer excitement, in increasing quantities.
