When the news first spread on Friday that Rishi Sunak was planning a speech outside 10 Downing Street, the Westminster rumour mill went into overdrive: could this be the moment Sunak cut his losses and called an election, hoping that George Galloway’s victory in Rochdale pointed to a Labour vulnerability? No 10 aides were quick to kill such chatter, making clear that the speech was about recent events. But Sunak’s warning about the “poison” of extremism could still set the tone for the Conservative election campaign to come.
The prime minister used the 10-minute address to warn of a growing threat to British democracy, taking aim at Islamist extremists and the far right as “two sides of the same extremist coin”. He referred to Galloway’s byelection victory in Rochdale as part of this trend – describing it as “beyond alarming”.
The truth is that Sunak was planning a speech for Friday whether or not Galloway won. His inner circle made the calculation earlier in the week that whether Galloway triumphed or the suspended Labour candidate Azhar Ali scraped through, it was worth an intervention. “Either way it would have been a bad candidate,” argues one party figure.
The official line from Downing Street is that this was a speech aimed at doing the right thing rather than an attempt to weaponise recent events to the Tories’ advantage. But anyone who tells you the speech wasn’t political is not being straight. A case in point is that part of it is missing from the official text on gov.uk – removed, as per convention, on the grounds it is party political. Giving a speech at Downing Street is one of the tools the Tories have by virtue of being in government to grab attention and set the agenda.
Keir Starmer was not mentioned in the address, as Sunak wanted to show he was rising above the political fray to make a serious point. But government figures privately admit they believe this is an area where Sunak could land some blows on Starmer. “The question is: could Keir have delivered that speech?” a Sunak ally tells me. They argue he could not have done – or have taken such a hard line on the protests without facing a backlash from his own side. What’s more, a Tory HQ attack email that went out yesterday let go of any pretence of rising above party politics on the issue. Titled “Rochdale’s new MP”, it attacked Galloway as unfit before declaring: “The blame for his victory lies at the door of Keir Starmer” as “Starmer’s failure to fix antisemitism within his party paved the way for Galloway’s toxic brand of politics to return”.
Expect more of this. While the Tories performed badly in Rochdale – coming in third behind the popular independent candidate – there were some rays of light for Conservative campaign headquarters in Reform UK underperforming and the return of Galloway. The jury is still out on whether a backlash from Labour voters angry with their party’s position on Gaza will have any impact in a general election. But there is a sense that there is still more value for the Tories to be drawn out of the Rochdale result. “There’s talk that we could pounce on it for an early election, but it’s much better to have Galloway in the Commons making life difficult for Starmer,” says one government aide. The hope on the Tory side is that Galloway’s presence will expose Labour divisions on the war (though, so far, MPs are holding the line).
As for Sunak’s side, talking tough on the need to crack down on Islamic extremism and telling the police they need to do more plays well to some on the right. While most Tory MPs believe Lee Anderson was wrong to say what he did about Sadiq Khan, several – including MPs on the right of the party and some of those in “red wall” seats from the 2019 intake – believe Sunak went too far in suspending Anderson. They argue that the point he was trying to make was that there is a sense of there being little control over the pro-Palestine marches, and that this is a valid concern. It follows that Sunak’s words are partly aimed at this group.
As for the election, the Tories would like to depict Starmer as weak and unable to take strong positions on these issues for fear of his own party. It means you can expect to hear more about antisemitism and Islamic extremism in the weeks ahead. Sunak will try to depict Starmer as unable to lead here.
But for many in the Tory party, this is all wishful thinking. Despite the reference to meeting with senior police officers, Sunak’s speech was light on policy. The risk is that voters will blame the government for not solving problems rather than praise it for pointing them out. “The speech was the right thing to do on every level,” says one Tory MP. “With the unfortunate omission that a speech largely about leadership essentially contained no action.”
But the most widely shared concern across the Tory tribes is something else: is anyone listening? As one MP, who welcomed Sunak’s intervention, puts it: “I just don’t feel it has any cut-through. I’m not sure anything does. It’s just about marking time until the election and hoping Starmer looks a bit more crap than us.”
Katy Balls is the Spectator’s political editor
