Disclaimer: The content of this blog post is alleged and for entertainment purposes only. It should not be construed as factual or truth. Any resemblance to actual events or persons is purely coincidental.
Does Kemi Badenoch actually believe the things she says?
Kemi Badenoch presents herself as a politician with firm convictions, often taking strong stances on cultural, economic, and political issues. However, whether she genuinely believes everything she says or is strategically positioning herself to appeal to specific voters is a matter of debate.
Reasons to Believe She’s Sincere
- Consistent Views Over Time – Badenoch has maintained a clear stance on issues like “anti-woke” politics, free speech, and deregulation since entering politics. This suggests her positions are based on personal conviction rather than political convenience.
- Willingness to Challenge the Status Quo – She openly criticizes elements of her own party’s policies, particularly around climate commitments and government spending, which could indicate ideological sincerity rather than simply following the party line.
- Background & Experience – Her personal story—growing up in developing country and working in various sectors before politics—shapes her perspectives on economic self-reliance and limited government intervention.
Reasons to Question Her Sincerity
- Political Calculations – As a rising star in the Conservative Party, she might be emphasizing certain issues (e.g.: culture wars) to solidify her leadership prospects. Some critics argue her rhetoric is tailored to appeal to right-wing voters rather than reflecting deeply held beliefs.
- Shifting Image, Message and Vibes – While she strongly opposes certain progressive policies, her approach sometimes shifts depending on the audience, which raises questions about whether she moderates her views for political advantage.
- Media Spotlight – Right-leaning media outlets like GB News frequently promote her views, leading some to argue that her stance is more about cultivating a brand rather than purely ideological commitment.
Final Verdict?
It’s likely a combination of both—she appears to hold genuine conservative beliefs, but like any ambitious politician, she may also amplify or emphasise certain positions to advance her career. Whether she would govern as she speaks remains an open question.
Has she ‘sold out’?
Her Stance on the British and Global History
• Kemi Badenoch has criticised narratives that portray the UK solely an its ‘global empire mission’, arguing that modern Britain should not be defined only by its dark, widely documented history.
• She’s rejected the idea of collective guilt etc, emphasising that historical injustice should not dictate modern policy.
• She has suggested that Britain’s past conquests were complex, bringing both disadvatages and benefits, and that developing nations should focus on self-reliance rather than historical grievances.
Criticism: Accusations of “Selling Out”
🔹 Dismissal of Historical Resentment – Critics argue that her downplaying of negative historical ties and consequences ignores the ongoing effects of imperialism, including economic underdevelopment and systemic challenges, prejudice and barriars.
🔹A Pick Me for Conservative Audiences – Some believe she is catering to right-wing, British nationalist sentiment to advance her political career.
🔹 A Disconnect from Historic Issues – Many feel her stance fails to acknowledge how systemic structures continue to shape inequalities today.
Support: A Different Perspective on History
✅ Self-Reliance Over Victim Mindset – Supporters see her approach as empowering, urging developing nations and BAME groups to focus on progress rather than past injustices.
✅ Challenging “Anti-British” Narratives – She appeals to those who believe that Britain’s history should not be viewed solely through an “Anti-Britishness” lens of self-deprecation or guilt.
✅ A Unique View in Parliament – Her views resonate with people—particularly conservatives—who reject identity politics and historical revisionism.
Final Thought: A Matter of Perspective
📌 Some believe she betrays her heritage by minimising the British Empire’s legacy.
📌 Others argue she represents a fresh, independent viewpoint that challenges dominant historical narratives.
Kemi Badenoch Vs. Candace Owens
Kemi Badenoch and Candace Owens share similarities in their political positioning, but they also have key differences that make their comparisons unaligned.
Similarities:
✅ Anti-“Woke” Stance – Both are vocal critics of progressive identity politics, social justice movements, and the idea that historical injustices should not dictate modern policies.
✅ Challenging Mainstream Political Thought – Both reject the notion that certain demographics should align with left-wing politics and argue that self-reliance and meritocracy matter more than structural racism.
✅ Media Popularity in Right-Wing Circles – Both have become high-profile figures in conservative spaces, with Badenoch embraced by GB News and right-leaning UK press, while Owens is a regular on Fox News and US right-wing media.
✅ Political Aspiration & Influence – Owens influences Republican discourse in the US, while Badenoch is seen as a potential future leader of the Conservative Party.
Differences:
❌ Tone & Credibility – Badenoch operates within government as a serious policymaker, whereas Owens is a media personality known for inflammatory rhetoric and conspiracy theories.
❌ Focus on Policy vs. Culture Wars – Badenoch focuses on economic and governance issues (e.g., net zero policy, Brexit opportunities), while Owens is more culture-war-driven, frequently attacking feminism, LGBTQ+ rights, and vaccine mandates.
❌ Engagement with Institutions – Badenoch works within the UK’s political system and engages with policy debates, whereas Owens operates largely as an outside commentator with no official political role.
Conclusion:
📌 Badenoch is not a direct UK equivalent of Candace Owens, but they share overlapping themes.
🔹 If Candace Owens is a provocative media firebrand, Badenoch is a calculated political operator with real ambitions.
🔹 Badenoch distances herself from conspiracies and hyperbole, making her a more strategic and serious figure in UK politics
Is she the Tory’s token EDI hire?
The idea that Kemi Badenoch is the Conservative Party’s “token EDI (Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion) hire” is a contentious one, depending on how you view her rise within the party and her stance on identity politics.
Arguments for the “Token Hire” Perspective
🔹 Optics of Diversity in a Party Struggling with Representation – The Conservatives have historically struggled with appealing to ethnic minority voters. Some argue that elevating Badenoch—a Black, female politician—helps the party counter accusations of racism without changing its policies.
🔹 Her Role in the Anti-“Woke” Debate – Some believe she is being strategically positioned to push back against diversity-focused policies while benefiting from diversity herself. This could make it easier for the party to defend itself against criticism without seeming overtly hostile to minority communities.
🔹 Rapid Political Rise – She was first elected as an MP in 2017 and has quickly climbed the ranks to high-profile ministerial roles. While she is clearly talented, critics question whether her promotion is partly due to her identity aligning with the party’s need for visible but compliant diversity.
Arguments Against the “Token Hire” View
✅ Merit and Political Skill – Badenoch is known for being articulate, confident, and firm in debate. She has impressed both supporters and critics with her performances in Parliament, showing she can hold her own.
✅ Consistent Ideological Alignment – She wasn’t parachuted in to promote diversity; her economic and cultural conservatism aligns with the party’s ideological base. She is one of the most vocal opponents of diversity quotas, which suggests she wouldn’t have wanted to be part of one.
✅ Other Previous Tory Leader – The party previously had Rishi Sunak, Priti Patel, Suella Braverman, and James Cleverly in senior positions. This suggests the Conservatives are not just elevating one token figure, but rather recruiting from a growing pool of right-wing politicians from diverse and different backgrounds.
Conclusion:
📌 If the Conservatives wanted a “safe” EDI figure, Badenoch wouldn’t be it. She is too outspoken and controversial to be a mere symbolic hire.
📌 However, her identity does benefit the party politically. Whether consciously or not, her presence helps shield the Tories from accusations of being off-key, while her rejection of identity politics reinforces their stance.
Is Kemi Badenoch simply just a career politician?
Kemi Badenoch absolutely fits the profile of a career politician, but that doesn’t necessarily mean she lacks conviction. The question is whether she is primarily driven by principle or personal ambition—or a mix of both.
Why She Looks Like a Career Politician:
🔹 Rapid Rise in Politics – Elected as an MP in 2017, she has since held multiple ministerial roles and is now a key figure in the Conservative Party. Her quick ascent suggests strong political instincts and a focus on climbing the ranks.
🔹 Shifting Priorities? – While she presents herself as a principled anti-“woke” politician, some argue her positions (such as on Brexit or economic policy) have been strategically adapted to suit her political ambitions.
🔹 Loyalty to the Tory Machine – Despite criticizing aspects of government policy, she has remained loyal to the party, suggesting she is more focused on long-term political survival than challenging the system outright.
Why She Might Be More Than Just a Careerist:
✅ Ideological Consistency – Unlike some politicians who shift ideologies for convenience, Badenoch has been consistent in her opposition to identity politics and large-scale state intervention.
✅ Willingness to Speak Unpopular Truths – She has taken strong positions that aren’t always politically safe (e.g., questioning net-zero policies, opposing racial reparations), which could suggest genuine conviction rather than pure careerism.
✅ Competence & Intelligence – Even critics acknowledge that she is an articulate debater and skilled communicator, which suggests her rise is not just about ticking diversity boxes or party loyalty, but also about her ability to deliver.
Conclusion:
📌 She is definitely a career politician, but not necessarily an empty opportunist.
📌 She plays the game, but she also seems to believe in it.
📌 Whether she is authentic or calculated depends on whether you think she is a principled reformer or a skilled political brand-builder.
