Tory ex-cabinet minister David Jones joins Reform UK
The former Clwyd West MP described the move as 'a very difficult decision for me' and said he had written to the Conservatives in October to say he would not renew his membership, but received no reply.
David Jones (right) served as deputy chairman of the European Research Group after leaving government (Lucy North/PA)
He said: 'I joined the Conservatives all those years ago because I believed it was the party that best reflected my values and beliefs. Regrettably, that is no longer the case.
'Today, Reform UK is the party that best represents my views – and, I believe, those of many others who have become disillusioned with the two old major parties.'
After losing his cabinet job in the 2014 reshuffle, he went on to become a minister in the Department for Exiting the EU under Theresa May for a year between 2016 and 2017.
He later became deputy chairman of the European Research Group, a Eurosceptic group of Tory MPs.
Mr Jones, who stood down from Parliament last year after 19 years as an MP, said he had no intention of standing for election, and had joined Reform 'as a private individual'.
But as a former cabinet minister, he is the most senior ex-Tory MP to join Reform so far, following Marco Longhi, Anne Marie Morris, Ross Thomson, Aiden Burley and Dame Andrea Jenkyns, now the mayor of Greater Lincolnshire.
Nigel Farage's Reform UK is targeting the Welsh Senedd elections next year (Ben Birchall/PA)
His defection also comes as Mr Farage's party seeks to make significant gains in next year's elections at the Senedd in Wales, where polls suggest the party is in second or third place.
It is a boost for Reform after a difficult weekend in which one of its five MPs 'removed the party whip from himself' amid allegations about two of his businesses.
James McMurdock, MP for South Basildon and East Thurrock, insisted 'all' of his 'business dealings' complied with regulations following claims he improperly borrowed money from the government during the pandemic.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scotsman
2 hours ago
- Scotsman
Why UK needs its own 'Auld Alliance' with France to deal with English Channel people smugglers
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... For me the idea of a one-in, one-out immigration scheme conjures up the unlikely image of a security guard in a bright yellow vest keeping tally with a clicker. While that might not quite be an accurate picture of the perhaps more accurately named 'new migrant return scheme', it is not that far from the truth. Basically the deal agreed between the UK and France during President Emmanuel Macron's state visit will mean that for each migrant the UK Government returns, we will accept another who has made a legal claim in France to asylum here. The scheme, initially a pilot, is being lauded by both countries as a ground-breaking plan which will smash the model of the people smugglers and finally tackle the small boats issue. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Now that the pomp, ceremony and excitement of Macron's state visit has subsided it is clear that this was a main purpose of his trip. Starmer's government must be aware that if they do not grasp this nettle, they risk repeating the Conservatives' mistakes. Queen Camilla, King Charles III, French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife Brigitte Macron arrive for the State Banquet at Windsor Castle last week (Picture: Aaron Chown/pool) | Getty Images Conservatives' disastrous Rwanda plan In the first half of this year alone, 20,000 people have risked their lives in small boat crossings despite all previous attempts to clamp down on them. But perhaps the biggest obstacle that the Labour government will have to overcome is convincing the public. The Conservatives' failure to tackle the issue with their disastrous and expensive Rwanda policy has simply fuelled public scepticism. This new deal with France would mean that any migrant coming here illegally, such as in a small boat, would be automatically excluded from future asylum and returned to France. Those living in France but wanting to come to the UK would be able to apply online for asylum. For every person who arrives illegally and is returned, someone who applies legally and is approved would be allowed to come to the UK through a secure route. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad At the same time, France will improve measures to intercept crossings, and both countries will increase joint enforcement actions in the Channel. In this country, the UK Government will crack down on illegal working, particularly in the gig economy, with changes in the law and new biometric technology introduced. Working with our closest and indeed one of our oldest European allies is surely the key to finally cracking these perilous crossings. The announcement has received a mixed reception with the Refugee Council saying it would provide a mechanism for a safe legal route while Asylum Matters is doubtful it will work. New relations with France I hope that it does work. We need people fleeing persecution or poverty to know that there is a safe legal route for those who qualify for asylum in this country. But equally it needs to be clear that people smuggling and exploitation of vulnerable individuals in the black economy will not be tolerated. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Critically if this initial pilot is to be successful it must be expanded. But in addressing parliament this week, President Macron found himself stood in the Royal Gallery, surrounded by paintings depicting England's glorious victories over his country at Trafalgar and Waterloo. Going forward we must hope that this new partnership is more reminiscent of Scotland's Auld Alliance with France as we face the fresh challenges of a new era.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Legacy Act halted investigations into 202 Troubles-related killings of British soldiers
Investigations into the deaths of more than 200 British soldiers were halted by the Conservatives' Northern Ireland Legacy Act, Labour will announce, as a justification for its intention to repeal the legislation. Hilary Benn, the Northern Ireland secretary, is expected to tell MPs on Monday afternoon that 202 live inquiries into the Troubles-related killings of members of the armed forces were brought to a stop in May 2024 and a further 23 involving veterans. They include the case of Pte Tony Harrison, a paratrooper from London who was shot five times in the back and killed by the IRA in 1991 while watching television with his girlfriend. His murder has never been solved. Andy Seaman, his brother, said he wanted to see Labour spell out how cases such as that of Harrison would be investigated once the Legacy Act was repealed – and hit out at the Conservatives for halting the murder inquiry in the first place. 'My brother's case was shut down when the Legacy Act passed. The opposition cannot pretend to care about the plight of victims' families – including military victims – when their actions demonstrate the precise opposite,' he said. At the same time, another group of military veterans, in association with the Conservatives, are expected to stage a protest in Whitehall – fearing Labour's plans will reopen the possibility of more prosecutions against army veterans. Conservatives sources said they believe the issue is a concern for 'red wall' voters in traditionally Labour-supporting working-class areas in Great Britain. Last week, Mark Francois, a shadow junior defence minister, accused Labour of 'selling veterans down the river' with its plans. More than 170,000 people signed a petition backed by Francois, demanding Labour not make any changes to the law that would allow Northern Ireland veterans to be prosecuted – a level which means the subject has to be debated by MPs. The debate is due to happen at Westminster Hall at 4.30pm with Benn responding for the government, demonstrating the significance of the issue. Normally, only junior ministers reply to debates in the lesser chamber. The previous government's aim was to end what it said were vexatious prosecutions against British army veterans. To do so, it passed the Legacy Act halting all but the most serious allegations involving Troubles-related cases, including killings by paramilitaries, from being investigated any further. Backlogs dating back decades mean there was never a police or coroner's investigation into a wide range of deaths during the Troubles – but the plan to halt almost all inquiries was met with opposition from both nationalist and unionist parties in Northern Ireland and the families of those affected. Emma Norton, the director of the Centre for Military Justice, who represents Pte Harrison's family, said concerns about veterans being prosecuted were exaggerated, and there had only been 'a single conviction of a veteran since the Good Friday agreement' in 1998. In September, the trial is due to begin of Soldier F, a former paratrooper, accused of two murders and five attempted murders on Bloody Sunday in 1972. Soldiers from the regiment fired on a peaceful civil rights demonstration in Derry, killing 13. A government source said the Legacy Act passed by the Conservatives 'made false and undeliverable promises to our veterans about immunity' and blocked investigations into the unsolved killings of British troops in Northern Ireland. 'That is why the Legacy Act was opposed by many, including armed forces families who lost relatives serving in Northern Ireland. Any incoming government would have had to fix it,' they added.
New Statesman
2 hours ago
- New Statesman
Compulsory voting can save British democracy
The July 2024 general election produced one of the most fragmented results in British history: while Labour won a huge majority, it did so on only 34% of the vote. Amidst a falling combined vote share for the two major parties, we saw the entrance of Reform MPs into Parliament, and the victory of historic numbers of Greens and independents. Since then, this fragmentation has only accelerated: Reform is now surging, while ex-Corbynites moot the formation of new challenger parties on the left; the two traditional parties of government both languish in the polls, commanding less than 50% support between them. With the first-past-the-post electoral system increasingly failing either to keep the old party-system in place, or to force the electorate into new coherent blocs, the traditional calls for proportional representation (PR) have grown louder. Electoral reformers argue that we need a voting system in which the public's true preferences can be given free rein, and the party system allowed to naturally evolve. While its advocates may be right that PR is an inherently fairer system, the political diagnosis behind it feels outdated. British politics is not so much defined by an institutionally-thwarted re-alignment, as by an ever more widespread phenomenon of de-alignment. Old party loyalties may be falling away, but they are not being replaced by anything new. In other words, what we are witnessing is not simply the senescence of a particular party system, but rather a more general breakdown of the relationship between citizens and the state – a breakdown that is perhaps most starkly reflected in the rising number of citizens who no longer bother voting. This is the phenomenon that the Irish political scientist Peter Mair famously diagnosed as the 'hollowing out' of democracy, in which the collapse of traditional mediating institutions, and a 'mutual retreat' of politicians and voters from the public sphere, leaves citizens disconnected from political elites, who in turn find themselves presiding over a socio-political 'void'. In the context of the Mair-ian void, PR loses its radical edge, and risks doing little more than accelerating political fragmentation, re-arranging the distribution of seats between flimsy and hollow parties, all of which struggle to mobilise voters and fail to command lasting loyalties. Those looking to remedy the crisis of UK democracy should therefore begin looking to an alternative (or perhaps complimentary), less-discussed approach to electoral reform: the introduction of compulsory voting. Currently used in 22 democracies across the world, compulsory voting works by making voting a duty, legally obligating eligible voters to cast a ballot, and issuing those who fail to do so with a small fine. In the UK, compulsory voting saw a flurry of advocacy in the New Labour years, when then-unprecedentedly low levels of general election turnout saw politicians like Peter Hain, David Blunkett, and Tom Watson turn to it as a potential solution. More recently, it has been advocated by right-wing journalists like Tim Montgomerie, centrist podcasting behemoth 'The Rest is Politics', and prominent left-wing politicians like former Welsh First Minister Mark Drakeford. Last week, a new cross-party Campaign for Compulsory Voting was established, bringing together politicians, democracy activists, and academics from across the four nations of the United Kingdom. Advocacy for compulsory voting is based on two fundamental premises. First, that the fashionable minimalist conception of democratic citizenship as consisting of nothing more than a bundle of individual rights is insufficient. The idea of compulsory voting draws instead on older notions of civic responsibility, active citizenship, and democracy as a system of mutual obligations. It is our duty as citizens to help ensure the healthy functioning of the democratic system from which we all benefit, and that means participating in elections. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Second, the case for compulsory voting is based on an understanding that within a democratic system, elections based on universal suffrage provide the central mechanism for linking individuals to the state, for aggregating public preferences, and for ensuring that governments are incentivised to serve the interests of their citizens. When voter turnout ceases to be near-universal, and instead falls to low levels, elections cease to be able to perform this function, and democracy slips into crisis. Here in the UK, we are deep into that crisis territory. The last election saw barely more than half of eligible voters participate. Within that, data from Ipsos suggests that turnout was over 10 points higher amongst white voters than ethnic minorities, over 20 points higher amongst upper-class voters than working-class voters, and over 30 points higher amongst over-65s than under-65s, and amongst homeowners than renters. The result is an unrepresentative electorate – richer, older, whiter, and more secure than the UK public at large. This in turn creates warped incentives for politicians, who are pushed by cold electoral logic to disproportionately prioritise the interests of an older, economically-insulated minority at the expense of the wider public. We have seen this play out in practice as pensioner benefits have been protected at the expense of working-age welfare, and as soaring asset-price inflation has gone unaccompanied by either GDP or real wage growth. Crucially, such outcomes only exacerbate the initial problem: stagnation and inequality drive disillusionment with democratic politics, pushing more and more voters into the arms of either extremism or abstention, and leaving vast swathes of the public both alienated and disconnected from the democratic political process. The central challenge British politics faces today is thus how to reconnect citizens with the state. The answer is unlikely to be purely constitutional – changes in how political parties, public services, and the media operate are all no doubt necessary. But political reform nonetheless has its part to play: above all, elections must once again become effective means of democratic linkage, and credible expressions of public will. For this to be the case, turnout must be both high and demographically even. With turnout as low as it is today, compulsory voting is the only reform whose impact would be on the scale necessary (in countries such as Australia where compulsory voting is used, turnout rates regularly reach over 90%). Critics will surely object that compulsory voting is illiberal, or that it represents an unacceptable imposition on personal freedom. Such arguments should quickly be dismissed: coercion and civic obligation are an inevitable and necessary feature of democratic life. We happily accept them in the form of taxes, jury duty, or the obligation to fill out the census, so why not apply the same logic to voting, the most basic democratic act of all? Citizens would still have the option of actively abstaining by spoiling their ballot, and fines imposed on non-voters are unlikely to be onerous (in Australia they are slightly under £10). Ultimately, such reservations should be seen as trifling in the face of the scale of the democratic crisis we face. What compulsory voting offers is a means of breaking the vicious cycle of low turnout, warped incentives, bad policy, and rising political disaffection. If compulsory voting feels like a muscular measure, so be it – it is simply what the moment demands. Related
