Latest news with #EdwardHeath
Yahoo
3 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Grand Wiltshire home of former Prime Minister gets top award
A former Prime Minister's home has been been recognised as one of the top visitor attractions in the country. Arundells, the former home of Conservative leader Sir Edward Heath, has been awarded VisitEngland's Quality Assured Visitor Attraction status. The historic house, located in Cathedral Close, Salisbury, was given an overall quality score of 86 per cent following its first inspection by VisitEngland. The house was described as "unexpectedly captivating" with a "refreshingly personal and authentic" atmosphere and "immersive charm." Read more: Why Thames Water was hit with record breaking fine by Ofwat The volunteers were also praised for their warmth and knowledge. The report also highlighted the well-maintained gardens, preserved interiors, and the unique opportunity to step into the private world of one of Britain's former Prime Ministers. Luke Futcher, events and marketing manager at Arundells, said: "We are delighted to receive this national recognition from VisitEngland. "It reflects the care and commitment of our staff and volunteers, and the distinctive, high-quality experience we strive to offer every visitor." This recognition adds to a successful year for Arundells. Earlier in 2025, the house achieved Arts Council England Accredited Museum status, and in the spring, it won the Visitor Experience Award at the Salisbury Business Excellence Awards. Arundells was originally a medieval canonry, with the first recorded occupant being Henry of Blunston, Archdeacon of Dorset, who lived there from 1291 until his death in 1316. The house has seen many occupants over the centuries, including Leonard Bilson, who was pilloried and imprisoned for acts of sorcery and magic in 1571, and Sir Richard Mompesson, who undertook major restoration works in 1609. The name "Arundells" comes from James Everard Arundell, son of the 6th Lord Arundell, who married John Wyndham's daughter, Ann. The Arundells were a distinguished Roman Catholic family. Read more: Building 700 homes at old golf course 'best option' for the area Arundells hosted the Godolphin Girls School (and later a boys boarding school) between 1839 and 1844. During the Second World War, the house was used by the Red Cross as a centre for their library service and as a wool depot. The property fell into disrepair and demolition was considered following a long period of neglect. Extensive refurbishment works were undertaken by Mr and Mrs Robert Hawkings in 1964. Sir Edward Heath, who lived at Arundells from 1985 until his death in 2005, bequeathed the house to the Charitable Foundation set up in his name. He wanted as many people as possible to "share the beauty of Arundells" and enjoy his diverse and personal collection of artwork, photographs, sailing memorabilia and political cartoons.
Scotsman
22-05-2025
- Business
- Scotsman
Why Scottish fishermen see Keir Starmer as the new Boris Johnson
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... 'The third Prime Minister after Edward Heath and [Boris] Johnson to betray the industry.' If you were looking for a summation of the feelings towards Keir Starmer from the Scottish fishing fleet this week, you could not do much better than this from Elspeth MacDonald, chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. It is not hard to see why. Fishermen were hoping for a reset after the incompetence of the previous Tory government in protecting their interests. Instead, Keir Starmer's government has rolled over current arrangements for fishing until 2038. I fear that Labour have not yet grappled with the sense of betrayal that is building in fishing communities as a result. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Perhaps we should not be surprised, however, given that in his evidence to the parliamentary committee that I chair this week, UK Cabinet minister Steve Reed seemed to think that this was in fact a 'reasonably good deal for the UK fishing sector'. This is, to put it mildly, not an entirely universal opinion along the coastline of the United Kingdom. Keir Starmer and Boris Johnson have gone down in British fishing history as two of the three Prime Ministers to 'betray' the industry (Picture: Toby Melville/WPA pool) | Getty Images Fishing's preferred outcome Mr Reed also believed that yearly negotiations – the default status to which we would have reverted next year under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement – would have been 'very damaging' for the industry. That would be news to fishing organisations themselves, who said from the start that yearly negotiations were their first preference as an outcome, as it would give maximum leverage over quota going forward – and that this leverage should only be conceded in return for a higher proportion of quota in the long term. It can be challenging to negotiate successfully when you do not even know your own side's interests. Criticism of this agreement is not hard to come by – though it often seems to come from those who have a pretty poor record of understanding or standing up for fishing interests. Nigel Farage, of Reform, condemned the deal from a safe distance while on holiday in France – no doubt the local poissonniers appreciated his custom. We should not really be surprised given that, when I led a debate on the fishing industry in Parliament last year, not a single Reform MP could be bothered to show up. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Tory mistakes won't be forgotten The Tory response was even more brass-of-neck, given that Starmer's deal on fisheries replicates exactly their own cackhanded agreement of 2020 – they must think fishermen have short memories indeed. It is precisely their own mishandling of negotiations five years ago which has given Labour political cover to make the deal that they did. Now the stench of Boris Johnson's bungled 2020 agreement will linger over us for a generation. If there is a silver lining to this dark deal for fishermen, it will be in reduced red tape for trade and some stability for key export markets in the EU. Those meagre gains, however, are still far from the 'sea of opportunity' that was offered in the past. Fishermen are past tired of false promises from parties which use our coastal communities as political props, to be abandoned when they are no longer convenient. Keir Starmer may not make quite as bombastic an impression as Boris Johnson did, but the sense of betrayal amongst fishing communities is burning just as fiercely.
Telegraph
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
The problem isn't Kemi, it's the Tory Party
The knives are out for Kemi Badenoch following a recent poll that put the Conservatives in a dismal fourth place behind the Liberal Democrats. It is perfectly natural that politicians of whatever party consider who might be best placed to maximise the number of seats their party might win at the next election and therefore maximise the number of votes they themselves might secure at the ballot box. So far, so logical. But this is where the Conservative Party starts to lose its bearings and, frankly, its senses. It all began with Margaret Thatcher. It was she who started off this modern Tory fashion for challenging incumbent leaders. Until 1975, nothing of the sort had ever happened before, but only because the mechanism for electing leaders in the first place had only been in existence for a decade. The oldest and most successful political party in the world had only introduced election for its leaders in 1965, and it is perhaps significant that the first elected leader of the party – Edward Heath – was also the first leader to have been usurped from that position by a rival. And the period of relative peace between Thatcher and her back benches from 1975 until 1989 was only ensured by the three consecutive general election victories she delivered, an element which Badenoch does not have at her disposal. The party's MPs have grown used, since the late 1980s, to leadership challenges and changes, but few would conclude that a system that even allows for such challenges to destabilise successive governments can have had a positive impact on its electoral appeal. The idiocy of switching leaders so frequently seems to have become almost instinctive among Tory MPs, and certainly expected by a ravenous media. The Conservatives now behave like one of Pavlov's dogs, pressing a paw down on the button marked 'vote of confidence' whenever it hears the bell signalling a disappointing polling result. Might it not make more sense for the party – particularly its MPs, who have the sole power to trigger a leadership election – to consider a few other factors rather than obsess about the short-term fluctuations of voters' opinions? First, where is the stock-take of the Tories' 14 years in office? Has anyone even dared to suggest where things might have gone wrong, what actions and policies have earned them the disdain of the electorate which resulted in their humiliation last July? Second, once such a stock-take has been completed and conclusions drawn, what should the party now be for? What is its aim? What kind of country does it want to shape, to lead? What are its priorities? And how should it deal with Reform? As far as can be seen so far, none of these questions has been answered, nor has any attempt been made to atone for the disastrous record of the 2010-2024 Government. Third, who could replace Badenoch? It is not enough to moan about the success, or lack thereof, of the incumbent. Labour MPs did that, fruitlessly, in the last two years of Gordon Brown's premiership, but in the absence of someone willing to stand as an alternative, the 'rebellion' against him never stood a chance. Where is the alternative to Badenoch and, more urgently, why does he believe he would do any better than she? What unique perspective would he bring to the leadership that Badenoch has set her face against? Where is the polling evidence that he (or, conceivably, she) would be significantly more popular and inspiring than what the party already has? Such a candidate should have to demonstrate that another change in leadership in his favour would generate more than a mere handful of percentage points added to the Conservatives' current disastrous polling. But there is an alternative analysis: Badenoch, or indeed any potential leader, is not the problem. The problem is the party itself. Having become comfortable as the only centre-Right alternative to the Labour Party, the Tories fell into the old Harold Wilson trap of assuming that conservatism was whatever a Conservative government did. Record immigration? Record high taxation? Unprecedented interference in individuals' lifestyle choices? The unleashing of gender ideology across the civil service and the public sector? By conventional assessment, none of it was 'conservative'. But it was certainly Conservative, because it all happened under that party's watch. Was that record a giant, unintended mistake? Or was it all unavoidable, with ministers in Whitehall unable to escape their civil servants' influence? If the latter is the case, then perhaps the Tories are, after all, better consigned to history. They had a good run, they played an essential role in the political and societal development of this nation, but their time has come to an end. If the former, if mistakes made can be admitted, apologised for and new policy solutions developed that will repair the damage, then maybe – and it's a huge maybe – the voters will one day give them another chance to make amends. In which case, the replacement of Badenoch will make zero difference to the task the Conservatives have before them. Another leadership challenge, another vote by permanently disgruntled party members, will be seen, accurately, as just another spasm of self-interest, the indulgence of a party that has come to the end of its useful existence.
Telegraph
19-05-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
Labour is handing back control to the EU
Never in the history of human compromise has one side conceded so much for so little in return. The deal agreed by the Prime Minister in London yesterday is Britain's most shameful capitulation since Edward Heath took us into the then EEC half a century ago. Britain will, in many respects, have reverted to the status of a non-voting member of the European Union. In opposition Sir Keir Starmer was not only a Remainer but a passionate advocate of a second referendum. In office, he has found a way to bring the UK back into 'dynamic alignment' with Europe without bothering to consult the electorate again. This deal is only the first step towards rejoining the EU, but if Sir Keir has his way, Britain will be drawn ever more deeply back into the orbit of Brussels. Far from being 'back on the world stage', Britain is giving up its hard-won independence – and will pay the EU a blank cheque for the privilege. The administrative costs of the deal will be agreed 'in the future', but the Swiss, who have a similar arrangement, pay almost €1 billion per year. Sir Keir wants us to believe that his Brexit reset will bring down supermarket bills, create jobs and protect borders. He insists that the deal is a 'pragmatic' one: on agri-food and veterinary standards, youth mobility and passport e-gates, energy and steel, defence and border security. Sir Keir told journalists at Lancaster House that this historic 'first UK-EU summit' was not about 'reopening old wounds'. It was, he said, 'time to move on from the stale old debates and political fights' over Brexit. But the man who wants to go down in history as 'the first post-Brexit Prime Minister' is more likely to be remembered as a latter-day apostle of appeasement. No wonder that Ursula von der Leyen, the Commission President, was beaming. She had got everything she wanted from the summit. The European Court of Justice in Luxembourg (ECJ) – unmentioned at the carefully managed post-summit press conference – is back in charge. Dynamic alignment, indeed, is the deal's animating principle. Britain is once again a rule-taker, obediently signing up to EU regulations on everything from food standards to emissions trading. By doing so, we will find ourselves in breach of the free trade agreements we have signed with India, the United States and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. With dynamic alignment, the UK will find itself tied into future, unknown European legislation under the federalist European judicial system. Sir Keir's cavalier approach to our fisheries is typical. The agreement negotiated five years ago by Boris Johnson and David Frost took back control of our waters, and Keir sold it out. Next year, the EU would have been forced to renounce its access to British fisheries. The new deal gives European trawlers the right to plunder our seas for another 12 years. Sir Keir insists that most people in the fishing industry are happy because they can sell their seafood to the EU, but that has not been the general reaction to his deal. The majority of fishermen feel that they have been sacrificed yet again – and the lifting of red tape by Brussels merely shows how arbitrary and punitive its non-tariff barriers erected after Brexit really are. The Prime Minister is evidently proud of the SPS agreement, covering a wide range of food, agriculture and hygiene standards, because it is permanent. But the fact is that the UK has surrendered control over fishing in exchange for vague assurances. By submitting to rules, we will lose opportunities Moreover, it is unclear whether hitherto excluded British products, such as sausages, will indeed gain access to EU markets. Nor does the rest of the deal inspire confidence that the Labour Government has British interests at heart. The youth mobility scheme, which Ursula von der Leyen referred to as 'Erasmus-Plus', has no limits on numbers and no price tag. Given that there are some 80 million EU citizens aged between 18 and 30, this new influx of cheap labour could potentially be huge – as could the cost of subsidising them to study at our universities. What about the defence and security part of the agreement? This is the least specific section of it. While Sir Keir and his new best friend 'Ursula' kept mentioning the possibility of British arms manufacturers bidding for a share of SAFE, the European defence fund, no actual figures were mentioned. It is clear that French resistance to UK competition has yet to be overcome. If the benefits for our defence industry are hard to discern, the same is true of emissions trading. While Ms von der Leyen boasted of establishing a 'level playing field', in truth Britain is once again being sucked into the rigid energy and environmental rules imposed by Brussels. This is Ed Miliband's nightmarish net zero framework writ large. If the Tories under Theresa May had understood Brexit better, we might not have ended up squandering the benefits of regaining national sovereignty. But Kemi Badenoch is right to call this deal a 'surrender'. She now has a chance to restore the reputation of her party by mounting an effective campaign against Labour's realignment with the EU. Worst of all, there will be no democratic control over the policy areas now conceded by Sir Keir. Parliament will be powerless to prevent a ratchet effect reminiscent of Hayek's Road to Serfdom. Ursula von der Leyen's 'roadmap' leads in only one direction: total submission to Brussels.
Daily Mail
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
QUENTIN LETTS: Multiculturalism has done far more to fan racial tensions than Enoch Powell ever did
Who was Enoch Powell? With his evocative name again electrifying headlines, this basic question needs examining. Why was Powell – why is Powell – so controversial? And what does his lasting infamy say about today's politics? Raw facts first. Enoch Powell (1912-1998) was a member of Edward Heath's shadow cabinet in 1968 when he made a speech about immigration. It became known as the 'Rivers of Blood' speech because it concluded with Powell comparing himself to a figure in Latin poetry who saw 'the River Tiber foaming with much blood'.
