Latest news with #ToryParty
Daily Mail
21 hours ago
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Nigel Farage may wipe out what's left of the Tory Party, but in doing so he'll destroy our last defence against the anti-British Left: PETER HITCHENS
What if Nigel Farage manages to destroy the Tory Party, but cannot replace it with anything better? This nasty outcome was predicted this week by Henry Hill of the Conservative Home website, and it is all too possible. Most of us are now sick to the teeth of the Conservative Party, patriotic and slightly sensible in opposition; unpatriotic, politically correct and jaw-droppingly useless in office.
Daily Mail
4 days ago
- Health
- Daily Mail
Doctors strikes will be banned under the Tories like police and prison officers, vows Kemi Badenoch
Doctors strikes will be banned under a Conservative government in the same way as police and prison officers, Kemi Badenoch has vowed. The Tory party leader today announced she would amend the law to bar the protests as she insisted the British Medical Association (BMA) is 'out of control'. It comes following 11 strikes in the past 18 months which Ms Badenoch said had resulted in patients dying. Her comments were made on GB News amid the ongoing five-day series of strikes by resident doctors in support of a pay claim. Urging Sir Keir Starmer to take similar action, Ms Badenoch said: 'The BMA has become militant, these strikes are going too far, and it is time for action. 'Doctors do incredibly important work. Medicine is a vocation – not just a job. That is why in government we offered a fair deal that supported doctors, but protected taxpayers too. 'These strikes will have a significant economic effect, but they will also mean cancelled operations, worry for families of the sick, and suffering for those who are unwell. We know that previous strike action by doctors even led to some patients losing their lives. 'That is why Conservatives are stepping in, and setting out common sense proposals to protect patients, and the public finances. And we are making an offer in the national interest – we will work with the Government to face down the BMA to help protect patients and the NHS.' Doctors hold lives in their hands. No one should lose critical healthcare because of strikes but that's what's happening now. That's why a Conservative government led by me would ban doctors' strikes, just like we do the army and police. — Kemi Badenoch (@KemiBadenoch) July 27, 2025 Police, the military and prison officers are banned from taking strike action under the 1992 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act. The Conservatives would amend this to include doctors. Action short of a strike such as working to rule and banning overtime would still be permitted - with doctors remaining able to unionise through the BMA, like the police, which has the police federation to represent members' interests. Minimum service levels have also been proposed by the Conservatives, which would aim to ensure a basic service provision in not just healthcare but other essential sectors like education and transport. The party has argued proposed changes would bring the UK in line with other nations such as Australia and Canada who have tighter restrictions on doctors strikes, as well as European nations like Greece, Italy and Portugal that have minimum service levels laws in place across their health services. Under Australia's Fair Work Act 2009, the Fair Work Commission is required to suspend or terminate strike action that endangers the safety, health or welfare of the population. Attempts to block doctors' strike action are likely to be challenged in the courts, specifically under Article 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Police officers have been banned from taking strike action since 1919 when the Police Act made it a criminal offence and all armed forces members are bound by the King's Regulations which make unionisation illegal. The Conservatives' proposed primary legislation would restrict the ability of for doctors at all levels to engage in strike action as regulated by the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. This would be done through exempting doctors from the part of the act that gives the right to strike. The Conservatives said they will also look at introducing back-to-work orders in a similar vein to other European countries. Stuart Andrew MP, Shadow Health Secretary, said: 'The Conservative Party has always respected the important work that healthcare professionals do, but enough is enough. 'The BMA has taken our NHS hostage and used this Labour Government's weakness to demand more and more – with taxpayers and patients left to suffer the consequences. 'As our health service faces yet another round of damaging strike action, the Conservatives are calling time. If Labour were serious about cutting waiting lists and delivering the health system our country deserves, rather than just kowtowing to the unions, they would back our plans.'
Telegraph
20-07-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Suella Braverman reveals blueprint for leaving ECHR
Suella Braverman has unveiled her legal blueprint for how the UK could quit the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and accused Strasbourg of 'judicial imperialism.' In a 56-page document, the former home secretary and attorney general says the UK should rewrite the 1998 Belfast Good Friday Agreement, stripping out ECHR references and replacing them with domestic UK and common law human rights principles. Setting out the detailed legislative changes, she rejects 'apocalyptic' claims by the left of the Tory party and centrist politicians that this would threaten peace in Northern Ireland. Writing in The Telegraph, Mrs Braverman says there is barely a 'single sphere of national life' left untouched by the 'creeping remit' of Strasbourg, from blocking the deportation of foreign criminals because of their family life to enabling the 'relentless persecution' of veterans and 'shackling our soldiers abroad.' She adds: 'This is not simply judicial activism; it is a form of judicial imperialism. The time for debating whether we should leave is over. The question now is how we leave.' Mrs Braverman, who was the first Cabinet minister to publicly call for the UK to quit the ECHR in 2022, is understood to have secured cross-party backing for the proposals from key figures on the right of the Tory party, senior DUP and Reform politicians and some within blue Labour. It goes further than the Tories under Kemi Badenoch, who has said it is 'likely' she will seek to leave but has commissioned a review by shadow attorney general Lord Wolfson into the impact of any potential withdrawal. It aligns Mrs Braverman with Reform UK, which has promised to quit the ECHR. She has pledged to remain in the Tory party but has backed an electoral pact with Nigel Farage's party. Her husband, Rael, quit Reform last week after attacks by its former chair Zia Yusuf on her and Robert Jenrick, who also supports quitting the ECHR. Tory peer Lord Frost said: 'We all understand that leaving the ECHR is now essential. As Suella rightly argues, the real question is not 'whether' but 'how': how it can be done without disrupting our international relations or compromising the integrity of the United Kingdom. 'This bold, clear plan shows exactly how we can shake off the control of the ECHR's court and jurisprudence, and finally reclaim the sovereignty that Brexit promised.' Richard Tice, the Reform deputy leader, said: 'This is a valuable and welcome policy paper on the vital objective of leaving the ECHR. Until we leave the ECHR, we are unable to save the UK from inexorable decline in so many important areas' Former Northern Ireland first minister Baroness Foster said Mrs Braverman's proposals were a 'starting point for discussion and a pathway to restoring the primacy of our common law and the sovereignty of our Parliament whilst also securing the integrity of the UK.' In her legal document, Mrs Braverman admits the ECHR is more entwined with law in Northern Ireland than elsewhere. However, to leave it as part of the Good Friday Agreement would mean 'unacceptable further divergence' between Northern Ireland and the UK. She proposes amendments to the Northern Ireland Act to remove references to ECHR rights and replace them with new provisions ensuring continuity of rights in common law. She argues that the Agreement has already been modified five times since 2006 through supplementary deals. 'There is no obligation within the Belfast Agreement to remain a party to the ECHR, only to protect rights in Northern Ireland. This can be achieved through domestic mechanisms, including the common law,' she said. Mrs Braverman says the changes should be underpinned by four principles: legal uniformity between Northern Ireland and Britain; democratic accountability where Parliament and UK courts, not Strasbourg, determined human rights; consultation with Northern Irish communities; and honouring the spirit of the 1998 Agreement. To quit, the UK would invoke article 58 of the ECHR, setting in train a six month transition process during which the UK should engage 'respectfully but firmly' with the Irish Government and Northern Irish parties to update and renegotiate the Good Friday agreement. If some parties resist, it would be entirely within the UK Parliament's sovereign powers – as with the Windsor Framework – to proceed with domestic legislation amending the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to enact the changes,' she says. At the same time, the UK would repeal the Human Rights Act, which embedded the ECHR in UK law, and enshrine in UK law the principle that Strasbourg judgments no longer bind UK courts or public authorities. Mrs Braverman says: 'The ECHR's remit has become expansive, ideological, and hostile to the very idea of national democracy. It is time to acknowledge this. And act.' The debate is no longer whether, but how, we leave By Suella Braverman For some years now, the case for leaving the European Convention on Human Rights has ceased to be controversial – at least among those willing to see things as they are. That case has been rehearsed exhaustively, not least in these very pages. It is a case grounded not merely in law or policy, but in something deeper: the democratic instinct of a free people to govern themselves without supervision by unelected, unaccountable judges in Strasbourg. During my time as attorney general, I saw first-hand the way in which the European Court of Human Rights has contorted itself in pursuit of an ideology foreign to our constitutional tradition. The moment that court blocked our ability to remove illegal migrants to Rwanda – a sovereign policy decision by a sovereign nation – was, for me, the final straw. Enough. Let us be clear about what we are dealing with. A court that rules foreign criminals cannot be deported because of their family life. That shields terrorists from justice. That permits violent protestors to vandalise with impunity. Enables the relentless persecution of British veterans – men who risked life and limb to uphold the peace in Northern Ireland – while real threats go unchallenged. A court that shackles our soldiers abroad and unpicks our policies at home. From planning law to immigration control, from welfare reform to environmental regulation, there is barely a single sphere of national life left untouched by the creeping remit of Strasbourg. This is not simply judicial activism; it is a form of judicial imperialism. The time for debating whether we should leave is over. The question now is how we leave. My new paper with Guy Dampier at the Prosperity Institute offers a comprehensive roadmap to reclaiming our sovereignty and restoring constitutional self-respect. The main argument used to block any discussion of withdrawal is the supposed impossibility of doing so under the terms of the Belfast Good Friday Agreement. We are told, in increasingly apocalyptic tones, that departure from the ECHR would unravel the peace. This is legally wrong and politically hollow. The Agreement makes reference to the ECHR, but it does not require the UK to remain a party in perpetuity. Indeed, the Belfast Agreement – hailed at the time as the final word on peace – has already been torn up, amended, and repurposed more times than its authors might have imagined. The Northern Ireland Protocol, imposed in direct contradiction to the spirit of that Agreement, did not provoke collapse. As the late Lord Trimble warned, it amounted to a breach – and yet life carried on. There is room, therefore, for adaptation once again. We set out four principles to manage this transition. First, legal uniformity: there must not be a two tier human rights regime within the United Kingdom; Northern Ireland must not be left behind. Second, democratic accountability: our Parliament and courts, not Strasbourg, should determine the content and enforcement of those rights. Third, genuine consultation with all communities in Northern Ireland. And fourth, peace through fairness – honouring the spirit, if not always the letter of the 1998 Agreement. Once Article 58 of the Convention is invoked – a straightforward legal mechanism – the UK will enter a transition phase. During this period, the government should engage, respectfully but firmly, with the Irish government and Northern Irish parties to update and, where necessary, renegotiate the relevant portions of the Belfast Agreement. If some parties resist, it would be entirely within the UK Parliament's sovereign powers – as with the Windsor Framework – to proceed with domestic legislation amending the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to enact the changes. But this is not just about Northern Ireland. The restoration of sovereignty requires action across the UK's legal architecture. That means: repealing the Human Rights Act 1998; enshrining in law the principle that Strasbourg judgments no longer bind UK courts or public authorities; reforming judicial review to limit the reach of activist jurisprudence; amending the devolution statutes for Scotland and Wales to reflect the new constitutional settlement and renegotiating the references to the ECHR in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement with the EU. The essence of our liberty Would this mean the end of human rights in Britain? Only to those who have forgotten – or never understood – that this country did not discover liberty in 1950. Long before the ECHR was drafted, our freedoms were protected by a rich body of statute and common law. As Lord Hoffmann once put it, the Convention did not create rights; it reflected the common law. Our system was already protecting people from torture, arbitrary detention, and state overreach – not through foreign fiat, but through Parliament and centuries of common law evolution. Unlike the codified, bureaucratic, top-down systems of continental Europe, the British legal tradition begins with the individual. What is not prohibited is permitted. That is the essence of our liberty – and the foundation of our legal and political culture. To depart the ECHR is not to dismantle rights, but to place their guardianship back where it belongs: with our elected representatives and our own courts. If those representatives err, the people can remove them. If judges overstep, Parliament can correct them. That is not chaos. That is democracy. This will not be easy. We should not pretend otherwise. There will be resistance from vested interests: political, legal, and diplomatic. But sovereignty is not the path of least resistance. It is the path of self-respect. The ECHR, like so many post-war institutions, was born out of noble intentions. But intentions alone do not justify perpetuity. Its remit has become expansive, ideological, and hostile to the very idea of national democracy. It is time to acknowledge this. And act. We have laid out the roadmap to freedom. The path is there for those with the courage to walk it. The only question that remains is this: Who among us still believes that the British people are fit to govern themselves – and will act accordingly?
Time Out
18-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Time Out
Adeel Akhtar (Angad)
This nihilistic comedy about a British Asian politician who seizes his chance to become leader of the opposition is funny and frustrating in equal measures. In the opening scenes, first time playwright Shaan Sahota (she also works as a doctor!) does a decent job of spinning an In The Thick of It -style yarn about Angad (Adeel Akhtar), a very junior British Sikh shadow minister who suddenly finds himself in play for the leadership of what is implicitly the Tory Party. The opening scenes thrum with an energy not dissimilar to a previous National Theatre triumph, James Graham's This House, as it plunges us into an amusingly compromised world of sweary spads, cocky whips and malleable MPs. Helena Wilson is scene stealingly entertaining as the apparently humble Angad's shark-like head of comms Petra. It's fun. But then Sahota introduces what is essentially an entire second main storyline, this time revolving around Angad's late father's will and his family's lasting trauma at their patriarch's unfeeling treatment of them. We see Angad playing the role of the understanding if somewhat distant brother to his GP eldest sister Gyan (Thusitha Jayasundera) and hilariously highly strung middle sister Malika (Shelley Conn, superb). And then we see him calmly accept the will's shock contents, much to the horror and fury of his siblings. These two threads – cynical political comedy and more sensitive look at the traumatising legacy of a patriarchal upbringing – are by no means impossible to square. Akhtar's Angad displays broadly the same characteristics in each: a genuinely nice, humble guy whose head is instantly turned the second opportunity presents itself. But it's not enough to make The Estate align with itself. In Daniel Raggett's production the comedy bits are so broad as to undercut the more sensitive bits. It feels like two different shows crashing into one another, bound only by a corrosive cynicism about politicians. But on that last note it feels weirdly detached from the real world: there's no mention of Rishi Sunak, Reform or who the actual ruling party of the day is. I'm not even sure any real life politicians or political events are namechecked at all. I realise the intention is to avoid getting bogged down in political detail, but there is something peculiar about its blend of detachment from and immense cynicism toward contemporary British politics. In the Thick of It was very recognisably a version of the late New Labour era, but the 2025 Tory Party is an astoundingly hot mess and The Estate suffers from only wanting to engage with it in very general terms. Don't get me wrong: there are two pretty good plays here. The 'comedy' plot may lack in specifics but it has some very smart stuff about the way Parliament is composed of people from such an unhealthily compressed social sphere that they have all known each other since they were kids, and were literally groomed for power. The 'serious' plot paints the entire family as so traumatised by their overbearing late dad that they're each damaged to the point of dysfunction. It reckons more sensitively with the family's status as second generation immigrants and the lasting shadow of 'traditional' values. Either would have made a really satisfying full length play, or even a double bill of shorter plays. But the two just don't mesh properly: The Estate seesaws between amusingly cynical and just plain bleak; Aktar's Angad – even by this country's Trussian standards – just too much of a public liability to possibly be made LOTO, at least by the end. You're allowed a bit of latitude in a comedy of course but Raggett's production is only half that. It's decent, but too disjointed to serve as a classic debut.
Telegraph
10-07-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Most Tories aren't welcome in Reform, says Lee Anderson
Most Conservative MPs will not be welcome in Reform UK, Lee Anderson has insisted. The Reform chief whip and MP for Ashfield said most of the Tory parliamentary party would only want to cross the floor to 'save their jobs'. It comes after Sir Jake Berry and David Jones this week became the first two former Cabinet ministers to defect to Reform from the Tories. Mr Anderson entered the Commons as a Tory MP in 2019 but was suspended in February 2024 amid a row over comments he made about Sir Sadiq Khan, the Labour Mayor of London. He went on to join Reform the following month, becoming their first representative in the House of Commons. Nigel Farage's party has since surged in the polls, and currently leads the Tories by an average of almost 10 points, while also enjoying a narrow lead over Labour. In an interview with The Telegraph's politics newsletter, Mr Anderson was asked how many of the current 120 MPs Reform would be willing to welcome. 'Most of the best ones lost their seats' He replied: 'Not many, because they'd just be coming to save their jobs. But let me tell you about the makeup of the Tory Party at the moment. 'Most of the best ones lost their seats, a lot of my good friends lost their seats in the Red Wall. You've got 120, you've got 30 wets, you've got 30 who would consider aligning with our politics. 'And the [others] haven't got a clue who they are, they just want to be MPs. So I think they're toast, mate. They don't know what they stand for.' Announcing his defection on Wednesday night, Sir Jake suggested the Tories had governed no better than Labour and accused both parties of having wrecked the country. Mr Anderson also accepted there would be 'bumps in the road' for Reform after James McMurdock announced over the weekend he had permanently quit the party. The MP for South Basildon and East Thurrock said he had decided to stay on in the Commons as an independent MP following allegations surrounding his business dealings during the pandemic. Despondency about Tory prospects Reform is understood to also be considering whether to welcome Jonathan Gullis, a former Tory minister. No formal conversations between the party and Mr Gullis have taken place so far, but The Telegraph understands he is sympathetic to its positions on a number of issues. On Wednesday night, Mr Gullis told GB News he could 'understand' why Sir Jake had left the Conservatives and said he was more despondent than ever about Tory prospects. He has previously called for Mr Farage to receive a peerage and suggested last year that Reform was attempting to convince him to cross the floor. 'The trajectory is up' Pointing to Reform's success at May's local elections, in which it won control of 10 councils and two mayoralties, Mr Anderson said: 'We're only going one way, the trajectory is up. 'We're a growing party, we're a startup party, we're learning. There's bumps in the road, there's going to be casualties on the path to victory in 2029. 'And what we're doing at the moment is we have a weekly meeting with our chairman, with Nigel, with the other MPs. We're developing policy behind closed doors, and that will be released as the election gets nearer and nearer.' Mr Anderson said he had been 'mobbed' by 15 teenagers from Birmingham who were on a visit to the Houses of Parliament early this week, and said every single one had been a Reform supporter. He added: 'The young people in this country are rebelling. They've had enough, they've seen what's happening to this country and they're thinking they've had enough.' ' They love Nigel Farage, he has a huge following on TikTok, on his social media. They want something different.' Asked whether he would back a change to a proportional voting system, a commitment made in the Reform manifesto last year, Mr Anderson said he was in two minds on the issue. Speaking during a general election campaign event, Mr Farage declared he wanted to see the first past the post voting system scrapped and that there would be huge public support for such a move. PR 'a much fairer system' But Mr Anderson said: 'It is party policy. I'm mixed on this personally, I mean it's up for debate, we're a democratic party. I suppose we'll come to a decision on this. Look, I see the benefits of PR [proportional representation]. It's a much fairer system, [it would have won us] a lot more MPs. 'But you know what? We also have to think about it very, very carefully, if we had PR in place, we've got [Jeremy] Corbyn now and Zarah Sultana thinking about forming a political party with the Gaza independents probably sat behind him, joining as well. 'That would mean that old Jezza, he'd probably get 60 or 70 MPs as well. And you know what? That's a dangerous place to be, and I think personally to have 60 or 70 of them in the chamber, maybe having the balance of power in some votes, that scares me a little bit. So I think we have to be very, very careful.'
