Boris Johnson insists sleaze allegations will not affect ballot box at by-elections
Boris Johnson has insisted sleaze allegations levelled at the Conservatives will not affect voters’ choice in upcoming by-elections.
The prime minister visited Sidcup on Friday afternoon ahead of a vote next month to replace former minister James Brokenshire who died of cancer last month.
He said the local candidate in Old Bexley and Sidcup was strong enough to mean voters will back the Tories.
James Brokenshire’s death has meant a by-election is happening in Old Bexley and Sidcup
Asked whether he feared public concern over standards would lose the Conservatives the Sidcup by-election, Mr Johnson said: “No, because Louie French is running a great campaign on the big issues that matter to people.
“(He is) building on the legacy of James Brokenshire, ensuring that Queen Mary Hospital has ever better faculties and making sure that we have ever safer streets in Greater London.”
Follow the Daily podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, Spreaker
The PM’s faith in his party comes after leaked text messages seen by the Times suggested Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries accused fellow Tories of peddling “totally not true” predictions that the sleaze allegations over second jobs would hurt the party at the ballot box.
However, new polling has the Tories losing their lead over Labour, or it being greatly reduced.
A YouGov poll carried out this week found the Conservatives and Labour would have an equal 35% of the vote share, while two thirds of voters view the Tories as “very sleazy”.
Another survey by Redfield and Wilton Strategies on Wednesday put Labour two points ahead of the Conservatives.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Govt ‘needs to do better’ on sleaze
There is also suggestion of tension between Tory MPs elected in 2019 and more established MPs over the government forcing MPs to vote against suspending former cabinet minister Owen Paterson after he was found guilty of breaching lobbying rules.
Conservative MP James Sunderland, who was elected in 2019, said there was a “bit of tension” between the two groups and said the row, which he said had divided his party, had provided Labour with an opportunity to gain ground.
Mr Sunderland said: “The left are not in government, they want to be in government, and they’re looking for weakness.
“And I think in many ways, what has happened over the last week or so has provided that opportunity for them.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
MPs who break rules ‘should be punished’ – PM
He added that the Tories need to “restore” their “reputational integrity” over the criticism.
Lord Evans, chairman of the committee on Standards in Public Life, argued that the public does care about issues such as standards.
“Standards matter for our democracy, they matter for our economic prosperity, and for our international influence and our foreign policy,” the former MI5 chief said.
“The past week has shown that standards do matter to the public. Ethical standards are important for making democracy work. The public does care about this.”
The Conservatives are also facing a by-election next month in Mr Paterson’s North Shropshire constituency after he resigned.
Digital asset-focused fintech firm LevelField Financial said it has secured conditional regulatory approval to acquire Chicago-based Burling Bank, marking one of the most notable crypto-banking acquisitions in recent months.
The move could see LevelField become the first Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation-insured chartered bank to offer certain crypto-integrated banking services across all US states and territories, LevelField said in a statement on Monday. Details of the deal weren’t disclosed.
The approval from the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation puts Burling Bank one step closer to being renamed LevelField Bank. The parties are still awaiting approval from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve to become a bank holding company.
The newly-branded LevelField would seek to offer 24/7/365 crypto-banking services, including Bitcoin (BTC)-backed loans, Bitcoin rewards credit and debit cards, as well as digital asset trading and custody services.
Burling Bank is a relatively small commercial bank, with around $196 million in net assets and roughly $158 million in customer deposits, according to Visbanking data.
LevelField will focus on serving businesses in under-banked sectors, all while benefiting from the security and regulatory oversight of the US banking system, CEO Gene A. Grant II said.
“Today’s approval is an important milestone for LevelField. I am grateful to our investors and partners for backing the patient, disciplined work it took to meet the necessary supervisory standards that protect consumers and businesses and make the US the home of the world leading banking system.”
Crypto industry’s relationship with banks remain tense
The move also strengthens ties between the crypto and banking sectors in the US, which continue to face friction despite a recent rise in institutional adoption.
For example, US banking groups have expressed concern that widespread use of yield-bearing stablecoins could drain deposits from the banking system, which they rely on to fund loans and offer competitive savings products.
Stablecoins could force $6.6 trillion to leave banking system
Those fears have been backed by the US Treasury Department, which estimated in April that widespread stablecoin adoption could lead to over $6.6 trillion in deposit outflows from the traditional banking system.
Related: Cboe to launch perpetual-style Bitcoin and Ether futures in US
The Federal Reserve also has a cautious stance toward crypto, particularly since the likes of crypto-friendly banks Silvergate Bank, Silicon Valley Bank, and Signature Bank fell bankrupt or were forced into liquidation in early 2023.
Magazine: Good luck suing crypto exchanges, market makers over the flash crash
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has announced controversial plans for the UK to embrace a “Denmark-style” asylum system, aimed at making Britain less attractive to illegal immigrants and making deportations easier.
The hardline “zero asylum seekers” approach taken by Danish prime minister Mette Frederiksen in 2019 was unusual for a centre-left party.
But her Social Democrats gained seats at the 2022 election, while the populist right-wing Danish People’s Party finished twelfth – having been second in 2015 and third in 2019.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen visits British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, in London in February, 2025. Pic: Reuters
With Nigel Farage’s Reform UK currently leading comfortably in national polls, you can imagine why Labour are interested in what Ms Frederiksen is selling.
But how comparable are Denmark’s immigration challenges to those in the UK, and what lessons can we draw from them?
Read more:
Reform’s been pretty quiet since Labour started exploring Danish migration model – and this is why
UK government looking at Danish migration model – here’s how it works
Politics latest: Government releases asylum reforms in full – as Labour MPs attack plans
Reducing demand – Danish asylum claims falling
The most obvious difference between Denmark and the UK is that Denmark is significantly smaller. Its population of 6 million is not much more than that of Yorkshire’s. So it makes sense that it also has significantly fewer asylum seekers than Britain.
The number of asylum claims per person has been similar historically, however.
In the two years before Ms Frederiksen was elected prime minister, Denmark received an average of 57 applications per 100,000 people, while the UK averaged 55.
Since then, the UK figure almost trebled to 145, while the Danish figure fell by a third.
The Danish story breaks the trend from the rest of Europe, where the number of asylum applications to all EU countries rose by two thirds over the same period.
Danish immigration experts say this is not a coincidence, but the result of Ms Frederiksen’s policies.
“The numbers have fallen because Denmark is not a welcoming place,” Michelle Pace, Professor in Global Studies at Roskilde University in Copenhagen, told Sky News.
“That has been made absolutely clear by the Mette Frederiksen government and the previous government before hers,” she added.
A man walks through the gate at a departure centre for rejected asylum seekers in Jutland, Denmark in March 2019. Pic: Reuters
In contrast, Mihnea Cuibus, a researcher at Oxford University’s Migration Observatory, told Sky News that the UK is typically viewed as an attractive country for migrants.
“There’s this sense among people that the UK is a safe and welcoming place,” he said, also listing several other factors drawing people to the UK, including the English language, existing networks of friends and family, and democracy.
Small boats vs visa overstayers – the routes taken to Denmark and Britain
Much of the political attention around illegal migration in the UK is dedicated to those crossing the Channel from France on small boats. A total of 190,000 people arrived via this route since 2018, including almost 40,000 in 2025 alone.
In Denmark, four in five illegal migrants identified in the country are people who previously had legitimate, time-limited visas, but stayed in the country longer than they should have.
That sounds like it might be a significant divergence from the UK’s system, but maybe not as much as you would think.
New UK data on this part of the system hasn’t been published since 2020. But in the four years prior to that, 250,000 people were identified as potential visa overstayers – significantly more than the number to have arrived on small boats.
Mr Cuibus said there is a big gap in the data, making trends harder to track.
“The only hard data that we have are on failed asylum seekers,” he said.
“We know that roughly half of the people who’ve been rejected for asylum in the last 20 years are still in the country.”
How applications are handled
As well as attracting fewer asylum claims, Denmark is also now more likely to say “no” to claims than the UK has been, a reversal of the trend through most of the 2010s.
That appears to be because the UK has become less likely to refuse applications in the last few years, rather than a big spike in Danish rejections. Both the UK and Denmark granted asylum to large numbers of people from Ukraine during this period.
Mr Cuibus told Sky News that between 2020 and 2023, the UK had some of the highest rates of granting asylum in Europe.
The changes Denmark introduced to its asylum policy between 2015 and 2019 did not significantly increase refusals on asylum applications, but rather made it harder for asylum seekers to stay in the country long-term.
The country also passed measures intended to make applying for asylum more difficult, such as restricting family reunification and threatening to confiscate valuables, which also contributed to deterring people from arriving in the first place.
Sending people home
It’s one thing rejecting people claiming asylum, but it’s another making sure those people leave safely and legally.
One of the mechanisms that protects migrants from unsafe removal is the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which the UK – and Denmark – is signed up to, but which Reform say they would leave if they win power.
One key part of Ms Mahmood’s plans is to change how the ECHR is interpreted in migration court cases.
It would mean that only people with immediate family in the UK – for example, a parent or child – can argue that their “right to family life” would be breached by being deported.
Denmark has had greater success than its European neighbours at removing people it has decided should leave. Between June 2021 and June 2025, 46% of the 10,000 people it ordered to leave did so.
That’s a significantly higher proportion than the EU average of 21% – 400,000 people were returned, of the 1.9 million that were ordered to leave. The equivalent rates for France and Germany were 8% and 28% respectively.
The UK does not collect comparable data on the number of people ordered to leave, but it has returned 86,000 people over a similar time period – more than any other European country.
That number has been climbing in the past two or three years, but it is still 25% lower than it was in the early 2010s.
Voluntary vs enforced returns
Denmark’s asylum seeker removal policy relies almost entirely on “voluntary returns”, rather than those “enforced” by authorities.
In the UK, the proportion of voluntary returns has been steadily rising, but it is still used for fewer than half of migrants who leave the UK.
“There are quite a few reasons for governments to prefer voluntary returns,” Mr Cuibus explained.
“The main reason why the Home Office started shifting away from enforced returns more towards voluntary returns… is money.”
“We don’t really know exactly what the costs are right now, but we had some estimates from back in 2013. And at the time, those were estimating that an enforced return cost around £15,000 per person, compared to around £3,000 for a voluntary return.
“There’s the humanitarian side as well. Enforced returns are not very pleasant things to either go through or watch or have to enforce,” he said. “There is a big need for restraints, trained personnel.”
Individuals who are refused for asylum can apply to the Danish government for the equivalent of several thousand pounds in support to voluntarily return to their country of origin, according to the Danish Return Agency’s website.
While still potentially cheaper for the government than an enforced return, it’s not always popular politically as it can be seen to be rewarding illegality.
There has also been criticism of some of the methods used by Denmark to encourage people to leave.
Asylum seekers who find their claims rejected can be put in “departure centres”, prison-like facilities designed to encourage their voluntary deportation.
Kaershovedgaard, a former prison and now a departure centre in Denmark. Pic: Reuters
In 2024, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture criticised one of these facilities for their “carceral environment”.
Denmark’s parliamentary ombudsman described conditions at another as “very burdensome and restrictive for living” and “marked by brutalisation”.
Michelle Pace, a professor from Roskilde University, said Denmark’s policies are a violation of international humanitarian law.
“Denmark prides itself on this negative branding, which is based on extremely harsh rhetoric, an extreme choice of words,” said Pace, referring to some of Denmark’s more controversial immigration policies such as the “jewellery law”, which allows the government to seize asylum seekers’ assets, including their jewellery, to fund their stay in the country.
“It’s violating its commitments internationally according to the Geneva Convention of 1951, which ironically Denmark was the first to sign,” she said.
Ms Pace warned that the UK should look to other European immigration models, like Spain’s, which she argues is less xenophobic and more forward-thinking.
“In the Spanish case, they looked in terms of a long duration and said, okay, we have a low birth rate. We’re going to have a huge shortage of labour in the next 20 to 50 years.
“How can we make a legal pathway that is safe for people to come here, build a life that is legal, that is safe, that is structured, that is organised?”
The Data x Forensics team is a multi-skilled unit dedicated to providing transparent journalism from Sky News. We gather, analyse and visualise data to tell data-driven stories. We combine traditional reporting skills with advanced analysis of satellite images, social media and other open source information. Through multimedia storytelling we aim to better explain the world while also showing how our journalism is done.
More children will face deportation under Labour’s plan to crack down on asylum seekers, the Home Office has announced.
Families – including children – of failed asylum seekers will be offered financial support so they can return to their home country, the government has said.
Politics latest: Refugees may be deported to countries such as Syria
If they refuse that support, they will be forced to leave through deportation, according to the new policy, branded “restoring order and control”.
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood said the “world has changed and our asylum system has not changed with it”, as she said 400,000 people have sought asylum in the last four years, with half of refugees remaining on benefits eight years after arriving.
She said the system feels “out of control and unfair” to the British public who foot the bill – and said the UK’s asylum offer is much more generous compared with “many of our European neighbours”.
The Conservatives generally welcomed the plans but several Labour MPs attacked the government, including Nadia Whittome who called them “dystopian” and “shameful”.
Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, who is now an independent MP, said the plans are “not just paving the path to a Reform government, Reform may as well already be in power” and accused the government of having “no moral compass”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Home secretary announces details on asylum reform
The new plan says the asylum system currently does not prioritise the return of families, which means many families of failed asylum seekers continue to live in the UK “receiving free accommodation and financial support, for years on end”.
“Our hesitancy around returning families creates particularly perverse incentives,” the Home Office plan says.
It says asylum seekers are currently able to “exploit the fact that they have had children and put down roots in order to thwart removal”.
This includes about 700 Albanian families whose asylum claims have been rejected, but their removal is not being enforced because they have children.
The Home Office will launch a consultation on how it can deport families, including children.
Currently, families with children under the age of 18 at the point they are refused asylum continue to receive government support until the youngest child turns 18 – even if all appeals routes have been exhausted and they are refusing to be returned.
Read more:
How the UK and Denmark’s immigration policies compare
Botched effort to flush out plotters has backfired and now Labour MPs fear wipe out
Migrants being brought into Dover, Kent, by Border Force on Sunday. Pic: PA
Temporary refugee status
Also announced in the plan was that refugee status will be made temporary and a review will take place every two and a half years, with renewal only happening if returning to their home country is not possible.
Status could be revoked if a refugee’s home country is deemed safe.
The current five years to gain permanent settled status for refugees will be quadrupled to 20 years, but they could gain indefinite leave to remain sooner by working or studying.
This would replace the “golden ticket” five year deal, the government said.
There will be a consultation to see if benefits can be removed from refugees who are able to work but choose not to be employed.
European Court of Human Rights
Ms Mahmood said the government would change how UK courts interpret the ECHR so they can deport more foreign criminals and migrants who arrive illegally.
The government said Article 8 of the ECHR – the right to a family life – is being misused by migrants to delay their removal from the UK, with new legislation to make clear a family connection means only immediate family member – a parent or child. This could stop people from “using dubious connections to stay in the UK”, they said.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Would leaving the ECHR tackle illegal migration?
Article 8 rights will only be used in the most “exceptional circumstances” and where Article 8 claims can be lodged will be narrowed, so that all claims are heard first by the Home Office and not in a court.
The UK will also work with other European countries to review the application of Article 3 (prohibition of torture), as the government said the “definition of ‘inhuman and degrading treatment’ has expanded beyond what is reasonable”.
Ms Mahmood said the government wants to remain in the ECHR, but wants to reform it – while Reform and the Conservatives are calling to leave it entirely.
Visa bans
Ms Mahmood said the government has threatened visa bans on Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Namibia unless they accept the return of illegal migrants and criminals from those countries.
Penalties could result in “VIPs and tourists alike” being blocked from entering the UK unless countries with visa bans take action.
Safe and legal routes
New safe and legal routes for refugees will be established “once the government has restored control of Britain’s borders”, the Home Office said.
Three routes will be established for refugees: a study route for displaced students, a skilled worker route and a named sponsorship route run by voluntary organisations.
A cap on how many of these visas will be granted will be determined by the home secretary.
Ms Mahmood added the UK “will always remain flexible to new crises across the world as they happen”.
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024