It could be all over on Monday or the Conservatives may be about to mesmerise the nation with another round of vicious infighting.
The Conservative Party rules can’t be changed. They are that Conservative MPs draw up a shortlist of two candidates from their number.
The 180,000 paid-up and unelected party members then choose between them. Less than half of those eligible to vote actually voted for Liz Truss last time but they still overruled the MPs’ preference and saddled the nation with a prime minister who lasted less than 50 days.
Sir Graham Brady and the executive of the 1922 Committee of backbenchers have done what they can to try to stop it happening again by changing the way MPs draw up the shortlist. It is possible that the MPs will present the membership with a fait accompli early next week.
After the bumpy ride for the country and their party under Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, senior Tory backbenchers have done what they can to ensure an orderly transition to an orthodox candidate: most likely Rishi Sunak or Penny Mordaunt, who were the runners-up in the last contest which, amazingly, elected Ms Truss less than two months ago.
As things stand, however, there is a chance that these best laid plans could go awry, resulting in Britain ending up with another “disrupter” prime minister drawn from an unrepresentative band of populist libertarians.
How will Tories pick the new PM?
Image: Rishi Sunak lost to Liz Truss in the last Tory leadership contest
The ’22 have set the threshold for nominations high. To enter the contest, a candidate will need to gather written backing from 100 fellow Tory MPs over this weekend. That is five times higher than the 20 required last time and has the desired effect of limiting the field to a maximum of three candidates since there are only 357 Conservatives in the Commons.
Advertisement
Nominations will close at 2pm on Monday. MPs will then vote, with the results declared at 6pm. Theoretically, that may not be necessary. It is possible that only one candidate – Rishi Sunak, the runaway favourite – will get enough nominations. He would then win by a walkover, similiar to the way Gordon Brown took over the premiership from Tony Blair.
Nominating someone is more potent than just voting for them. Remember the charity nominations Margaret Beckett and other “morons”, her words not mine, gave Jeremy Corbyn so he could run. This time MPs might decide that Mr Sunak is going to win anyway, so for a quiet life and possibly currying favour with the new boss they could give him a key to No 10.
But in the final round this summer, Mr Sunak led with 137 votes, to 113 for Ms Truss and 105 for Penny Mordaunt. Ms Mordaunt wants to run again and is scrabbling for her base to nominate her. In polls this summer she was more popular with Tory voters than Mr Sunak. She would prefer a straight fight with Mr Sunak, whether that comes about because only she and he are nominated or because they beat a possible third candidate in an initial vote.
If there are two candidates left for the membership to choose from, there will be an online ballot of the membership next week, with the result declared on Friday. Before that, the ’22 have already said that there will be “an indicative vote” between them first by MPs. The purpose of this is to send a powerful and unambiguous message to the membership about whom MPs want as leader. In choosing Ms Truss last time they went against the MPs’ first preference of Sunak.
If Mr Sunak and Ms Mordaunt are the final two, they could still take the decision out of the membership’s hands by agreeing that one who has least backing from MPs withdraw in favour of the one with most, allowing him or her to become prime minister. They would also both commit in advance to serve in the same cabinet and to keep Jeremy Hunt as chancellor .
Such a smooth transition would be derailed if there is a third candidate with 100 nominations.
All eyes are on Boris Johnson, who is said, like Donald Trump, to want a comeback. If, and it is a big if, he gets on to the starting grid, there could be a stampede of MPs who might decide he looks like a vote winner and put him into the second round against either Ms Mordaunt or Mr Sunak.
His chances of victory and re-election by the membership would be very high. He is popular and he is the only candidate who can claim a personal mandate, having led the party to victory in the 2019 general election.
But, but, but.
Tory MPs and cabinet ministers turfed out Mr Johnson this summer for serial dishonesty and sending others out to lie on his behalf. Jacob Rees-Mogg, Nadine Dorries and a few diehards may be calling on him to return but he has never been loved by the rank and file of the parliamentary party, who control the nominations. Nor does he fit snuggly with the libertarian, UKIP-style entryists of the European Research Group, who are now fighting a rear-guard action to preserve their influence in the party.
There are obvious efforts by Johnson supporters in parliament and the media to talk him up this weekend. But his shooting star support from some MPs could easily plateau short of 100 nominations. If so, having drawn attention to himself yet again, Mr Johnson would most likely return to his less demanding, more lucrative exertions on the US lecture circuit.
Could an unlikely outsider emerge?
If it is not Mr Johnson, someone else could emerge as the third challenger.
Suella Braverman fancies her chances and her sacking as Ms Truss’s home secretary positions her to rally the right. Kemi Badenoch also has high ambitions.
Fortunately for Ms Mordaunt or Mr Sunak, Jeremy Hunt and Ben Wallace have both ruled themselves out of the race. It is unlikely anyone else would be able to muster 100 nominating signatures.
Shell-shocked Tory MPs do not want to take the risk of taking a punt on another incoherent or incompetent leader. They want a well-known figure with a proven track record to steady the ship.
In the ultimate reckoning, this is likely to count against Ms Mordaunt. At 49, she is older than Mr Sunak, 42, and has been in parliament five years longer, since 2010. But she has served barely two years as a cabinet minister.
Mr Sunak by contrast has three years in cabinet under his belt, two of them as the chancellor who piloted the economy through COVID.
MPs have the future of the nation in their hands. One option would be to open the door to the return of the discredited individual they kicked out a few months ago. Or they could shut him out for good and opt for a technocrat.
An Israeli reservist who served three tours of duty in Gaza has told Sky News in a rare on-camera interview that his unit was often ordered to shoot anyone entering areas soldiers defined as no-go zones, regardless of whether they posed a threat, a practice he says left civilians dead where they fell.
“We have a territory that we are in, and the commands are: everyone that comes inside needs to die,” he said. “If they’re inside, they’re dangerous you need to kill them. No matter who it is,” he said.
Speaking anonymously, the soldier said troops killed civilians arbitrarily. He described the rules of engagement as unclear, with orders to open fire shifting constantly depending on the commander.
The soldier is a reservist in the Israel Defence Force’s 252nd Division. He was posted twice to the Netzarim corridor; a narrow strip of land cut through central Gaza early in the war, running from the sea to the Israeli border. It was designed to split the territory and allow Israeli forces to have greater control from inside the Strip.
He said that when his unit was stationed on the edge of a civilian area, soldiers slept in a house belonging to displaced Palestinians and marked an invisible boundary around it that defined a no-go zone for Gazans.
“In one of the houses that we had been in, we had the big territory. This was the closest to the citizens’ neighbourhood, with people inside. And there’s an imaginary line that they tell us all the Gazan people know it, and that they know they are not allowed to pass it,” he said. “But how can they know?”
People who crossed into this area were most often shot, he said.
More on War In Gaza
Related Topics:
“It was like pretty much everyone that comes into the territory, and it might be like a teenager riding his bicycle,” he said.
Image: The soldier is seen in Gaza. Photos are courtesy of the interviewed soldier, who requested anonymity
The soldier described a prevailing belief among troops that all Gazans were terrorists, even when they were clearly unarmed civilians. This perception, he said, was not challenged and was often endorsed by commanders.
“They don’t really talk to you about civilians that may come to your place. Like I was in the Netzarim road, and they say if someone comes here, it means that he knows he shouldn’t be there, and if he still comes, it means he’s a terrorist,” he said.
“This is what they tell you. But I don’t really think it’s true. It’s just poor people, civilians that don’t really have too many choices.”
He said the rules of engagement shifted constantly, leaving civilians at the mercy of commanders’ discretion.
“They might be shot, they might be captured,” he said. “It really depends on the day, the mood of the commander.”
He recalled an occasion of a man crossing the boundary and being shot. When another man came later to the body, he too was shot.
Later the soldiers decided to capture people who approached the body. Hours after that, the order changed again, shoot everyone on sight who crosses the “imaginary line”.
Image: The Israeli soldier during his on-camera interview with Sky News
At another time, his unit was positioned near the Shujaiya area of Gaza City. He described Palestinians scavenging scrap metal and solar panels from a building inside the so-called no-go zone.
“For sure, no terrorists there,” he said. “Every commander can choose for himself what he does. So it’s kind of like the Wild West. So, some commanders can really decide to do war crimes and bad things and don’t face the consequences of that.”
The soldier said many of his comrades believed there were no innocents in Gaza, citing the Hamas-led 7 October attack that killed around 1,200 people and saw 250 taken hostage. Dozens of hostages have since been freed or rescued by Israeli forces, while about 50 remain in captivity, including roughly 30 Israel believes are dead.
He recalled soldiers openly discussing the killings.
“They’d say: ‘Yeah, but these people didn’t do anything to prevent October 7, and they probably had fun when this was happening to us. So they deserve to die’.”
He added: “People don’t feel mercy for them.”
“I think a lot of them really felt like they were doing something good,” he said. “I think the core of it, that in their mind, these people aren’t innocent.”
Image: The IDF soldier during one of his three tours in Gaza
In Israel, it is rare for soldiers to publicly criticise the IDF, which is seen as a unifying institution and a rite of passage for Jewish Israelis. Military service shapes identity and social standing, and those who speak out risk being ostracised.
The soldier said he did not want to be identified because he feared being branded a traitor or shunned by his community.
Still, he felt compelled to speak out.
“I kind of feel like I took part in something bad, and I need to counter it with something good that I do, by speaking out, because I am very troubled about what I took and still am taking part of, as a soldier and citizen in this country,” he said
“I think the war is… a very bad thing that is happening to us, and to the Palestinians, and I think it needs to be over,” he said.
He added: “I think in Israeli community, it’s very hard to criticise itself and its army. A lot of people don’t understand what they are agreeing to. They think the war needs to happen, and we need to bring the hostages back, but they don’t understand the consequences.
“I think a lot of people, if they knew exactly what’s happening, it wouldn’t go down very well for them, and they wouldn’t agree with it. I hope that by speaking of it, it can change how things are being done.”
Image: The soldier is a reservist in the Israel Defence Force’s 252nd Division
We put the allegations of arbitrary killings in the Netzarim corridor to the Israeli military.
In a statement, the IDF said it “operates in strict accordance with its rules of engagement and international law, taking feasible precautions to mitigate civilian harm”.
“The IDF operates against military targets and objectives, and does not target civilians or civilian objects,” the statement continued.
The Israeli military added that “reports and complaints regarding the violation of international law by the IDF are transferred to the relevant authorities responsible for examining exceptional incidents that occurred during the war”.
On the specific allegations raised by the soldier interviewed, the IDF said it could not address them directly because “the necessary details were not provided to address the case mentioned in the query. Should additional information be received, it will be thoroughly examined.”
The statement also mentioned the steps the military says it takes to minimise civilian casualties, including issuing evacuation warnings and advising people to temporarily leave areas of intense fighting.
“The areas designated for evacuation in the Gaza Strip are updated as needed. The IDF continuously informs the civilian population of any changes,” it said.
An Australian mother has been found guilty of murdering her estranged husband’s parents and an aunt by serving them a beef wellington laced with poisonous mushrooms.
Erin Patterson, 50, invited her former parents-in-law, Don and Gail Patterson, both 70, and Gail Patterson’s sister, Heather Wilkinson, 66, to the fatal lunch on 29 July 2023.
The mother-of-two, from the state of Victoria in southern Australia, has also been convicted of the attempted murder of Mrs Wilkinson’s husband Reverend Ian Wilkinson.
All four fell ill after eating a meal of beef wellington, mashed potatoes and green beans at Patterson’s home in the town of Leongatha, the court was told.
Prosecutors said Patterson knowingly laced the beef pastry dish with deadly death cap mushrooms, also known as Amanita phalloides, at her home.
The guests ate their meals off four large grey dinner plates, while Patterson ate from a smaller, tan-coloured plate, the court heard.
Mrs Wilkinson and Mrs Patterson died on Friday 4 August 2023, while Mr Patterson died a day later.
More on Australia
Related Topics:
Reverend Wilkinson spent seven weeks in hospital but survived.
Image: Ian and Heather Wilkinson Pic: The Salvation Army Australia – Museum
Image: Ian Wilkinson arrives at court during the trial. Pic: Reuters
Her estranged husband Simon Patterson, with whom she has two children, was also invited to the lunch and initially accepted but later declined, the trial heard.
The jury was told that prosecutors had dropped three charges that Patterson had attempted to murder her husband, who she has been separated from since 2015.
Reverend Wilkinson said that immediately after the meal, Patterson fabricated a cancer diagnosis, suggesting the lunch was put together so that she could ask them the best way to tell her children about the illness.
The trial attracted intense interest in Australia – with podcasters, journalists and documentary-makers descending on the town of Morwell, around two hours east of Melbourne, where the court hearings took place.
A sentencing date is yet to be scheduled.
What makes death cap mushrooms so lethal?
The death cap is one of the most toxic mushrooms on the planet and is involved in the majority of fatal mushroom poisonings worldwide.
The species contains three main groups of toxins: amatoxins, phallotoxins, and virotoxins.
From these, amatoxins are primarily responsible for the toxic effects in humans.
The alpha-amanitin amatoxin has been found to cause protein deficit and ultimately cell death, although other mechanisms are thought to be involved.
The liver is the main organ that fails due to the poison, but other organs are also affected, most notably the kidneys.
The effects usually begin after a short latent period and can include gastrointestinal disorders followed by jaundice, seizures, coma, and eventually, death.
This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.
Please refresh the page for the fullest version.
You can receive breaking news alerts on a smartphone or tablet via the Sky News app. You can also follow @SkyNews on X or subscribe to our YouTube channel to keep up with the latest news.
Israel says its military has attacked Houthi targets at three ports and a power plant in Yemen.
Defence minister Israel Katz confirmed the strikes, saying they were carried out due to repeated attacks by the Iranian-backed rebel group on Israel.
Mr Katz said the Israeli military attacked the Galaxy Leader ship which he claimed was hijacked by the Houthis and was being used for “terrorist activities in the Red Sea”.
Image: A bridge crane damaged by Israeli airstrikes last year in the Yemeni port of Hodeidah. Pic: Reuters
It came after the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) issued an evacuation warning for people at Hodeidah, Ras Issa, and Salif ports – as well as the Ras al Khatib power station, which it said is controlled by Houthi rebels.
The IDF said it would carry out airstrikes on those areas due to “military activities being carried out there”.
Afterwards, Mr Katz confirmed the strikes at the ports and power plant.
Earlier in the day, a ship was reportedly set on fire after being attacked in the Red Sea.
A private security company said the assault, off the southwest coast of Yemen, resembled that of the Houthi militant group.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:00
From May: Israel strikes Yemen’s main airport
It was the first such incident reported in the vital shipping corridor since mid-April.
The vessel, identified as the Liberian-flagged, Greek-owned bulk carrier Magic Seas, had taken on water after being hit by sea drones, maritime security sources said. The crew later abandoned the ship.
The Houthi rebels have been launching missile and drone attacks against commercial and military ships in the region in what the group’s leadership called an effort to end Israel’s offensive against Hamas in Gaza.
Between November 2023 and January 2025, the Houthis targeted more than 100 merchant vessels with missiles and drones, sinking two of them and killing four sailors.
The Houthis paused attacks in a self-imposed ceasefire until the US launched an assault against the rebels in mid-March.
That ended weeks later and the Houthis have not attacked a vessel, though they have continued occasional missile attacks targeting Israel.
A renewed Houthi campaign against shipping could again draw in US and Western forces to the area.
The ship attack comes at a sensitive moment in the Middle East.
A possible ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas war hangs in the balance and Iran is weighing up whether to restart negotiations over its nuclear programme.
It follows American airstrikes last month, which targeted its most-sensitive atomic sites amid an Israeli war against the Islamic Republic that ended after 12 days.
How did the Houthis come to control much of Yemen?
A civil war erupted in Yemen in late 2014 when the Houthis seized Sanaa.
Worried by the growing influence of Shia Iran along its border, Saudi Arabia led a Western-backed coalition in March 2015, which intervened in support of the Saudi-backed government.
The Houthis established control over much of the north and other large population centres, while the internationally recognised government based itself in the port city of Aden.