Long gone are the days of Leave versus Remain. But the Conservative Party and its varied factions are still able to draw battle lines between one another when MPs face a crucial vote.
The bill passed its second reading in a crunch Commons vote just before Christmas.
But it will return for its next parliamentary stages on Tuesday and Wednesday this week – and the different factions are still causing the prime minister trouble.
So who are the different groups on the Tory benches? And what do they want?
European Research Group
This gang of MPs is the most well-known of the so-called “five families” of right-wing groups within the Conservative Party.
It became a household name during Brexit years, dominating the headlines with its own demands for exiting the EU, but has kept relatively quiet since the deal was done – except for calling key elements of the Windsor Framework “practically useless”.
The Eurosceptic group is currently chaired by Mark Francois, but saw many of its members promoted to ministerial positions after Boris Johnson came to power – including Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, Suella Braverman and Steve Baker.
Advertisement
Now, the ERG is leading the fight once again over the Rwanda bill, calling for the prime minister to scrap his current plan, start again and go further in ignoring international treaties and limiting the ability for asylum seekers to take appeals to court.
Image: Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg used to chair the ERG before he was made a minister by Boris Johnson
New Conservatives
The newest kids on the block, this group is made up of 25 Tory backbenchers predominantly from so-called “Red Wall” seats that the party won from Labour in recent elections.
All of the members only entered parliament after 2016 – since the Brexit referendum took place – and say they are determined to focus the party on delivering on the 2019 manifesto, where Mr Johnson won a significant majority on his promises to “get Brexit done” and “level up” the country.
One of its first events as it sought to raise its public profile was outlining its 10-point plan for immigration, causing controversy with its call to end the temporary visa scheme for care workers and cap the number of refugees who can settle in the UK.
Now, its right-wing members have raised doubts over Mr Sunak’s Rwanda bill.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:37
Who are the New Conservatives?
Northern Research Group
Perhaps the precursor to the New Conservatives, this faction was also born from the 2019 election victories in the Red Wall, promising to focus on the interests of the towns and cities that make up the Tories’ “Northern Powerhouse”.
With around 55 MPs from the north of England, Scottish borders and North Wales – led by the now-former chairman of the party, Sir Jake Berry – the group has expanded its remit somewhat, speaking out against COVID lockdowns and business taxes, as well as pushing for its core goals around devolution, transport and investment.
But as the third of the five families of those on the right, its support could be crucial to seeing the Rwanda legislation become law.
The group also holds a conference every year, attracting senior members of government to speak and attempt to keep the powerful bloc onside.
Image: Sir Jake Berry served as party chairman under Liz Truss
Common Sense Group
This collective of around 50 MPs and peers says it “stands for authentic conservatism”, with many of the issues it focuses on falling squarely into the culture wars category.
From slamming the National Trust for publicising Winston Churchill’s family links to slavery, to attacking Black Lives Matter and Extinction Rebellion as “subversives fuelled by ignorance”, the group – led by veteran backbencher Sir John Hayes – calls on the government to “reflect the will of the people, rather than pandering to the peculiar preoccupations of the liberal elite and the distorted priorities of left-wing activists”.
It has published its own set of essays to highlight its concerns, with titles including, “The judicial activists threatening our democracy”, “Taking politics out of policing”, and “The case for strengthening families”.
And the group takes a strong stance when it comes to immigration, so a question mark remains over whether Mr Sunak’s bill goes far enough for this group.
Image: Sir John Hayes leads the group that focuses on culture war issues
Conservative Growth Group
The final of the “five families”, this group came to life after the short-lived premiership of Liz Truss, who was ousted from Number 10 after just 49 days following her disastrous mini-budget.
But while the party may have pushed for her undoing, her approach to tearing up the “economic orthodoxy” of the Treasury still garners the support of a number of backbenchers – especially those who enjoyed equally short-lived ministerial careers while she was in office.
There are only thought to be around 20 members in the group, including Ms Truss herself, but they are pushing for popular policies in the party, such as tax cuts and deregulation, as the best way for growing the British economy.
It is chaired by Ranil Jayawardena, who was environment secretary while Ms Truss was prime minister.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:50
Truss ‘tried to fatten and slaughter the pig’
One Nation caucus
In stark contrast to the previous five, this group – established back in 1975 – promotes the One Nation Conservative ideology, a more centrist approach to both the economy and social policy.
Despite dominating the party during the David Cameron years, many of the One Nation group fell out of favour during the tumultuous Brexit debate due to their support for Remain, with Mr Johnson kicking a number of them out of the party for failing to back his exit plans.
But while they may have been in the shadows in recent years, there are still over 100 members in parliament – with some former figures, such as Alex Chalk and Gillian Keegan, making it onto the frontbench – and they are starting to peek out above the parapet again.
Image: Before Brexit, One Nation Tories were an influential force in the party – especially under David Cameron and George Osborne
Recent issues being raised have included a call to focus on policies for winning back younger voters – such as rental reform and childcare.
But they are now seen as a key faction for the prime minister to keep onside to ensure the success of the Rwanda plan.
The group has offered its support to Mr Sunak so far, and pledged to back the bill.
But with its more liberal outlook – and having voiced concerns about the prospect of leaving (or break) international human rights treaties – the members have also said they will pull their backing if the prime minister bends to the will of those on the right and goes too far.
Away from the Rwanda row, there are other factions in the party who all want to have their voices heard by the leadership on their main issues of concern.
Conservative Democratic Organisation
This is another group formed after Ms Truss’s exit, but with fierce loyalty to her predecessor, Mr Johnson.
The CDO was furious with how Mr Sunak had been chosen as the new leader – without a vote of the membership – calling it “undemocratic”, and promised to “take back control” of the party with its grassroots movement.
But it is not just leadership elections it wants to influence. The organisation hopes to “steer [the Tories’] political direction back to the centre-right”, with specific calls for tax cuts and attacks on the current PM for failing to provide them.
Key figures include billionaire Conservative donor Lord Cruddas, the party’s former treasurer, and key Johnson ally and former home secretary Dame Priti Patel.
It has already held a conference, with other Johnson backers like Nadine Dorries and Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg attending to give speeches.
Image: Priti Patel is one of the members spearheading the group
China Research Group
Another hot topic within Conservative ranks is the best way to approach China, and this group was set up to amplify that debate.
It was co-founded and chaired by the now security minister Tom Tugendhat – an outspoken critic of the country, who has highlighted the dangers of its technological influence, its human rights record, and its ongoing sanctioning of UK politicians.
While its former chair now finds himself on the frontbench, the voices calling for tougher action on Beijing are growing and questioning the current administration’s desire to engage with China, rather than calling it out for being a threat.
Foreign Affairs Committee chair Alicia Kearns now leads the group.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:16
‘Your backbenchers pulled you back’
Net Zero Scrutiny Group/Conservative Environment Network
Climate policies have been a central bone of contention for Tory MPs in recent months – especially after the party managed to cling on to Mr Johnson’s former seat of Uxbridge and South Ruislip in a by-election by focusing on residents’ anger of the expansion of London’s Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ).
The victory saw a number of the party’s green policies brought into question, with Mr Sunak pledging to only roll them out in a “proportionate and pragmatic way” and watering down a number of promises.
But the legal obligation to hit net zero by 2050 – a law brought in by the Conservatives – has long caused rows, with two groups being formed to represent both sides of the argument.
Image: Chris Skidmore (L) and Craig Mackinlay (R) chair opposing groups when it comes to net zero
The Net Zero Scrutiny Group insists it is not climate sceptic, but instead says government policies have gone too far, too fast, contributing to the cost of living crisis.
The group of 50 or so MPs and peers – led by former UKIP deputy leader Craig Mackinlay – wants green levies to be scrapped, saying they are hitting the poorest the hardest, and wants the government to ramp up fossil fuel production at home.
On the other hand, there is the Conservative Environment Network (CEN), which claims to have over 130 MPs and peers backing its mission to “champion greater environmental action in parliament”.
It says Conservative voters don’t want to see a row about whether net zero is worth it or not, but a debate on the right policies to achieve it.
A smaller faction echoing the sentiments of the CEN is led by Tory MP Chris Skidmore and is known as the Net Zero Support Group, which aims to “demonstrate and maintain Conservative support for net zero carbon emissions and policies needed to deliver this”.
Sir Keir Starmer needs to choose between parents who want stronger action to tackle harmful content on children’s phones, or the “tech bros” who are resisting changes to their platforms, Baroness Harriet Harman has said.
Speaking to Beth Rigby on Sky News’ Electoral Dysfunction podcast, the Labour peer noted that the prime minister met with the creators of hit Netflix drama Adolescence to discuss safety on social media, but she questioned if he is going to take action to “stop the tech companies allowing this sort of stuff” on their platforms where children can access it.
Sir Keir hosted a roundtable on Monday with Adolescence co-writer Jack Thorne and producer Jo Johnson to discuss issues raised in the series, which centres on a 13-year-old boy arrested for the murder of a young girl, and the rise of incel culture.
The aim was to discuss how to prevent young boys being dragged into a “whirlpool of hatred and misogyny”, and the prime minister said the four-part series raises questions about how to keep young people safe from technology.
Sir Keir has backed calls for the four-part drama to be shown in all schools across the country, but Baroness Harman questioned what is going to be achieved by having young people simply watch the show.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:15
Sir Keir Starmer held a roundtable with the creators of the Adolescence TV drama.
“Two questions were raised [for me],” she said. ” Firstly – after they’ve watched it, what is going to be the discussion afterwards?
More on Electoral Dysfunction
Related Topics:
“And secondly, is he going to act to stop the tech companies allowing this sort of stuff to go online into smartphones without protection of children?
“Because if the tech companies wanted to do this, they could actually protect children. They can do everything they want with their tech.”
She acknowledged there are “very big public policy challenges” in this area, but added of the prime minister: “Is he going to side with parents who are terrified and want this content off their children’s phones, or is he going to accept the tech bros’ resistance to having to make changes?”
The Labour peer backed the Conservative Party’s call for a ban on smartphones in schools to be mandated from Westminster, saying it would “enable all schools not to have a discussion with their parents or to battle it out, but just to say, this is the ruling” from central government, which Ofsted would then enforce.
“I’m sensitive to the idea that we shouldn’t constantly be telling schools what to do,” she continued. “And they’ve got a lot of common sense and a lot of professional experience, and they should have as much autonomy as possible.
“But perhaps it’s easier for them if it’s done top down.”
Baroness Harman also questioned the speed with which parliament is actually able to legislate to deal with the very rapid development of new technologies, and posits that it could “change its processes to be able to legislate in real time”.
She suggested that a “powerful select committee” of MPs could be established to do that, because “otherwise we talk about it, and then we’re not able to legislate for 10 years – by which time that problem has really set in, and we’ve got a whole load more problems”.
On the podcast, the trio also discussed the 10% tariffs imposed on the UK by Donald Trump and the government’s efforts to strike a trade deal with the US to mitigate the impact of the levy.
The government has refused to rule out scrapping the Digital Services Tax, a 2% levy on tech giants’ revenues in the UK, as part of the negotiations with the Trump administration – a move Baroness Harman said would be “very heartbreaking”.
A group of investors with cryptocurrency custody and trading firm Bakkt Holdings filed a class-action lawsuit alleging false or misleading statements and a failure to disclose certain information.
Lead plaintiff Guy Serge A. Franklin called for a jury trial as part of a complaint against Bakkt, senior adviser and former CEO Gavin Michael, CEO and president Andrew Main, and interim chief financial officer Karen Alexander, according to an April 2 filing in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The group of investors allege damages as the result of violations of US securites laws and a lack of transparency surrounding its agreement with clients: Webull and Bank of America (BoA).
April 2 complaint against Bakkt and its executives. Source: PACER
The loss of Bank of America and Webull will result “in a 73% loss in top line revenue” due to the two firms making up a significant percentage of its services revenue, the investor group alleges in the lawsuit. The filing stated Webull made up 74% of Bakkt’s crypto services revenue through most of 2023 and 2024, and Bank of America made up 17% of its loyalty services revenue from January to September 2024.
Bakkt disclosed on March 17 that Bank of America and Webull did not intend to renew their agreements with the firm ending in 2025. The announcement likely contributed to the company’s share price falling more than 27% in the following 24 hours. The investors allege Bakkt “misrepresented the stability and/or diversity of its crypto services revenue” and failed to disclose that this revenue was “substantially dependent” on Webull’s contract.
“As a result of Defendants’ wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company’s securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages,” said the suit.
Other law offices said they were investigating Bakkt for securities law violations, suggesting additional class-action lawsuits may be in the works. Cointelegraph contacted Bakkt for a comment on the lawsuit but did not receive a response at the time of publication.
The new trade tariffs announced by US President Donald Trump may place added pressure on the Bitcoin mining ecosystem both domestically and globally, according to one industry executive.
While the US is home to Bitcoin (BTC) mining manufacturing firms such as Auradine, it’s still “not possible to make the whole supply chain, including materials, US-based,” Kristian Csepcsar, chief marketing officer at BTC mining tech provider Braiins, told Cointelegraph.
On April 2, Trump announced sweeping tariffs, imposing a 10% tariff on all countries that export to the US and introducing “reciprocal” levies targeting America’s key trading partners.
Community members have debated the potential effects of the tariffs on Bitcoin, with some saying their impact has been overstated, while others see them as a significant threat.
Tariffs compound existing mining challenges
Csepcsar said the mining industry is already experiencing tough times, pointing to key indicators like the BTC hashprice.
Hashprice — a measure of a miner’s daily revenue per unit of hash power spent to mine BTC blocks — has been on the decline since 2022 and dropped to all-time lows of $50 for the first time in 2024.
According to data from Bitbo, the BTC hashprice was still hovering around all-time low levels of $53 on March 30.
Bitcoin hashprice since late 2013. Source: Bitbo
“Hashprice is the key metric miners follow to understand their bottom line. It is how many dollars one terahash makes a day. A key profitability metric, and it is at all-time lows, ever,” Csepcsar said.
He added that mining equipment tariffs were already increasing under the Biden administration in 2024, and cited comments from Summer Meng, general manager at Chinese crypto mining supplier Bitmars.
“But they keep getting stricter under Trump,” Csepcsar added, referring to companies such as the China-based Bitmain — the world’s largest ASIC manufacturer — which is subject to the new tariffs.
Trump’s latest measures include a 34% additional tariff on top of an existing 20% levy for Chinese mining imports. In response, China reportedly imposed its own retaliatory tariffs on April 4.
BTC mining firms to “lose in the short term”
Csepcsar also noted that cutting-edge chips for crypto mining are currently massively produced in countries like Taiwan and South Korea, which were hit by new 32% and 25% tariffs, respectively.
“It will take a decade for the US to catch up with cutting-edge chip manufacturing. So again, companies, including American ones, lose in the short term,” he said.
Csepcsar also observed that some countries in the Commonwealth of Independent States region, including Russia and Kazakhstan, have been beefing up mining efforts and could potentially overtake the US in hashrate dominance.
“If we continue to see trade war, these regions with low tariffs and more favorable mining conditions can see a major boom,” Csepcsar warned.
As the newly announced tariffs potentially hurt Bitcoin mining both globally and in the US, it may become more difficult for Trump to keep his promise of making the US the global mining leader.
Trump’s stance on crypto has shifted multiple times over the years. As his administration embraces a more pro-crypto agenda, it remains to be seen how the latest economic policies will impact his long-term strategy for digital assets.