Sunak ally Stride does his boss no favours in response to question about PM’s future

Published

1 year ago

June 9, 2024

admin

It was a question you don’t expect to hear being asked of a senior cabinet minister during an election campaign.

In fact, the last time doubts were raised mid-campaign about whether a beleaguered party leader would make it to polling day was more than 40 years ago.

This time, discussing Rishi Sunak’s D-Day fiasco on Sky News, Trevor Phillips asked Mel Stride: “Is he going to lead you into this election?”

Election latest: Tories accused of putting policy through ‘desperometer’

At least the work and pensions secretary – one of the PM’s closest allies – answered in the affirmative.

“Absolutely,” he replied. “And there should be no question of anything other than that.”

But the question has been raised. And by answering it as if it was a fair question rather than brushing it aside, the hapless Mr Stride has done his close friend the PM no favours at all.

In their exchange, Trevor put it to Mr Stride: “Whatever Mr Sunak’s virtues as an administrator, I think lots of people will have looked at that and said, this is the wrong man at the wrong time.

“Would it not be a courageous and moral act for him to announce that he knows he’s leading his party to defeat, partly because of his own actions and his own shortcomings and that he will now step aside to save seats which won’t be saved if he stays for the next four weeks?”

Why has the question been raised? It followed a tweet by Nadine Dorries, who speculated: “I have always said that Cameron was popped into the Lords and into a senior ministerial post for a reason. I thought maybe it was to replace Sunak at an earlier stage.”

And then she added mischievously: “Rumours around tonight that Sunak’s about to fall on his sword. There are no MPs – only ministers. If Sunak does resign, any replacement would have to come from within ministerial ranks.”

Fall on his sword? No prime minister in modern times has ever quit or been forced out during an election campaign. And unless Mr Sunak went voluntarily – extremely unlikely – it’s obviously too late to change leader now parliament is dissolved.

For instance, there are no officers of the 1922 committee to oversee a change, even if a successor was unopposed, as Mr Sunak was when Liz Truss self-destructed. The committee’s inscrutable and famously discreet chairman Sir Graham Brady is not contesting the election.

The remaining members of the ’22 exec, traditionally known as “the men in grey suits” who according to political folklore had the power to hand a failing party leader “a glass of whisky and a pearl-handled revolver in a darkened room”, are in their constituencies fighting to hold their own seats.

But the fact that a change of leader is even being suggested – albeit by the maverick Boris Johnson cheerleader Ms Dorries – reveals two things about the current election campaign.

? Click to subscribe to the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts ?

One, it confirms just how serious Mr Sunak’s D-Day blunder was. It’s being described as potentially the defining mistake of this election campaign.

And two, it means that even if he limps towards 4 July as Tory leader, he’s on borrowed time.

As for Labour, its rulebook, updated after the death of John Smith in 1994, is clearer. If the leader is “incapacitated” for whatever reason, the deputy leader – currently Angela Rayner – takes over until an election can be held.

The last time doubt was cast during an election campaign about whether a party leader would continue until polling day was in 1983 when Michael Foot was leading Labour to a massive defeat by Margaret Thatcher.

At an early morning news conference at Transport House, then home to the Labour Party and the Transport and General Workers’ Union, Labour’s general secretary Jim Mortimer astonished political journalists.

“The unanimous view of the campaign committee is that Michael Foot is the leader of the Labour Party and speaks for the party,” he said, unprompted. Really? The journalists in the room sat in stunned silence, scarcely believing what they’d heard.

It was the TV broadcaster Clive James, then writing for The Observer, who was the quickest to react. “Oh,” he said. “So there was some debate about it, was there?”

I remember it vividly, because I was there. I recall Mr Mortimer saying: “We’ve had a meeting and we’re all agreed: Michael’s the leader.”

In that election, Margaret Thatcher won a majority of 144 seats. The Tories will hope that after the D-Day catastrophe, Mr Sunak isn’t leading the Conservatives to a defeat as big as that in 2024.

Politics

Building societies step up protest against Reeves’s cash ISA reforms

Published

6 hours ago

July 7, 2025

admin

Building societies step up protest against Reeves's cash ISA reforms

Building society chiefs will this week intensify their protests against the chancellor’s plans to cut cash ISA limits by warning that it will push up borrowing costs for homeowners and businesses.

Sky News has obtained the draft of a letter being circulated by the Building Societies Association (BSA) among its members which will demand that Rachel Reeves abandons a proposed move to slash savers’ annual cash ISA allowance from the existing £20,000 threshold.

Money blog: ‘I get paid to taste biscuits’

The draft letter, which is expected to be published this week, warns the chancellor that her decision would deter savers, disrupt Labour’s housebuilding ambitions and potentially present an obstacle to economic growth by triggering higher funding costs.

“Cash ISAs are a cornerstone of personal savings for millions across the UK, helping people from all walks of life to build financial resilience and achieve their savings goals,” the draft letter said.

“Beyond their personal benefits, Cash ISAs play a vital role in the broader economy.

“The funds deposited in these accounts support lending, helping to keep mortgages and loans affordable and accessible.

“Cutting Cash ISA limits would make this funding more scarce which would have the knock-on effect of making loans to households and businesses more expensive and harder to come by.

“This would undermine efforts to stimulate economic growth, including the government’s commitment to delivering 1.5 million new homes.

“Cutting the Cash ISA limit would send a discouraging message to savers, who are sensibly trying to plan for the future and undermine a product that has stood the test of time.”

The chancellor is reportedly preparing to announce a review of cash ISA limits as part of her Mansion House speech next week.

While individual building society bosses have come out publicly to express their opposition to the move, the BSA letter is likely to be viewed with concern by Treasury officials.

The Nationwide is by far Britain’s biggest building society, with the likes of the Coventry, Yorkshire and Skipton also ranking among the sector’s largest players.

In the draft letter, which is likely to be signed by dozens of building society bosses, the BSA said the chancellor’s proposals “would make the whole ISA regime more complex and make it harder for people to transfer money between cash and investments”.

“Restricting Cash ISAs won’t encourage people to invest, as it won’t suddenly change their appetite to take on risk,” it said.

“We know that barriers to investing are primarily behavioural, therefore building confidence and awareness are far more important.”

The BSA called on Ms Reeves to back “a long-term consumer awareness and information campaign to educate people about the benefits of investing, alongside maintaining strong support for saving”.

“We therefore urge you to affirm your support for Cash ISAs by maintaining the current £20,000 limit.

“Preserving this threshold will enable households to continue building financial security while supporting broader economic stability and growth.”

The BSA declined to comment on Monday on the leaked letter, although one source said the final version was subject to revision.

The Treasury has so far refused to comment on its plans.

Politics

Govt declines to rule out wealth tax after ex-Labour leader Lord Kinnock calls for wealth tax

Published

8 hours ago

July 7, 2025

admin

Govt declines to rule out wealth tax after ex-Labour leader Lord Kinnock calls for wealth tax

The government has declined to rule out a “wealth tax” after former Labour leader Neil Kinnock called for one to help the UK’s dwindling finances.

Lord Kinnock, who was leader from 1983 to 1992, told Sky News’ Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips that imposing a 2% tax on assets valued above £10 million would bring in up to £11 billion a year.

Politics latest: Reeves’s tax turmoil deepens

On Monday, Sir Keir Starmer’s spokesperson would not say if the government will or will not bring in a specific tax for the wealthiest.

Asked multiple times if the government will do so, he said: “The government is committed to the wealthiest in society paying their share in tax.

“The prime minister has repeatedly said those with the broadest shoulders should carry the largest burden.”

He added the government has closed loopholes for non-doms, placed taxes on private jets and said the 1% wealthiest people in the UK pay one third of taxes.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves earlier this year insisted she would not impose a wealth tax in her autumn budget, something she also said in 2023 ahead of Labour winning the election last year.

Asked if her position has changed, Sir Keir’s spokesman referred back to her previous comments and said: “The government position is what I have said it is.”

The previous day, Lord Kinnock told Sky News: “It’s not going to pay the bills, but that kind of levy does two things.

“One is to secure resources, which is very important in revenues.

“But the second thing it does is to say to the country, ‘we are the government of equity’.

“This is a country which is very substantially fed up with the fact that whatever happens in the world, whatever happens in the UK, the same interests come out on top unscathed all the time while everybody else is paying more for getting services.

“Now, I think that a gesture or a substantial gesture in the direction of equity fairness would make a big difference.”

The son of a coal miner, who became a member of the House of Lords in 2005, the Labour peer said asset values have “gone through the roof” in the past 20 years while economies and incomes have stagnated in real terms.

In reference to Chancellor Rachel Reeves refusing to change her fiscal rules, he said the government is giving the appearance it is “bogged down by their own imposed limitations”, which he said is “not actually the accurate picture”.

A wealth tax would help the government get out of that situation and would be backed by the “great majority of the general public”, he added.

His comments came after a bruising week for Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, who had to heavily water down a welfare bill meant to save £5.5bn after dozens of Labour MPs threatened to vote against it.

With those savings lost – and a previous U-turn on cutting winter fuel payments also reducing savings – the chancellor’s £9.9bn fiscal headroom has quickly dwindled.

In a hint of what could come, government minister Stephen Morgan told Wilfred Frost on Sky News Breakfast: “I hold dear the Labour values of making sure those that have the broadest shoulders pay, pay more tax.

“I think that’s absolutely right.”

He added that the government has already put a tax on private jets and on the profits of energy companies.