Liz Truss is set to launch a new movement within the Tories called Popular Conservatism.
At an event, she will be joined by well-known figures on the right of the party, including her former business secretary Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg and ex-deputy chairman Lee Anderson – with former Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage also expected to be in the audience.
But what does this group stand for? And who are the other Tory groups represented on the party’s backbenches?
Popular Conservatives
Already dubbed the “PopCons” by the media, more will become clear about their stance after Ms Truss takes the stage.
But reports have already suggested that while they will seek to portray support for Rishi Sunak, they will want him to toughen up some of his policies ahead of the next election.
One area they are likely to focus on is illegal immigration. The group is expected to back the government’s Rwanda plan – though may seek the prime minister goes further through exiting the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) if it stands in the way of flights taking off.
Another policy area will be taxes, ensuring they are cut further before voters head to the polls – perhaps echoing Ms Truss’s own fiscal plans that led to her eventual ousting from Number 10.
There are also suggestions they could focus their ire on the Equalities Act in what they will see as an effort to protect free speech, as well as targeting the “establishment”, such as lawyers, quangos and civil servants.
Advertisement
European Research Group
This group of MPs is perhaps the most well-known of the so-called “five families” of right-wing groups within the Conservative Party – though the number will rise to six after Ms Truss’s launch.
The ERG 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, Suella Braverman and Steve Baker.
Now, the ERG is leading the fight once again over the Rwanda bill, calling for the prime minister to 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. Pic: Reuters
New Conservatives
The former new 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.
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.
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. Pic: PA
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”.
Image: Sir John Hayes leads the group that focuses on culture war issues. Pic: Reuters
Conservative Growth Group
The final of the “five families”, this group came to life after the short-lived premiership of Ms Truss, who resigned as prime minister 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, and who is also expected at Tuesday’s Popular Conservatism launch.
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 factions outlined, 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 on to the frontbench – and they are starting to put their heads above the parapet again.
Image: Before Brexit, One Nation Tories were an influential force in the party – especially under David Cameron and George Osborne. Pic: Reuters
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, but with its more liberal outlook – and having voiced concerns about the prospect of leaving (or breaking) 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.
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 attending to give speeches.
Image: Priti Patel is one of the members spearheading the group. Pic Sky News
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.
While its former chair now finds himself on the frontbench, the group is calling for tougher action on Beijing and questioning the current administration’s desire to engage with China.
Foreign Affairs Committee chair Alicia Kearns now leads the group.
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. Pics: PA
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 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”.
It was led Tory MP Chris Skidmore, but he resigned from parliament earlier this year, saying his exit was “in protest at the government’s decision to prioritise and politicise new oil and gas licences above a sensible investment plan for the future”.
A council has won its bid to temporarily block asylum seekers from being housed at a hotel in Essex.
Epping Forest District Council sought an interim injunction to stop migrants from being accommodated at the Bell Hotel in Epping, which is owned by Somani Hotels Limited.
A government attempt to delay the application was rejected by the High Court judge earlier on Tuesday.
The interim injunction now means the hotel has to be cleared of its occupants within 14 days.
Somani Hotels said it intended to appeal the decision.
Several protests have been held outside the hotel in recent weeks after an asylum seeker housed there was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl.
Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, 38, was charged with trying to kiss a teenage girl and denies the allegations. He is due to stand trial later this month.
Image: Police officers ahead of a demonstration outside The Bell Hotel in July. Pic: PA
At a hearing last week, barristers for the council claimed Somani Hotels breached planning rules because the site is not being used for its intended purpose as a hotel.
Philip Coppel KC, for the council, said the problem was “getting out of hand” and “causing great anxiety” to local people.
He said the hotel “is no more a hotel [to asylum seekers] than a borstal to a young offender”.
Image: File pic: PA
Piers Riley-Smith, for Somani Hotels Limited, said a “draconian” injunction would cause “hardship” for those in the hotel, arguing “political views” were not grounds for an injunction to be granted.
He also said contracts to house asylum seekers were a “financial lifeline” for the hotel, which was only 1% full in August 2022, when it was open to paying customers.
Image: Protesters and counter-demonstrators outside The Bell Hotel in July. Pic: PA
The hotel housed migrants from May 2020 to March 2021, then from October 2022 to April 2024, with the council never instigating any formal enforcement proceedings against this use, Mr Riley-Smith said.
They were being placed there again in April 2025 and Mr Riley-Smith said a planning application was not made “having taken advice from the Home Office”.
At the end of the hearing last week, Mr Justice Eyre ordered that Somani Hotels could not “accept any new applications” from asylum seekers to stay at the site until he had made his ruling on the temporary injunction.
This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.
TikTok and Instagram have been accused of targeting teenagers with suicide and self-harm content – at a higher rate than two years ago.
The Molly Rose Foundation – set up by Ian Russell after his 14-year-old daughter took her own life after viewing harmful content on social media – commissioned analysis of hundreds of posts on the platforms, using accounts of a 15-year-old girl based in the UK.
The charity claimed videos recommended by algorithms on the For You pages continued to feature a “tsunami” of clips containing “suicide, self-harm and intense depression” to under-16s who have previously engaged with similar material.
One in 10 of the harmful posts had been liked at least a million times. The average number of likes was 226,000, the researchers said.
Mr Russell told Sky News the results were “horrifying” and showed online safety laws are not fit for purpose.
Image: Molly Russell died in 2017. Pic: Molly Rose Foundation
‘This is happening on PM’s watch’
He said: “It is staggering that eight years after Molly’s death, incredibly harmful suicide, self-harm, and depression content like she saw is still pervasive across social media.
“Ofcom’s recent child safety codes do not match the sheer scale of harm being suggested to vulnerable users and ultimately do little to prevent more deaths like Molly’s.
“The situation has got worse rather than better, despite the actions of governments and regulators and people like me. The report shows that if you strayed into the rabbit hole of harmful suicide self-injury content, it’s almost inescapable.
“For over a year, this entirely preventable harm has been happening on the prime minister’s watch and where Ofcom have been timid it is time for him to be strong and bring forward strengthened, life-saving legislation without delay.”
Image: Ian Russell says children are viewing ‘industrial levels’ of self-harm content
After Molly’s death in 2017, a coroner ruled she had been suffering from depression, and the material she had viewed online contributed to her death “in a more than minimal way”.
Researchers at Bright Data looked at 300 Instagram Reels and 242 TikToks to determine if they “promoted and glorified suicide and self-harm”, referenced ideation or methods, or “themes of intense hopelessness, misery, and despair”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:53
What are the new online rules?
Instagram
The Molly Rose Foundation claimed Instagram “continues to algorithmically recommend appallingly high volumes of harmful material”.
The researchers said 97% of the videos recommended on Instagram Reels for the account of a teenage girl, who had previously looked at this content, were judged to be harmful.
Some 44% actively referenced suicide and self-harm, they said. They also claimed harmful content was sent in emails containing recommended content for users.
A spokesperson for Meta, which owns Instagram, said: “We disagree with the assertions of this report and the limited methodology behind it.
“Tens of millions of teens are now in Instagram Teen Accounts, which offer built-in protections that limit who can contact them, the content they see, and the time they spend on Instagram.
“We continue to use automated technology to remove content encouraging suicide and self-injury, with 99% proactively actioned before being reported to us. We developed Teen Accounts to help protect teens online and continue to work tirelessly to do just that.”
TikTok
TikTok was accused of recommending “an almost uninterrupted supply of harmful material”, with 96% of the videos judged to be harmful, the report said.
Over half (55%) of the For You posts were found to be suicide and self-harm related; a single search yielding posts promoting suicide behaviours, dangerous stunts and challenges, it was claimed.
The number of problematic hashtags had increased since 2023; with many shared on highly-followed accounts which compiled ‘playlists’ of harmful content, the report alleged.
A TikTok spokesperson said: “Teen accounts on TikTok have 50+ features and settings designed to help them safely express themselves, discover and learn, and parents can further customise 20+ content and privacy settings through Family Pairing.
“With over 99% of violative content proactively removed by TikTok, the findings don’t reflect the real experience of people on our platform which the report admits.”
According to TikTok, they not do not allow content showing or promoting suicide and self-harm, and say that banned hashtags lead users to support helplines.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
5:23
Why do people want to repeal the Online Safety Act?
‘A brutal reality’
Both platforms allow young users to provide negative feedback on harmful content recommended to them. But the researchers found they can also provide positive feedback on this content and be sent it for the next 30 days.
Technology Secretary Peter Kyle said: “These figures show a brutal reality – for far too long, tech companies have stood by as the internet fed vile content to children, devastating young lives and even tearing some families to pieces.
“But companies can no longer pretend not to see. The Online Safety Act, which came into effect earlier this year, requires platforms to protect all users from illegal content and children from the most harmful content, like promoting or encouraging suicide and self-harm. 45 sites are already under investigation.”
An Ofcom spokesperson said: “Since this research was carried out, our new measures to protect children online have come into force.
“These will make a meaningful difference to children – helping to prevent exposure to the most harmful content, including suicide and self-harm material. And for the first time, services will be required by law to tame toxic algorithms.
“Tech firms that don’t comply with the protection measures set out in our codes can expect enforcement action.”
Image: Peter Kyle has said opponents of the Online Safety Act are on the side of predators. Pic: PA
‘A snapshot of rock bottom’
A separate report out today from the Children’s Commissioner found the proportion of children who have seen pornography online has risen in the past two years – also driven by algorithms.
Rachel de Souza described the content young people are seeing as “violent, extreme and degrading”, and often illegal, and said her office’s findings must be seen as a “snapshot of what rock bottom looks like”.
More than half (58%) of respondents to the survey said that, as children, they had seen pornography involving strangulation, while 44% reported seeing a depiction of rape – specifically someone who was asleep.
The survey of 1,020 people aged between 16 and 21 found that they were on average aged 13 when they first saw pornography. More than a quarter (27%) said they were 11, and some reported being six or younger.
Anyone feeling emotionally distressed or suicidal can call Samaritans for help on 116 123 or email jo@samaritans.org in the UK. In the US, call the Samaritans branch in your area or 1 (800) 273-TALK.
There is one thing scarier than markets lurching around. And that’s markets lurching around without a very compelling explanation.
Just yesterday, the yield on the government’s 30-year bonds – the best measure out there of the UK government’s long-term cost of borrowing – closed at the highest level since 1998, not long after Oasis released the album Be Here Now. Indeed, the yields on pretty much all UK government debt has been creeping up in recent weeks, though not all are back to Britpop era levels.
In some senses, this looks very odd indeed. After all, the Bank of England just cut interest rates. In normal circumstances, you would expect measures of borrowing costs to be falling across the board. But clearly these are not normal times.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:56
‘Is the Bank worried about recession risk?’
All of which raises the question: is this a UK-specific phenomenon? Are markets singling out Britain for particular concern, much as they did after Liz Truss’s notorious mini-budget? Actually, there are more questions on top of that one. For instance, is this all about Rachel Reeves’s recent woes, and her need to find another £20bn, give or take, to make her sums add up? Are investors fretting about the Bank of England’s inflation-fighting credibility, given its cutting rates even as prices rise?
The short answer, I’m afraid, is that no one really knows. But a glance at a few metrics can at least provide a bit of context.
The first thing to note is that while government borrowing costs in the UK are up, they have also been rising in other leading economies. The UK, it’s worth saying, is a bit of an outlier with higher yields than in fellow G7 nations. But that’s not exactly a new thing: it’s been the case since the mini-budget. But the UK is a particularly ugly duckling in a lake full of them.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:06
Are taxes going to rise?
Indeed, look at other nations, and you see that Britain’s budgetary challenges are hardly unique. The US and France have ballooning budget deficits which are rising rapidly. Most European nations have pledged enormous increases in military spending to satisfy Donald Trump’s demands of NATO.
And over the Atlantic, the US administration has just committed to a sweeping set of generous fiscal measures, under its One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Even Elon Musk has voiced concerns about what this means for the deficit (which is set to continue rising ad infinitum, at least on paper).
All of which brings us to the broader, possibly scarier, lesson. There are signs afoot that while G7 nations could depend for decades on other surplus countries – most notably China and other Asian countries – buying vast amounts of their debt in recent years, that might no longer be the case. In short, even as rich countries borrow like crazy, it’s becoming less clear who will lend them the money.
That’s an enormous conundrum, and not good news for anyone.