Liz Truss under pressure as three Tory MPs publicly call for her to quit – and Labour demand she faces parliament

Published

3 years ago

October 17, 2022

admin

Labour has called for Liz Truss to face parliament today after three Tory MPs broke ranks to demand that she quits.

The prime minister is facing calls to resign from within her own party just six weeks after entering Number 10, following the economic turmoil in the wake of the mini-budget.

Tory MPs Crispin Blunt, Andrew Bridgen and Jamie Wallis have all publicly stated they believe she should resign, as Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer accused Ms Truss of being “in office but not in power”.

The Daily Mail reported that Tory MPs will try to oust Ms Truss this week, with more than 100 ready to submit letters of no confidence.

It comes after the PM dramatically ditched a major chunk of the mini-budget and sacked Kwasi Kwarteng as chancellor, replacing him with Jeremy Hunt, in a bid to restore credibility.

The new chancellor has signalled that the country could be facing a package of tax rises and spending cuts, in a move that would make a complete reversal of Ms Truss’s promised economic vision.

Friday saw Ms Truss give a brief news conference to explain her latest U-turn, but Sir Keir said it “completely failed to answer any of the questions the public has”.

He said: “Mortgages are rising and the cost of living crisis is being felt ever more acutely. The Conservative government is currently the biggest threat to the security and the finances of families across the country.

“That’s why the prime minister must come to parliament on Monday, to explain what she plans to do to turn the situation around.

“If the prime minister won’t take questions from journalists, Liz Truss must at least take them from MPs representing the families whose livelihoods she’s putting at risk.”

MPs believe it is simply not sustainable for Truss to remain as PM

I was told by a cabinet source Liz Truss had no option but to sack Kwasi Kwarteng because it was made clear to her he’d lost the confidence of markets and her only hope of steadying the ship was removing him.

But what follows from that is obvious: as a second cabinet source put it to me over weekend, what the markets do it coming few days will be critical for Truss too.

The firewall provided by the chancellor is now burnt through and if there’s no improvement, the signal will be that the is problem is her.

Politically the view settling amongst MPs is that it’s simply not sustainable for her to remain as prime minister.

All eyes are now on Sir Graham Brady, the only person who knows when a leadership election has been triggered, to see what he does. Party rules say Truss has a year’s grace, but they can change the rules.

But there’s also a view, shared by some Truss rivals and backers alike, that the PM has bought a bit of time.

As one cabinet minister told me: “Despite the hysteria, the reality is we need to calm down, let Liz decide her new priorities and Jeremy deliver his budget. Nothing will be gained in the next 14 days by more fratricide.”

But the point is, as Conservative Home’s Paul Goodman put it, it’s over for Liz Truss whether she’s pushed out or not.

Her economic project is finished and her authority is gone. And that makes if very hard to see how she can lead the party into a general election.

I’ll be watching the markets and Sir Graham very closely on Monday.

If the prime minister does not agree to make a statement later, Labour could try to force her to come to the Commons.

‘The game is up’

Ms Truss and the new chancellor met in Chequers on Sunday, as the pair begin work on what will effectively be a new budget on 31 October.

But Mr Blunt, who was the first Tory MP to publicly call for Ms Truss to resign, said “the game is up” for the prime minister.

He told Sky News it was “blindingly obvious” that Ms Truss had to go and backed former chancellor Rishi Sunak to replace her.

“The principal emotions of people watching her, doing her best to present, is some combination of pity, contempt or anger,” he said.

“I’m afraid it just won’t wash and we need to make a change.”

Tory MP Andrew Bridgen also called for Ms Truss to quit as PM, saying “our country, its people and our party deserve better”.

Meanwhile, Conservative MP Jamie Wallis tweeted: “In recent weeks, I have watched as the government has undermined Britain’s economic credibility and fractured our party irreparably. Enough is enough.

“I have written to the prime minister to ask her to stand down as she no longer holds the confidence of this country.”

However Ms Truss received the backing of her former leadership rival Penny Mordaunt who said the “country needs stability, not a soap opera”.

Writing in the Telegraph, the leader of the Commons told her colleagues that the “national mission” is clear but said it “needs pragmatism and teamwork”.

“It needs us to work with the prime minister and her new chancellor. It needs all of us,” she wrote.

Could Tory Party change rules to oust Truss?

Asked how the party could get rid of Ms Truss, Mr Blunt, who is standing down at the next election, said: “If there is such a weight of opinion in the parliamentary party that we have to have a change, then it will be effected.”

The former justice minister later added: “If the issue does have to be forced, a way can be found to force it.”

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

Under current Conservative Party rules, a confidence vote in a leader cannot take place until they have been in power for at least a year, so she is theoretically safe until next September.

However, there has been talk among MPs of the powerful 1922 backbench committee of Tory MPs of changing the rules to reduce that buffer period.

If enough MPs submit no confidence letters in the PM, then the 1922 executive may have little choice but to change them.

The committee’s treasurer, Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, told Sky News the rules would only be changed if “an overwhelming majority of the party wish us to do that”.

Former culture secretary Nadine Dorries said bypassing the rules in a bid to remove Ms Truss would make the system a “laughing stock”.

She tweeted: “The ’22 rules were put in place to act as a barrier against the regicidal nature of Conservative MPs.

“What is the point of the ’22 committee if the rules mean absolutely nothing?

“It’s a laughing stock and not fit for purpose if it makes it up as it goes along!”

Former chancellor George Osborne has predicted Ms Truss is unlikely to still be in Downing Street by Christmas.

He called her a “PINO – prime minister in name only” and said Ms Truss is “hiding in Number 10” as pressure mounts.

To register your interest and share your story, please email TheGreatDebate@sky.uk

UK

Man, 76, charged after children fell ill at summer camp

Published

2 hours ago

August 1, 2025

admin

Man, 76, charged after children fell ill at summer camp

A 76-year-old man has been charged with child cruelty offences after youngsters fell ill at a summer camp.

Jonathon Ruben is accused of three offences of “wilful ill treatment of a child” relating to three boys.

Police received a report of children feeling unwell at a camp being held at Stathern Lodge, near Melton in Leicestershire, on Sunday.

Officers said paramedics attended the scene and eight boys – aged between eight and 11 – were taken to hospital as a precaution, as was an adult. They have since been discharged.

Ruben will appear at Leicester Magistrates’ Court on Saturday.

A statement from Janine McKinney, chief crown prosecutor for CPS East Midlands, said: “The Crown Prosecution Service has authorised the prosecution of a 76-year-old man with child cruelty offences following a police investigation into a summer camp held at Stathern Lodge, Leicestershire.

“This decision has been made after reviewing a file of evidence from Leicestershire Police.

“Jonathon Ruben, will be charged with three offences of wilful ill-treatment of a child relating to three boys. He will appear at Leicester Magistrates’ Court on Saturday, 1 August.

“This has been an extremely upsetting and shocking moment for the community, and especially for the children and parents most directly affected.”

Leicestershire Police said the owners and operators of Stathern Lodge are separate from the people who use or hire the venue, and are not connected to the incident.

It added in a statement: “This is an active criminal investigation and we ask that people do not speculate further about the incident, particularly on social media platforms.

“Leicestershire Police continues to work closely with partners ensuring that full safeguarding is provided to all those affected.”

The force has referred itself to the Independent Office for Police Conduct over its handling of the incident.

UK

What is the car finance scandal – and what could today’s ruling mean for motorists?

Published

17 hours ago

August 1, 2025

admin

What is the car finance scandal - and what could today's ruling mean for motorists?

The UK’s Supreme Court is set to deliver a landmark ruling today that could have billion-pound consequences for banks and impact millions of motorists.

The essential question that the country’s top court has been asked to answer is this: should customers be fully informed about the commission dealers earn on their purchase?

However, the Supreme Court is only considering one of two cases running in parallel regarding the mis-selling of car finance.

Here is everything you need to know about both cases, and how the ruling this afternoon may (or may not) affect any future compensation scheme.

What is the Supreme Court considering?

The Supreme Court case concerns complaints related to the non-disclosure of commission. This applies to 99% of car finance cases.

When you buy a car on finance, you are effectively loaned the money, which you pay off in monthly instalments. These loans carry interest, organised by the brokers (the people who sell you the finance plan).

These brokers earn money in the form of a commission (which is a percentage of the interest payments).

Last year, the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of three motorists who were not informed that the car dealerships they agreed finance deals with were also being paid 25% commission, which was then added to their bills.

The ruling said it was unlawful for the car dealers to receive a commission from lenders without obtaining the customer’s informed consent to the payment.

However, British lender Close Brothers and South Africa’s FirstRand appealed the decision, landing it in the Supreme Court.

What does the second case involve?

The second case is being driven by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and involves discretionary commission arrangements (DCAs).

Under these arrangements, brokers and dealers increased the amount of interest they earned without telling buyers and received more commission for it. This is said to have incentivised sellers to maximise interest rates.

The FCA banned this practice in 2021. However, a high number of consumers have complained they were overcharged before the ban came into force. The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) said in May that they were dealing with 20,000 complaints.

In January 2024, the FCA announced a review into whether motor finance customers had been overcharged because of past use of DCAs. It is using its powers to review historical motor finance commission arrangements across multiple firms – all of whom deny acting inappropriately.

The FCA also said it is looking into a “consumer redress scheme” that means firms would need to offer appropriate compensation to customers affected by the issue.

An estimated 40% of car finance deals are likely to be eligible for compensation over motor finance deals taken out between 2007 and 2021, when the DCAs were banned.

To find out how you can tell if you’ve been mis-sold car finance, read the following explainer from our reporter Megan Harwood-Baynes.

How does the ruling affect potential compensation?

In short, the Supreme Court ruling could impact the scale and reach that a compensation scheme is likely to have.

The FCA said in March that it will consider the court’s decision and if it concludes motor finance customers have lost out from widespread failings by firms, it is “likely [to] consult on an industry-wide redress scheme”.

This would mean affected individuals wouldn’t need to complain, but they would be paid out an amount dictated by the FCA.

However, no matter what the court decides, the FCA could go ahead with a redress scheme.

The regulator said it will confirm if it is proposing a scheme within six weeks of the Supreme Court’s decision.

What impact could this have on lenders?

Analysts at HSBC said last year the controversy could be estimated to cost up to £44bn.

Alongside Close Brothers, firms that could be affected include Barclays, Santander and the UK’s largest motor finance provider Lloyds Banking Group – which organises loans through its Black Horse finance arm.

Lloyds has already set aside £1.2bn to be used for potential compensation.

The potential impact on the lending market and the wider economy could be so great that Chancellor Rachel Reeves is considering intervening to overrule the Supreme Court, according to The Guardian.

Treasury officials have been looking at the potential of passing new legislation alongside the Department for Business and Trade that could slash the potential compensation bill.

The Treasury said in response to the claim that it does not “comment on speculation” but hopes to see a “balanced judgment”.

UK

Full details of Heathrow’s plans for a third runway revealed

Published

17 hours ago

August 1, 2025

admin

Full details of Heathrow's plans for a third runway revealed

Heathrow Airport has said it can build a third runway for £21bn within the next decade.

Europe’s busiest travel hub has submitted its plans to the government – with opponents raising concerns about carbon emissions, noise pollution and environmental impacts.

The west London airport wants permission to create a 3,500m (11,400ft) runway, but insists it is open to considering a shorter one instead.

In January, Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced that the government supports a “badly needed” expansion to connect the UK to the world and open up new growth opportunities.

But London mayor Sir Sadiq Khan is still against a new runway because of “the severe impact” it will have on the capital’s residents.

Under Heathrow’s proposal, the runway would be constructed to the northwest of its existing location – allowing for an additional 276,000 flights per year.

The airport also wants to create new terminal capacity for 150 million annual passengers – up from 84 million – with plans involving a new terminal complex named T5XW and T5XN.

Terminal 2 would be extended, while Terminal 3 and the old Terminal 1 would be demolished.

The runway would be privately funded, with the total plan costing about £49bn, but some airlines have expressed concern that the airport will hike its passenger charges to pay for the project.

EasyJet chief executive Kenton Jarvis said an expansion would “represent a unique opportunity for easyJet to operate from the airport at scale for the first time and bring with it lower fares for consumers”.

Thomas Woldbye, the airport’s chief executive, said in a statement that “it has never been more important or urgent to expand Heathrow”.

“We are effectively operating at capacity to the detriment of trade and connectivity,” he added.

“With a green light from government and the correct policy support underpinned by a fit-for-purpose, regulatory model, we are ready to mobilise and start investing this year in our supply chain across the country.

“We are uniquely placed to do this for the country. It is time to clear the way for take-off.”

The M25 motorway would need to be moved into a tunnel under the new runway under the airport’s proposal.

London mayor still opposed

Sir Sadiq says City Hall will “carefully scrutinise” the proposals, adding: “I’ll be keeping all options on the table in how we respond.”

Tony Bosworth, climate campaigner at Friends of the Earth, also said that if Sir Keir Starmer wants to be “seen as a climate leader”, then backing Heathrow expansion is “the wrong move”.

Earlier this year, Longford resident Christian Hughes told Sky News that his village and others nearby would be “decimated” if an expansion were to go ahead.

It comes after hotel tycoon Surinder Arora published a rival Heathrow expansion plan, which involves a shorter runway to avoid the need to divert the M25 motorway.

The billionaire’s Arora Group said a 2,800m (9,200ft) runway would result in “reduced risk” and avoid “spiralling cost”.

Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander will consider all plans over the summer so that a review of the Airports National Policy Statement can begin later this year.

It also comes after Sky News reported on a Heathrow Airport-funded group sending leaflets supporting a third runway to thousands of homes across west London.

The group, called Back Heathrow, sent leaflets to people living near the airport, claiming expansion could be the route to a “greener” airport and suggesting it would mean only the “cleanest and quietest aircraft” fly there.

Opponents of the airport’s expansion said the information provided by the group is “incredibly misleading”.

Back Heathrow told Sky News it had “always been open” about the support it receives from the airport. The funding is not disclosed on Back Heathrow’s newsletter or website.