Liz Truss is on her way out but Tory divisions run so deep the infighting is far from over

Published

3 years ago

October 20, 2022

admin

In the end, Liz Truss lasted less than seven weeks in the job. Never the first choice of Tory MPs, the decisions she made as prime minister finished her off at record pace.

She will be, by some distance, the United Kingdom’s shortest-ever serving prime minister. Her allies promised “shock and awe” when she entered Number 10, but few predicted that she would turn Westminster into such a disaster zone.

Today, there’s a collective sense of shock, rather like the aftermath of a car crash, where you emerge from the wreckage dazed and confused, asking yourself what just happened.

In the case of the Truss administration, the question is how on earth did the wheels come off the government so quickly and spectacularly? And what does that mean for the Conservative Party, our politics and the country now?

Sunak favourite to be new PM as Truss resigns – live politics updates

The central mistake of Liz Truss was to treat the business of government rather like a continuation of her election campaign. She made all sorts of promises to party members – on tax cuts and on spending commitments in order to win them over. When she entered Number 10, she didn’t recalibrate or compromise.

I remember the interview I did with her just days before her mini-budget at the top of the Empire State Building in New York when she told me, “I am prepared to be unpopular,” in order to push through her economic plan. She perhaps thought it was a show of strength. It turned out to be incredibly foolhardy.

It led to fatal errors that cost Ms Truss her job. Instead of consulting the markets, taking soundings from the Treasury, or even gauging the views of her cabinet properly, she and her then chancellor Kwasi Kwateng unleashed £45bn of unfunded tax cuts on the markets in a mini-budget that went even further than she had signalled in her leadership race.

I had thought when Ms Truss became prime minister, she might have stuck to commitments on tax cuts but staggered them in a way that might have been more palatable to the markets.

She did not, and she paid a heavy political price over the following weeks. Forced to U-turn on plans to scrap the 45p rate of tax, then sacking her chancellor before the incoming one, Jeremy Hunt, just about junked her entire economic plan. By Monday this week, it was clear that Liz Truss was a Prime Minister without a policy platform and out of control of her party.

Who is in the running to replace Liz Truss?

Starmer calls for general election

But the British public was also paying the price for her reckless decisions, with interest rates rising faster than had been anticipated before that mini-budget amid a cost of living crisis in which inflation hit a record 40-year high in September.

She has become one of the UK’s most unpopular prime ministers in the space of just a few weeks – with just one in ten Britons satisfied with her leadership. An unrecoverable position, it was clear to me after that fateful press conference where Ms Truss sacked her chancellor that the game was up – what was less clear was how it would end.

That ending was accelerated by the chaos of the fracking vote on Thursday night. Ahead of that horror show, senior influential figures in the party had told me that there was no appetite to remove Ms Truss before the critical fiscal statement on October 31.

They worried this could further unsettle markets: “The media mood I think is more febrile that the parliamentary mood,” one person familiar with the discussions of the 1922 committee told me soon after PMQs.

But that all changed after the evening of chaos, confusion of whips’ resignations and altercations in the voting lobbies between Conservative MPs.

“Everything that happened today could have been avoided, if it had been better managed,” remarked one wise former cabinet minister to me late on Wednesday night. “They didn’t have to create crisis points in terms of whipping votes. That they did is a symptom of where we are.”

But it did trigger a crisis – one which took a life of its own. As Boris Johnson said of his own infamous demise, “when the herd moves, it moves.” The momentum built and the party moved quickly. By Thursday lunchtime, Ms Truss announced she was out.

But the speed was also hastened not just by policy decisions but by politics. This was a prime minister who only ever had the public support of 42% of MPs, despite being nailed onto win for weeks.

It told us that Ms Truss was always going to have a problem winning over the parliamentary party, but instead of recognising her limitations and building a cabinet from different wings of the party, Ms Truss doubled down on winning power.

She kept Sunak supporters out of office and rewarded her allies. It meant that she was not sufficiently challenged by the cabinet in decision-making and failed to garner any goodwill from the wider parliamentary party.

There is also a view from those former cabinet ministers who were agitating from the outset that Ms Truss was never really up to the job in the first place. When her policy platform sparked such dire consequences, the public concluded that too. So she had to go.

But three prime ministers in four months and endless infighting – all during a cost of living crisis – is the worst possible advertisement of a party that wants to convince the public it is fit to lead the country.

Labour want a general election, calling the Conservatives a “coalition of chaos.” The public, meanwhile, are thoroughly fed up, with Labour now consistently polling 20 to 30 percentage points ahead of the Tories.

That is why 1992 chair Sir Graham Brady and the Conservative Party want to replace the prime minister within a week. It is an attempt to get on with the business of government and try to prove to the public that the Tories are capable of governing.

But the mood in the party is desperate. Senior MPs tell me they think there’s little chance of winning the next general election, and the latest iteration of this Conservative psychodrama is designed not to win but to try to limit the losses.

So this will be a short, sharp contest with the aim of installing a new PM within the week. Nominations close on Monday at 2pm, and any candidate who wants to stand has to win 100 nominations. As things stand, it looks to me that the only two candidates that could reach the threshold are Rishi Sunak, who won 137 votes in the last contest, and Penny Mordaunt, who reached 105.

If only one of the candidates crosses the magic 100 threshold, we will know on Monday who will be the next prime minister. The party knows it’s on borrowed time with a fulminating public. This has to end, and soon.
“We are deeply conscious – its imperative in the national interest – in resolving this clearly and quickly,” Sir Graham told me this afternoon.

Labour want a general election, the Conservatives will resist. But the question that is first and foremost in my mind, after the second bout of vicious bloodletting in the Conservative Party in just four months, is whether MPs can come together behind whoever takes over?

Some think the divisions and the grievances are just too deep. The Johnsonites will never accept Rishi Sunak; the Sunakites rounded on Ms Truss and might round on the next leader too, should their man not take the crown. We will have a new prime minister, but its hard to see how it stops the rot.

Watch a special programme tonight at 7pm with Dermot Murnaghan on Sky News

World

Two security workers injured after grenades thrown at aid site, Gaza Humanitarian Foundation says

Published

2 hours ago

July 5, 2025

admin

Two security workers injured after grenades thrown at aid site, Gaza Humanitarian Foundation says

Two American security workers in Gaza were injured after grenades were thrown during food distribution in Khan Younis, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) has said.

In a statement, the US and Israeli-backed aid group said a targeted terrorist attack was carried out at one of its sites in southern Gaza on Saturday morning.

The two Americans injured “are receiving medical treatment and are in stable condition,” it said, adding that the delivery of aid was “otherwise successful” and that “no local aid workers or civilians were harmed”.

GHF didn’t say exactly when the incident happened but claimed Hamas was behind the attack, adding: “GHF has repeatedly warned of credible threats from Hamas, including explicit plans to target American personnel, Palestinian aid workers, and the civilians who rely on our sites for food.

“Today’s attack tragically affirms those warnings.”

Later, the aid group posted a picture on social media, which it said showed “fragments of a grenade packed with ball bearings” that was used in the attack.

Asked by Sky’s US partner network, NBC News, whether the two injured individuals were responsible for handing out aid or were responsible for providing security, GHF said they were “American security workers” and “two American veterans.”

The aid group did not provide specific evidence that Hamas was behind the attack.

The US and Israeli-backed group has been primarily responsible for aid distribution since Israel lifted its 11-week blockade of the Gaza Strip in May.

It comes after Sky News analysis showed GHF aid distributions are associated with a significant increase in deaths in Gaza.

According to Gaza’s health ministry, 600 Palestinians have been killed while seeking aid from GHF sites as of 3 July, which charities and the UN have branded “death traps”.

Meanwhile, the Associated Press has reported that Israeli-backed American contractors guarding GHF aid centres in Gaza are using live ammunition and stun grenades.

GHF has vehemently denied the accusations, adding that it investigated AP’s allegations and found them to be “categorically false”.

Israel’s military added that it fires only warning shots and is investigating reports of civilian harm.

It denies deliberately shooting at any innocent civilians and says it’s examining how to reduce “friction with the population” in the areas surrounding the distribution centres.

World

Hamas gives ‘positive’ response to ceasefire proposal but asks for amendments

Published

8 hours ago

July 5, 2025

admin

Hamas gives 'positive' response to ceasefire proposal but asks for amendments

Hamas has said it has “submitted its positive response” to the latest proposal for a ceasefire in Gaza to mediators.

The proposal for a 60-day ceasefire was presented by US President Donald Trump, who has been pushing hard for a deal to end the fighting in Gaza, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu set to visit the White House next week to discuss a deal.

Mr Trump said Israel had agreed to his proposed ceasefire terms, and he urged Hamas to accept the deal as well.

Hamas’ “positive” response to the proposal had slightly different wording on three issues around humanitarian aid, the status of the Israeli Defence Forces inside Gaza and the language around guarantees beyond the 60-day ceasefire, a source with knowledge of the negotiations revealed.

But the source told Sky News: “Things are looking good.”

Hamas said it is “fully prepared to immediately enter into a round of negotiations regarding the mechanism for implementing this framework” without elaborating on what needed to be worked out in the proposal’s implementation.

The US said during the ceasefire it would “work with all parties to end the war”.

A Hamas official said on condition of anonymity that the truce could start as early as next week.

But he added that talks were needed first to establish how many Palestinian prisoners would be released in return for each freed Israeli hostage and to specify the amount of humanitarian aid that will be allowed to enter Gaza during the ceasefire.

He said negotiations on a permanent ceasefire and the full withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza in return for the release of the remaining hostages would start on the first day of the truce.

Hamas has been seeking guarantees that the 60-day ceasefire would lead to a total end to the nearly 21-month-old war, which caused previous rounds of negotiations to fail as Mr Netanyahu has insisted that Israel would continue fighting in Gaza to ensure the destruction of Hamas.

The Hamas official said that Mr Trump has guaranteed that the ceasefire will extend beyond 60 days if necessary to reach a peace deal, but there is no confirmation from the US of such a guarantee.

Speaking to journalists on Air Force One, Mr Trump welcomed Hamas’s “positive spirit” to the proposal, adding that there could be a ceasefire deal by next week.

Hamas also said it wants more aid to flow through the United Nations and other humanitarian agencies, which comes as the UN human rights officer said it recorded 613 Palestinians killed in Gaza within a month while trying to obtain aid.

Most of them were said to have been killed while trying to reach food distribution points by the controversial US- and Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF).

The spokeswoman for the UN human rights office, Ravina Shamdasani, said the agency was not able to attribute responsibility for the killings, but added that “it is clear that the Israeli military has shelled and shot at Palestinians trying to reach the distribution points” operated by GHF.

Ms Shamdasani said that of the total tallied, 509 killings were “GHF-related”, meaning at or near its distribution sites.

The GHF accused the UN of taking its casualty figures “directly from the Hamas-controlled Gaza health ministry” and of trying “to falsely smear our effort”, which echoed statements to Sky News by the executive director of GHF, Johnnie Moore.

Mr Moore called the UN figures a “disinformation campaign” that is “meant to shut down our efforts” in the Gaza Strip.

World

Gaza: The man in the room acting as backchannel for Hamas in negotiations with US

Published

8 hours ago

July 5, 2025

admin

Gaza: The man in the room acting as backchannel for Hamas in negotiations with US

Behind the efforts to secure the Gaza ceasefire and hostage release is the remarkable story of one man’s unlikely involvement.

His name is Bishara Bahbah, he’s a Harvard-educated economics professor from Phoenix, Arizona.

In April, his phone rang. It was Hamas.

Since that phone call, Dr Bahbah has been living temporarily in Qatar where he is in direct contact with officials from Hamas. He has emerged as an important back-channel American negotiator. But how?

An inauguration party

I first met Dr Bahbah in January. It was the eve of President Trump’s inauguration and a group of Arab-Americans had thrown a party at a swanky restaurant in Washington DC’s Wharf district.

There was a sense of excitement. Arab-Americans were crediting themselves for having helped Trump over the line in the key swing state of Michigan.

Despite traditionally being aligned with the Democrats, Arab-Americans had abandoned Joe Biden in large numbers because of his handling of the Gaza war.

I’d reported from Michigan weeks earlier and been struck by the overwhelming support for Trump. The vibe essentially was ‘it can’t get any worse – we may as well give Trump a shot’.

Mingling among diplomats from Middle Eastern countries, wealthy business owners and even the president of FIFA, I was introduced to an unassuming man in his late 60s.

We got talking and shared stories of his birthplace and my adopted home for a few years – Jerusalem.

He told me that he still has the deed to his family’s 68 dunum (16 acre) Palestinian orchard.

With nostalgia, he explained how he still had his family’s UN food card which shows their allocated monthly rations from their time living in a refugee camp and in the Jerusalem’s old city.

Dr Bahnah left Jerusalem in 1976. He is now a US citizen but told me Jerusalem would always be home.

He echoed the views I had heard in Michigan, where he had spent many months campaigning as the president of Arab-Americans for Trump.

He dismissed my scepticism that Trump would be any better than Biden for the Palestinians.

We exchanged numbers and agreed to meet for lunch a few weeks later.

A connection with Trump

Dr Bahbah invited two Arab-American friends to our lunch. Over burgers and coke, a block from the White House, we discussed their hopes for Gaza under Trump.

The three men repeated what I had heard on the campaign trail – that things couldn’t get any worse for the Palestinians than they were under Biden.

Trump, they said, would use his pragmatism and transactional nature to create opportunities.

Dr Bahbah displayed to me his own initiative too. He revealed that he got a message to the Palestinian Authority President, Mahmoud Abbas, to suggest he ought to write a personal letter of congratulations to President Trump.

A letter from Ramallah was on the Oval Office desk on 6 November, a day after the election. It’s the sort of gesture Trump notices.

It was clear to me that the campaigning efforts and continued support of these three wealthy men had been recognised by the Trump administration.

They had become close to key figures in Trump’s team – connections that would, in time, pay off.

There were tensions along the way. When Trump announced he would “own Gaza”, Dr Bahbah was disillusioned.

And then came the AI video of Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sunning themselves in a Gazan wonderland.

“It is provocative and unacceptable,” he told me just after the president posted the video in February.

Trump must have thought it was funny, so he posted it. He loves anything with his name on it.”

Then came the Trump plan to resettle Palestinians out of Gaza. To this, he released a public statement titled Urgent Press Release.

“Arab-Americans for Trump firmly rejects President Donald J Trump’s suggestion to remove – voluntarily or forcibly – Palestinians in Gaza to Egypt and Jordan,” he said.

He then changed the name of his alliance, dropping Trump. It became Arab-Americans for Peace.

I wondered if the wheels were coming off this unlikely alliance.

Was he realising Trump couldn’t or wouldn’t solve the Palestinian issue? But Dr Bahbah maintained faith in the new president.

“I am worried, but at the same time, Trump might be testing the waters to determine what is acceptable…,” he told me in late February as the war dragged on.

“There is no alternative to the two-state solution.”

He told me that he expected the president and his team to work on the rebuilding of Gaza and work to launch a process that would culminate in the establishment of a Palestinian state, side by side in peace with Israel.

It was, and remains, an expectation at odds with the Trump administration’s official policy.

The phone call

In late April, Dr Bahbah’s phone rang. The man at the other end of the line was Dr Ghazi Hamad, a senior member of Hamas.

Dr Bahbah and Dr Hamad had never met – they did not know each other.

But Hamas had identified Dr Bahbah as the Palestinian-American with the most influence in Trump’s administration.

Dr Hamad suggested that they could work together – to secure the release of all the hostages in return for a permanent ceasefire.

Hamas was already using the Qatari government as a conduit to the Americans but Dr Bahbah represented a second channel through which they hoped they could convince President Trump to increase pressure on Israel.

There is a thread of history which runs through this story. It was the widow of former Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat who passed Dr Bahbah’s number to Dr Hamad.

In the 1990s, Dr Bahbah was part of a Palestinian delegation to the multilateral peace talks.

He became close to Arafat but he had no experience of a negotiation as delicate and intractable as this.

The first step was to build trust. Dr Bahbah contacted Steve Witkoff, Trump’s Middle East envoy.

Witkoff and Bahbah had something in common – one a real-estate mogul, the other an academic, neither had any experience in diplomacy. It represented the perfect manifestation of Trump’s ‘outside the box’ methods.

But Witkoff was sceptical of Dr Bahbah’s proposal at first. Could he really have any success at securing agreement between Israel and Hamas? A gesture to build trust was necessary.

Bahbah claims he told his new Hamas contact that they needed to prove to the Trump administration that they were serious about negotiating.

Within weeks a remarkable moment more than convinced Dr Bahbah and Witkoff that this new Hamas back-channel could be vitally important.

On 12 May, after 584 days in Hamas captivity, Israeli-American Edan Alexander was released.

We were told at the time that his release was a result of a direct deal between Hamas and the US.

Israel was not involved and the deal was described by Hamas as a “good faith” gesture. Dr Bahbah sees it as his deal.

Direct talks took place between Dr Bahbah and five Hamas officials in Doha who would then convey messages back to at least 17 other Hamas leadership figures in both Gaza and Cairo.

Dr Bahbah in turn conveyed Hamas messages back to Witkoff who was not directly involved in the Hamas talks.

A Qatari source told me that Dr Bahbah was “very involved” in the negotiations.

But publicly, the White House has sought to downplay his role, with an official telling Axios in May that “he was involved but tangentially”.

The Israeli government was unaware of his involvement until their own spies discovered the backchannel discussion about the release of Alexander.

Since that April phone call, Dr Bahbah has remained in the Qatari capital, with trips to Cairo, trying to help secure a final agreement.

He is taking no payment from anyone for his work.

As he told me when we first met back in January: “If I can do something to help to end this war and secure a future for the Palestinian people, I will.”