A car has crashed into the gates of Downing Street, where UK prime minister Rishi Sunak lives, the Metropolitan Police has said.
Armed officers have arrested a man on suspicion of criminal damage and dangerous driving, the force added. It continued that no-one has been hurt.
Advertisement
The collision involving the silver Kia took place at around 4.20pm on Thursday.
Video posted on social media showed a white car with its trunk open up against the tall metal gates. The BBC’s footage appears to show the car slowing down before it hits the gate.
The PA news agency has reported Sunak was in Downing Street at the time of the incident, and departed after the crash as scheduled.
A Scotland Yard statement said: “At approximately 16:20hrs on Thursday, 25 May a car collided with the gate of Downing Street on Whitehall.
“Armed officers arrested a man at the scene on suspicion of criminal damage and dangerous driving. He has been taken into custody.
Advertisement
“There were no reports of any injuries.
“Enquiries are ongoing to establish the circumstances.”
Ben Hatton/PA Wire
<img class="img-sized__img portrait" loading="lazy" alt="Handout taken from the Twitter feed of @TorbsTalks, of police at the scene after a car collided with the gates of Downing Street in London. ” width=”720″ height=”941″ src=”https://www.wellnessmaster.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/car-crashes-into-gates-of-downing-street-4.jpg”>
Handout taken from the Twitter feed of @TorbsTalks, of police at the scene after a car collided with the gates of Downing Street in London.
@TorbsTalks@TorbsTalks/PA Wire
Downing Street, a narrow street with a row of Georgian houses, was open to the public until gates were erected in 1989 in response to threats from Irish Republican Army militants.
Public access to the street is restricted and the gates are protected at all times by armed police officers.
Tradition dictates that the prime minister lives at No.10 Downing Street and the chancellor of the exchequer at No.11.
Advertisement
Metropolitan Police later said that counter-terrorism police are not involved in the investigation at this stage.
Dominic Raab has become the latest Tory MP to announce that they are standing down at the next election.
He later signalled to journalists he was the victim of “activist civil servants” who oppose reforms such as Brexit, and the “tyranny of subjective hurt feelings”.
On Monday, the Telegraph reported Raab is quitting because he has been “increasingly concerned over the last few years about the pressure the job has placed on my young family”.
Raab holds a slim 2,743-vote majority in his Esher and Walton constituency in Surrey, which is a top target seat for the Liberal Democrats at the next election.
Suella Braverman has had a bad weekend – but the next few days are set to be even worse.
The home secretary has been keeping a low profile today after the Sunday Times revealed she had asked civil servants to help her avoid a fine for speeding last summer.
Braverman wanted to arrange a private speeding awareness course but, after that proved impossible, she accepted the fine as well as three penalty points on her licence.
Advertisement
Awkwardly, the first Rishi Sunak knew about it was when the story was about to be published.
HuffPost UK understands that although the speeding offence took place when she was still attorney general, Braverman didn’t accept the fine until after Sunak had re-appointed her to the role of home secretary in October.
The PM’s frustration was obvious this morning, when the controversy dominated his press conference marking the end of the G7 summit in Japan.
Asked by the BBC’s Chris Mason if he retained “full confidence” in his cabinet colleague, a grim-faced Sunak replied: ”Well Chris I don’t know the full details about what has happened, nor have I spoken to the home secretary. I think you can see first hand what I’ve been doing over the last day or so.
“But I understand that she’s expressed regret for speeding, accepted the penalty and paid the fine.”
When he returns from the G7 on Monday, the PM will hold talks with Sir Laurie Magnus, his independent ethics adviser, about the Braverman controversy.
Advertisement
Both Labour and the Lib Dems say Sunak must order Sir Laurie to conduct a full inquiry to uncover all the facts.
More immediately, Braverman will have to face the music in the House of Commons at Home Office questions on Monday afternoon.
But that is not the only ordeal the embattled home secretary faces in the coming days.
On Thursday, official figures will confirm that net migration is approaching one million – well above the “tens of thousands” Braverman has said she wants to get it down to.
She – and Sunak – will come under severe pressure from Tory MPs to set out exactly how they plan to reverse the current immigration trend.
Despite the latest controversy surrounding Braverman – she had to quit as home secretary under Liz Truss after breaking security rules, only to be given her job back by Sunak just days later – her position remains safe for now.
Advertisement
One senior Tory source said: “If she was sacked, she would just team up with the other disaffected people and cause the prime minister more trouble. Sometimes it’s best to keep them inside the tent.”
Nevertheless, the week ahead will be the toughest of Braverman’s career. How she handles it will tell us a lot about what kind of future she has in British politics.
MONTGOMERY, Ala. — Of all the places Andrew Warren imagined his career would take him, it was never here: the lobby of an upscale chain hotel in downtown Montgomery, huddling with his legal team and preparing for a hearing that — maybe within a year if he’s lucky — will result in him getting his job back.
“I didn’t ask to be the tip of the spear in this fight for freedom and democracy,” Warren said, settling into a tall wingback chair on the morning of May 2, several hours before he was due in a federal appellate court just down the street. “But the governor picked a fight with me, so I’m fighting on behalf of everyone who cares about these issues.”
Advertisement
It has been over nine months since Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis suspended Warren, accusing the twice-elected Democratic prosecutor for Hillsborough County of “incompetence” and “neglect of duty” in a scathing 29-page executive order last August. The Florida Constitution gives the governor the power to remove elected officials in cases of extreme misconduct. But those powers have rarely, if ever, been used in a case like Warren’s.
“This is something you’d expect to see happen in Turkey or North Korea or China. This is not something you’d ever expect to see happen in the United States,” said Warren, whose general measured demeanor during our interview sometimes gave way to a quiet rage about the whole episode.
“The governor is the one who did wrong here,” Warren told me, “and no one else should have to adjust their behavior to the whims of the dictator.”
Frothing with the polite but pointed anger of a clean-cut attorney, Warren described the surreal events of the past year, which has included: Learning of his suspension in the middle of grand jury proceedings for a decades-old cold case. Being escorted from his office with his belongings by armed sheriff’s deputies. Watching the governor brag about his suspension on Fox News. Reading about his suspension in the governor’s book. Hearing about his suspension in the governor’s stump speeches. Reliving this episode of his life over and over again — in court, in interviews, in conversations with friends and strangers. Having his career and life essentially frozen. Receiving death threats against his family because of the bright spotlight that DeSantis put him under.
Advertisement
“This has been very difficult for me professionally,” said Warren, who is still living with his family in Tampa, “because I care so much about the office. It’s been very difficult for me politically, because the most powerful Republican in the country is targeting me specifically, as an individual. And it’s been very difficult for me personally ― everything from just the huge disruption it’s had on my life with my family, to getting death threats from people who tell me that my children deserve to die for the things I’ve done.”
DeSantis, the Republican governor of Florida, suspended Warren last August for what he characterized as “neglect of duty.”
Associated Press
In his lawsuit, now winding its way through federal courts and currently being heard by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals here in Montgomery, Warren argues that DeSantis violated his constitutional right to free speech and removed him without cause. It will likely be decided as DeSantis is running for president on his record of governing “the free state of Florida.”
DeSantis is expected to announce his campaign for the Republican nomination in the coming days. He has already made Warren’s firing a staple of his stump speech, using the episode to show how he’s crushed foes using his executive fist. “[These state attorneys] want to weaponize the power of their office to target people they don’t like,” DeSantis said last month in Manchester, New Hampshire. “And when we had an attorney like that, a district attorney in Tampa who had been funded by [George] Soros and said he would not uphold the laws of the state, I removed him from his post. He’s gone.”
Warren was never bankrolled by Soros, the Democratic mega-donor who is a perennial target of conspiracies and hate on the right — but he likely benefited from contributions Soros made to the Florida Democratic Party at one point or another. DeSantis, perhaps projecting, also misrepresented the argument he used to fire Warren, who has never been accused, in either the executive order suspending him or in subsequent court filings, of going after people he didn’t like.
Advertisement
The governor’s office, which generally only interacts with certain friendly news outlets, never responded to a request from HuffPost to provide a comment for this article.
Warren has taken his battle against DeSantis to the courts, hoping the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will rule in his favor.
Chasity Maynard/Tallahassee Democrat via AP
Although it’s easier to describe Warren as having been removed or fired, he’s technically in a state of suspension that could be reversed — or made permanent — pending a hearing by the Florida Senate. But given the heavy Republican makeup of that body, Warren is exploring other remedies.
Warren’s suspension came two months after he co-signed a letter with more than 80 other progressive prosecutors opposing the criminalization of abortion and transgender health care, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s reversal on abortion rights. In his executive order, DeSantis cited both the letter and what he characterized as a “blanket refusal” to prosecute some low-level crimes, such as the aggressive ticketing of Tampa bicyclists, most of whom were Black. Warren disputes that his office had “blanket” policies that endangered public safety, as DeSantis tried to argue in his order — and his case hinges on whether a panel of majority-conservative appellate judges see it the same way.
“The governor has his talking points, which are divorced from reality. From the day I was suspended, I said this was a publicity stunt, the allegations are false, this is un-American,” said Warren, on the edge of his seat, his legal team hovering nearby.
Advertisement
A trim 46-year-old with light salt-and-pepper hair, Warren sometimes doesn’t blink when he’s talking. During an interview, he comes off as a deeply focused person who has spent the last nine months of his life consumed by two overlapping objectives — getting his job back and sounding the alarm on DeSantis, whom he sees as a threat to democracy. “Powerful people without a moral compass are dangerous,” Warren said. “Politicians who are willing to break the law to get votes or to get applause are dangerous.”
Politics aside, however, the two men have, if not a lot, at least some major things in common. They are both Florida natives in their mid-40s. They followed similar paths into public service after graduating from elite law schools (Warren from Columbia, DeSantis from Harvard). As young lawyers, they both worked for the Justice Department as federal prosecutors. And they’ve both confronted family tragedies in recent years ― Warren, after his pregnant wife was involved in a car crash and the couple lost their baby, and DeSantis, after his wife was diagnosed and underwent treatment for breast cancer.
Their paths diverged dramatically once DeSantis became a congressman and joined the right-wing House Freedom Caucus, and Warren, having moved from Washington to Tampa to raise his family, decided to challenge a longtime GOP incumbent for state attorney.
The job of chief law enforcement officer, by its very nature, relies heavily on the discretion of the individuals doing the job to determine how crimes are prosecuted and sentenced. That’s why Warren’s case is so tricky and precedent-setting. It’s also why, in nearly every state, prosecutors are locally elected and therefore not subject to the political whims of a faraway official — the same principle behind a governor not picking the members of your city council or school board.
DeSantis isn’t the only Florida governor who has kneecapped a prosecutor. Sen. Rick Scott, the Republican who preceded DeSantis, got a judge to allow him to reassign murder cases from an Orlando prosecutor who was opposed to using the death penalty. But Scott didn’t try to get that prosecutor fired. “When I was there I was very clear — you have to prosecute your cases,” Scott told HuffPost, declining to comment on what’s happening now between DeSantis and Warren.
Advertisement
“Politicians who are willing to break the law to get votes or to get applause are dangerous,” Warren said.
OCTAVIO JONES for HuffPost
Warren came into office in 2016 after upsetting a longtime Republican in the purple west-central Florida county that encompasses Tampa, the state’s third-largest city. He says his backers were both Republicans and Democrats drawn to his mission of more equitable criminal justice outcomes amid a national reckoning over police brutality. Accusing his opponent of being too heavy-handed when the times demanded the opposite, Warren won a surprise victory followed four years later by his reelection to a second term.
At a time when Florida Democrats are desperately trying to build their bench, Warren has been floated as a possible U.S. Senate candidate against Scott in 2024. His close friend Nikki Fried, the newly elected chair of the Florida Democratic Party, told HuffPost that Warren would make a great candidate for any number of Republican-held positions that Democrats are hoping to contest. “He’s a true leader with a big heart, and unfortunately in politics right now you don’t find a lot of those,” Fried said.
Warren can also raise money. While he declined to give an exact figure, he said he’s brought in “several hundred thousand” dollars through a nonprofit for his legal defense.
But Warren isn’t interested in another office, at least not right now. “It’s wonderful to have people who are so confident in your leadership to encourage you to run for different positions,” he said. “But my focus is on the state attorney’s job.”
Advertisement
Running statewide in Florida won’t be easy for any Democrat. So far, no serious candidates have emerged to challenge Scott in what was once a Senate battleground. A bellwether for these times, Warren’s own swing county, Hillsborough, lurched to the right in the last election, shedding several Democratic officeholders.
DeSantis cites his own blowout reelection last year to justify the heavy leverage of his executive powers. The governor has single-handedly spearheaded measures such as banning transgender medical therapy for minors and expanding the state’s controversial “Don’t Say Gay” law into high schools. He also amped up his feud with a beloved American corporation that happens to be one of his state’s largest taxpayers. DeSantis wears these battles as a badge of honor. “My view is simple,” he told an audience last month at Liberty University, uttering a line that’s become a staple of his speeches and the overriding ethos of his governorship. “I may have earned 50% of the vote, but that entitled me to wield 100% of the executive power.”
DeSantis might even be going after another Democratic prosecutor. Monique Worrell, Orlando’s state attorney, said this month that she believes DeSantis is building a case to target her next, accusing the governor of seeking to “exploit his political agenda against me.”
Fried, Florida’s former agriculture commissioner and the last Democrat elected statewide, said DeSantis has created a climate of fear in Florida.
“We’ve got a governor who believes he’s the ultimate ruler of the state. He’s taking away people’s freedom of speech and he’s removing officers who have been elected by their constituents at the local level,” she said.
Advertisement
Warren prepares for a TV interview at his home in Tampa.
The Washington Post via Getty Images
Warren’s best shot at reversing his suspension lies with the appellate court, which is reviewing his challenge to an earlier ruling from a federal judge in Florida. This ruling was both good and bad for Warren — good in that it seemed to generally side with Warren that DeSantis violated his free speech and removed him from office without citing “even a hint of misconduct”; bad because despite all that, the judge still found he didn’t have the constitutional authority to restore Warren as a local prosecutor.
Documents unearthed in discovery support the argument that DeSantis doled out a punishment driven overwhelmingly by his political agenda. An early version of the executive order made numerous references to Soros, the political lightning rod, which DeSantis ultimately struck out with a blue marker. Beyond that, the governor’s attorney struggled to build a case showing that Warren had undermined public safety, according to a New York Times analysis of the discovery documents.
That didn’t stop DeSantis from declaring, in an Aug. 4 press conference announcing the suspension, that Warren’s tenure had been “devastating to the rule of law.” He made similar comments that night to then-Fox News host Tucker Carlson.
“Tucker, you’ve documented the destruction that we’ve seen with these Soros prosecutors around the county, where they basically take it upon themselves to determine which laws should be followed and which laws should not be followed,” a grinning DeSantis said, with photos of Warren proceeding to flash across the screen.
Advertisement
Warren disputes that his policies had any negative impact on crime, noting that, by the state of Florida’s own crime reporting metrics, overall crime declined in Hillsborough County under his watch. “This isn’t a Portland or San Francisco scenario,” he said.
Republicans blame soft-on-crime policies, and the “woke” district attorneys they say promote them, for the visible homelessness and addiction in places like Portland, Oregon, and San Francisco, an idea that’s been relentlessly reinforced by conservative media. I asked Warren to define a “woke prosecutor,” and he didn’t know where to begin. In general, the term has become a catchall on the right for anything deemed too liberal or politically correct. “You have to ask the people on Fox News [what it means],” Warren said. “I’m a moderate prosecutor from a moderate county. I have done things that have frustrated the far left as much as the far right.”
Warren’s suspension was a direct result of DeSantis’ war on “woke,” his attorneys argue, a pretext the governor has used to go after schools, government agencies and businesses in a way that Democrats, at least, find chilling.
“The animus here toward woke ideas and woke viewpoints was a motivating factor,” Warren’s attorney David O’Neill argued to the appellate panel. Republicans have made the word so pervasive that it’s being used now in a deadly serious manner in federal courts.
DeSantis was represented in Montgomery by two young attorneys for the state of Florida who returned to a single, much-examined line in the abortion rights letter that Warren signed last June. The sentence in question seems to signal, beyond just the general opposition to the criminalization of abortion, that the co-signers would go a step further and refuse to prosecute abortion crimes altogether. Warren, as far as he knows, is the only prosecutor from the letter who lost his job over this single sentence.
Advertisement
In the chaotic and emotional days that followed the Supreme Court’s abortion ruling and the letter’s release, Warren said he attempted to clarify that he didn’t mean he would disregard abortion law in its entirety. At the time, Florida lawmakers had just passed a 15-week abortion ban. Since then, they’ve passed a six-week ban, which DeSantis put his signature on last month but hasn’t said much about since.
“The governor has made it clear that if he disagrees with who you are or what you said or what you stand for, then you’re at risk for being attacked,” Warren said.
Octavio Jones for HuffPost
Warren can expect a ruling sometime within the next year. It may not be the ruling he’s hoping for.
The appellate panel is composed of three judges: one Democratic appointee and two Republicans, including a Trump nominee. And beyond this panel of judges in Alabama, there are only dead ends — the Republican-controlled Florida Senate and equally conservative Florida Supreme Court — underscoring how entrenched Republicans have become in Florida under DeSantis and throughout the age of Donald Trump.
Warren, who might violate the terms of his suspension if he were to take another legal job, has had a lot of downtime to reflect on this battle and what it all means. For himself and his future. For Florida. For the country, if DeSantis beats both Trump and Joe Biden and tries to run the federal government like the state of Florida — which he’s promised to do.
“The governor has made it clear that if he disagrees with who you are or what you said or what you stand for, then you’re at risk for being attacked,” Warren said. “I mean, look at the people he’s gone after. Disney, obviously. The Special Olympics. He’s attacked businesses. He’s attacked teachers. He’s attacking the LGBTQ community. He’s attacked universities and professors and boards of regents. He’s attacked elected officials. If you don’t say what he wants you to say, then you are at risk.”
Advertisement
My final question for Warren was whether he regrets signing the abortion letter — after all, had he not, he might still be employed. Would he risk this all over again? Or would he try to find another, less out-there way to signal his opposition to the abortion climate? Warren shifted uncomfortably in his seat. For the first time in our conversation he became a little less lawyerly and a little more pissed, channeling, in a certain sense, his nemesis.
“Your question to me is — should I have done something differently and not spoken my mind so as not to annoy the governor of Florida? Should I not have exercised my constitutional right to free speech? So I didn’t run the risk of the governor breaking state and federal law?” he said. “Americans don’t need permission slips to exercise their constitutional rights. No, I wouldn’t change a thing, and I shouldn’t have to change a thing.”
Against the backdrop of growing public anger over raw sewage being dumped into the sea and rivers when the system cannot cope with heavy rain, the industry said shareholders will make a £10 billion investment in sewerage infrastructure.
Advertisement
And then came the fine print.
Ruth Kelly, chair of the trade body Water UK, admitted the public will have to pay towards upgrading storm overflows – and could be doing so for up to a century.
To be clear, the upfront payment by the water companies will be recuperated from consumers by gradually raising their bills over time.
Kelly said: “Over time, the way the system works is that there will be modest upward pressure on customer bills over the full lifetime of the asset, so over 50 years or perhaps even longer, maybe up to 100 years, customers do contribute.”
So how much is “modest upward pressure”?
Anglian Water, which covers a long stretch of the east of England coast, became the first firm to a price on it. It suggested customers could face an increase on their bills of £91 a year – including £12 to help pay for investment in sewerage infrastructure.
Advertisement
Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s World At One programme, Anglian Water’s head of public relations, Regan Harris, said: “The initial investment will be put forward by our shareholders and the way we’re financed is that they put up that investment and Ofwat allows us to recover a proportion of that from bills.
“What we’re looking at is a fairly small increase of probably a few percent a year between now and 2030.”
It’s hard to gauge how much a household will pay, since it will be determined by individual regional water companies – and the longer the stretch of coastline to keep clean, the higher the bill is likely to be.
The regulator Ofwat said water companies will submit their National Overflows Plan by October 2 which will include any bill increases for the period 2025-30.
The regulator will analyse the plans, giving a final announcement in December 2024, so any bill increases related to the storm overflows plan will not be felt until 2025.
Advertisement
Households have already seen the largest increase to water bills in almost 20 years this year when they soared to £448 a year. Meanwhile, as the Financial Times reported, water and sewage companies paid £1.4 billion in dividends in 2022, an increase from £540 million the previous year.
“This is nothing to celebrate whatsoever.”
And the backlash has begun, with the Metro’s front page screaming ”£10 Billion Dirty Trick”.
Musician and clean river campaigner Feargal Sharkey criticised the water companies for making customers pay “a second time”.
He told BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme: “They are now suggesting that we should pay them a second time for a service we haven’t had.
“We should have an apology for the suggestion they are going to put bills up by £10 billion for their incompetence and their greed.
Advertisement
“This is nothing to celebrate whatsoever. What they should be saying is, ‘we messed this up, we’re terribly sorry, we’re going to compensate you all, £10 billion, it is the least we could do for our customers, give you a refund’.
“That we could all get behind. This is just another outbreak of moral panic due to the pressure and scrutiny they are coming under.”
Kwasi Kwarteng has refused to apologise for the financial meltdown unleashed by his time in office alongside Liz Truss – saying “what was done was done”.
The former chancellor also suggested people were not angry about mortgage rates soaring as a result of his mini-budget – and that instead they say “you tried your best”.
On September 23, Kwarteng announced the biggest raft of tax cuts for half a century. The mini-budget triggered turbulence in the financial markets, sending the pound tumbling and forcing the Bank of England’s intervention.
Truss ended up resigning after only 44 days in office, with her economic measures swiftly ripped up by new chancellor Jeremy Hunt and her successor in No 10, Rishi Sunak.
“I’m not going to apologise,” he told Channel 4 News on Wednesday.
“I’ve said very clearly, you know, what was done was done, but I don’t believe that politicians are endlessly, you know, apologising for everything that has gone in the past. I’m looking forward.”
Asked whether he felt people’s anger about crippling mortgage rates, he said “no”.
He added: “I know the media will want to go to a world where people are being angry and outrage … but actually, what I found is that some people will come up to people and say, ‘I’m very angry, I’m very upset.’ You get that.
“I’m very struck, actually, by the fact that people are ‘you tried your best. We understand what you were trying to do. It was difficult.’”
Liz Truss has condemned Rishi Sunak for U-turning on his previous decision to describe China as a “threat” to global security.
The former prime minister will hit out at her successor – and former Tory leadership rival – in a speech in Taiwan.
Advertisement
Sunak made clear his concern about China last July during his battle with Truss to succeed Boris Johnson in Downing Street.
In a tweet, Sunak said: “China and the Chinese Communist Party represent the largest threat to Britain and the world’s security and prosperity this century.”
He also pledged to shut down the UK’s 30 Confucius Institutes, which promote and teach Chinese culture.
1/ China and the Chinese Communist Party represent the largest threat to Britain and the world’s security and prosperity this century.
But speaking in March – four months after taking over from Truss in Number 10 – Sunak struck a more conciliatory tone by refusing to say he still saw China as a threat.
He said: “I don’t think it’s kind of smart or sophisticated foreign policy to reduce our relationship with China – which after all is a country with one and a half billion people, the second biggest economy, and member of the UN security council – to just two words.”
In a speech in Taiwan, Truss will call on Sunak to stand by what he said about China last year.
She will say: “Last summer the now British prime minister described China as ‘the biggest long-term threat to Britain’ and said the Confucius Institutes should be closed. He was right and we need to see those policies enacted urgently.
“The UK’s integrated review needs to be amended to state clearly that China is a threat. Confucius Institutes should be closed down immediately.”
Truss, the UK’s shortest-serving PM, also took a swipe at Sunak when she said “there have been too many mixed messages” about China by western leaders.
Advertisement
“There can be no more ambiguity,” she added.
Elsewhere in her speech, Truss will call on the west to defend Taiwan in the face of Chinese aggression.
She will say: “We in the west have a collective responsibility not just to do the right thing by Taiwan, but also to hold the Chinese government to account for its actions.
“My visit this week is enabling me to communicate directly the solidarity that the British people have with the people of Taiwan.
“Taiwan really is a shining beacon in the Pacific. It’s an enduring rebuke to totalitarianism. It is an example of the power of free enterprise. It shows the importance of a free society for human happiness.
“We in the United Kingdom and the free world must do all we can to back you.”
Ann Widdecombe has told poor families they shouldn’t expect to be able to have a cheese sandwich if they don’t have the money.
The former Tory MP said hard-pressed families should not “do the cheese sandwich” on a BBC politics show discussing the cost-of-living crisis.
Advertisement
Widdecombe is a former Strictly Come Dancing contestant who has also represented the Brexit Party in the European parliament, and now backs the Reform Party.
The cost of a homemade cheese sandwich rose by one-third to 40p last year, BBC research suggests.
Politics Live presenter Jo Coburn asked: “What do you say to consumers who literally can’t afford to pay for even some of the basics if they have gone up the way that cheese sandwich has, with all its ingredients?”
She replied: “Well then you don’t do the cheese sandwich … because we have been decades without inflation we have come to regard it as some sort of given right that our food doesn’t go up.”
Advertisement
In response, Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesperson Sarah Olney MP said: “How out of touch can you get? Anne Widdecombe joins a long line of right-wing politicians who pin the blame on hard-working families for this government’s failures.”
The latest inflation figures from Which? show the cost of British food staples such as cheddar cheese, white bread and porridge oats have soared on a year ago.
Overall inflation on food and drink at supermarkets continued to rise in March to 17.2%, up from 16.5% the month before, the watchdog found.
Cheddar cheese prices increased by an average 28.3% across eight major supermarkets compared to a year ago.
UK inflation remained above 10% in March – far higher than in the US and Europe – with food prices pushing the benchmark up.
Advertisement
Her comment echo the sentiments of Tory deputy chairman Lee Anderson, who attracted criticism for suggesting that people in the UK use food banks because they “cannot cook properly” and “cannot budget”.
Conservatives brought a jumble of ideas to a three-day gathering in London – with one MP warning of the perils of “Marxism, narcissism and paganism” during a bizarre few hours.
As Labour leader Keir Starmer mocked the Tories for “holding a series of mad hatters’ tea parties” in the aftermath of their local elections drubbing, the National Conservatism conference opened in London – with high-profile Conservative Party figures in attendance.
Advertisement
The meeting brought together right-wing politicians, journalists and thinkers to discuss the potential of “national conservatism” to provide a path towards renewal for the party.
The conference is a project of the Edmund Burke Foundation, a “public affairs institute” based in Washington DC which has held conferences across Europe and America since 2019 to promote the ideas of national conservatism.
“The unexamined drive towards multiculturalism” is a “recipe for communal disaster”.
Home secretary Suella Braverman was arguably the “star” turn. Despite being in charge of the UK’s immigration policy, she took a number of swings at the UK’s immigration policy.
Advertisement
She deployed her own background as the daughter of migrants to argue it’s “not racist for anyone, ethnic minority or otherwise, to want to control our borders”.
The cabinet minister also argued that “you cannot have immigration without integration” and “the unexamined drive towards multiculturalism” is a “recipe for communal disaster”.
Braverman said that people who come to the UK “must not commit crimes”, “need to learn English and understand British social norms” and “cannot simply turn up and say: ‘I live here now, you have to look after me’”.
Young radicalised by “Marxism, narcissism and paganism”
Tory backbencher Danny Kruger blamed the country’s problems on the “new religion” of “progressive liberalism” – which is a mix of “Marxism, narcissism and paganism” and is causing a “radicalisation of a generation”. He even hit out at the “dystopian fantasy of John Lennon”.
Tory MP Danny Kruger tells NatCon that Western civilisation is threatened by a “new religion”, a mix of “Marxism, narcissism and paganism”, conforming to the “dystopian fantasy of John Lennon”
Multiple speakers decried the impact of “wokeism” on British society, particularly Katharine Birbalsingh, who was once dubbed “Britain’s strictest headteacher”.
She urged conservative parents to take their children out of schools that were “too woke”, and criticised private schools for being even more “woke” than their state-funded counterparts.
In a speech that included lines from the film Gladiator, Birbalsingh bemoaned children “leading” schools, attacked private schools for being more “woke” than state providers, and claimed children at some schools are allowed to wear ears and tails because they “identify as cats”.
Katharine Birbalsingh tells NatCon that Whitney Houston was right to sing the children are our future — but wrong about them leading the way
“The celebration of ‘me’ in 1986 was the precursor to the ‘me, me, me’ culture in 2023”
“Woke” teaching is “destroying our children’s souls”
Tory MP Miriam Cates identified falling birth rates as the “overarching threat” to UK and western society.
Advertisement
She also said society had ceased to value children and parenthood properly: “You cannot be socially liberal and economically conservative. If you think that government and society should have nothing to say about the conditions that promote strong families, don’t be surprised if you end up with a high-tax, high-spend economy, with a nation of broken people dependent on the state.”
The Conservative MP faced criticism for hitting out at “cultural Marxism”. John Mann, the government’s antisemitism tsar, said the term has its origins in a “conspiracy theory with anti-Semitism at its core”.
The results suggest Rishi Sunak is likely to be booted out of Downing Street at the next general election, expected to be held in 2024.
But Starmer could have to settle for Labour being the largest party in a hung parliament rather than winning an overall majority.
Speaking to the Progressive Britain annual conference in London, Starmer will say it “misses the point” to think all he is doing is distancing himself from Jeremy Corbyn’s “regime”.
Advertisement
“This is about taking our party back to where we belong and where we should always have been. Back doing what we were created to do,” he will say.
“That’s why I say this project goes further and deeper than New Labour’s rewriting of Clause Four.
“This is about rolling our sleeves up, changing our entire culture – our DNA. This is Clause Four – on steroids.”
Tony Blair famously scrapped Labour’s commitment to mass public ownership in 1995 as he sought to appeal to middle England.
Since taking over as leader in April 2020, Starmer has steadily moved Labour towards the political centre ground.
He has been criticised by those on the left of the party for abandoning many of the promises he made during the leadership campaign to stick to policies included in its 2017 and 2019 manifestos.
Plans to nationalise railways, Royal Mail, energy companies and water companies have been essentially scrapped, with Starmer having argued the economic situation now meant this was too expensive.
Progressive Britain is associated with the Blairite wing of the party and was formed in 2021 by the merger of the Progress and Policy Network groups.
Starmer will tell party members at the gathering that “I don’t care” if he “sounds conservative” sometimes.
“Somebody has got to stand up for the things that make this country great and it isn’t going to be the Tories,” he will say.
Advertisement
“That in the end is one of the great failure of the last 13 years. A Tory Party that in generations past saw itself as the protector of the nation and the union has undermined both.
“They’ve taken an axe to the security of family life, trashed Britain’s reputation abroad, and totally lost touch with the ordinary hope of working people.”
The suggestion Labour could fall short of a majority has led to questions about whether Starmer would do a deal with Ed Davey’s Lib Dems in order to become prime minister.