Former leading Tory Sir Jake Berry joins Nigel Farage's Reform UK
Speaking to the Sun newspaper, the new Reform member added: 'Old Westminster politics has failed.
'Millions of people, just like me, want a country they can be proud of again. The only way we get that is with Reform in government.'
Britain needs Reform!https://t.co/kNq74pTAeb
— Sir Jake Berry (@JakeBerry) July 9, 2025
Sir Jake is the second former Cabinet minister in a week to join Reform, after ex-Welsh secretary David Jones announced he enrolled as a member.
Other ex-Tories who have joined Reform include Marco Longhi, Anne Marie Morris, Ross Thomson, Aiden Burley and Dame Andrea Jenkyns, now the mayor of Greater Lincolnshire.
The former MP for Rossendale and Darwen lost his seat in the 2024 general election to Labour's Andy MacNae, who had a majority of 6,000 over Sir Jake.
Mr MacNae won with 18,246 votes to Sir Jake's 12,619.
Reform's candidate Daniel Matchett followed in a close third with 9,695 votes.
Since his loss, Sir Jake has worked in broadcasting, hosting a show on Talk TV.
Before serving in Ms Truss's government, he was a minister during both Boris Johnson and Theresa May's premierships, with responsibilities focused on the Northern Powerhouse and levelling up.
In a video published alongside the Sun's reporting, Sir Jake spoke of his time in government.
After claiming that 'Britain is broken', he added: 'I know who broke it because I was there.
'For 30 years I supported the Conservative Party, for 14 years I was one of their MPs, sitting at that Cabinet table twice.
'I want to tell you today my friends that I have come to a decision. The old parties do not have what it takes to transform our country, to build a Britain we can believe in again, and that's why I've decided to join the Reform Party.'
Sir Jake, who opposed Brexit ahead of the 2016 referendum, commended his new party leader Mr Farage for having 'always stuck by his principles, even when it was unpopular'.
Mr Farage 'doesn't change his views, when the political weather changes', Sir Jake said, adding: 'Because you know you can trust him, I can trust him too and that's why I'm going to spend every day campaigning to ensure that Nigel Farage and Reform form the next government of this great United Kingdom.'
A Labour Party spokesperson, said: 'Not content with taking advice from Liz Truss, Nigel Farage has now tempted her Tory party chairman into his ranks.
'It's clear Farage wants Liz Truss's reckless economics, which crashed our economy and sent mortgages spiralling, to be Reform's blueprint for Britain. It's a recipe for disaster and working people would be left paying the price.
'Only our Labour Government is putting more money in people's pockets, boosting British jobs, and delivering the renewal our country needs through our Plan for Change.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
James McMurdock MP worked for bank while 'claiming Covid loans'
James McMurdock suspended himself from the Nigel Farage-led party when reports emerged last week in The Sunday Times that he had borrowed £70,000 through two firms in 2020. One business was previously dormant, while the other had negligible assets, the newspaper reports. The MP for South Basildon and East Thurrock said he had quit the party after taking 'specialist advice' that he said was 'privileged and which I choose to keep private at this time'. READ MORE: Arms firms are buying exclusive access to MPs for as little as £1499 McMurdock received £50,000 through JAM Financial Ltd, and has not responded to claims this was a Bounce Back loan, where eligible businesses had to be 'adversely impacted by the coronavirus' and trading on March 1 2020. The Times now reports that JAM Financial was a personal service company that the MP used to receive earnings from Standard Chartered. McMurdock worked at the bank until he became an MP last year, setting up the firm just days before starting his role as a 'senior associate' in November 2016. By being paid through the company over three years, McMurdock assumed the status of a contractor, despite working there full time. The MP was placed on the bank's payroll in 2020 ahead of tax reforms due to come in in spring, The Times has now reported. (Image: Joe Giddens) The move was a part of a bid to ensure contractors paid the correct tax and national insurance contributions, and were not acting as 'disguised employees'. McMurdock was then paid directly, and JAM Financial received less money as a result, which had nothing to do with the coronavirus pandemic. Company accounts for JAM Financial show its debts never exceeded a few thousand pounds before the pandemic. But in the year to October 2020, it reported debts of £50,000, up from zero the year before. The amount is the same as the maximum available via the Bounce Back Loan Scheme. READ MORE: Why is Donald Trump facing a MAGA revolt over the Jeffrey Epstein list? McMurdock would have been required to report a turnover of at least £20,000. Reform have urged him to quit his role as an MP to allow a by-election to be held in his seat. It emerged after the election that he had been jailed after repeatedly kicking his ex-girlfriend outside of a Chelmsford nightclub. Farage refused to apologise for a lack of background checks on Reform candidates as it predated his leadership. Reform is now down to four MPs.
Metro
2 hours ago
- Metro
Three in five Brits 'wouldn't even trust Starmer or Farage to watch their bag'
The UK is 'shattered' into different ideological factions, a report has found, with each holding distinct ideas about what's wrong with the country and how to fix it. Politicians face a serious challenge winning back the trust of Brits too, with almost nine in ten having little or no faith in them, according to the findings. A major new poll at the centre of the report lays bare just how disillusioned we are with the current system, and the depth of pessimism over whether things will get better. Three in five Brits say they wouldn't trust Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Leader of the Opposition Kemi Badenoch or Reform leader Nigel Farage to even watch their bags – with similar levels of distrust for all three. And the one word used most to describe the state of the country is 'broken', followed by 'mess', 'struggling', 'divided' and 'expensive'. According to More in Common, the pollsters behind the 'Shattered Britain' report, most people in the UK can fit into one of seven segments that show their attitude to the nation's issues. Craig Munro breaks down Westminster chaos into easy to follow insight, walking you through what the latest policies mean to you. Sent every Wednesday. Sign up here. They are: Progressive Activists : Highly engaged in politics but feeling alienated, they are concerned with social justice and issues like climate change. Make up 12% of the population. : Highly engaged in politics but feeling alienated, they are concerned with social justice and issues like climate change. Make up of the population. Incrementalist Left : Generally left-of-centre but preferring gradual change over revolutionary reform, with high levels of trust in experts. Make up 21% of the population. : Generally left-of-centre but preferring gradual change over revolutionary reform, with high levels of trust in experts. Make up of the population. Established Liberals : Believe the system broadly works as it currently is and have faith in the UK's institutions to deliver continued progress. Make up 9% of the population. : Believe the system broadly works as it currently is and have faith in the UK's institutions to deliver continued progress. Make up of the population. Sceptical Scrollers : Seek alternative sources of truth online due to loss of faith in traditional institutions, and are drawn to conspiracies. Make up 10% of the population. : Seek alternative sources of truth online due to loss of faith in traditional institutions, and are drawn to conspiracies. Make up of the population. Rooted Patriots : Feel abandoned and overlooked by political elites, but not keen to overthrow the system as a whole. Concerned about community decline and migration. Make up 20% of the population. : Feel abandoned and overlooked by political elites, but not keen to overthrow the system as a whole. Concerned about community decline and migration. Make up of the population. Traditional Conservatives : Respectful of authority and nostalgic for the past, believe in established norms. Make up 8% of the population. : Respectful of authority and nostalgic for the past, believe in established norms. Make up of the population. Dissenting Disruptors: Drawn to dramatic change and strong leadership that will overthrow the status quo, feel disconnected from society and opposed to multiculturalism. Make up 20% of the population. The report was based on a survey of 20,000 and dozens of focus groups which took place across the UK. It found a lot of concern about money among the British public, too, with more than half saying they don't think the cost of living crisis will ever end and 43% citing money as their biggest source of stress. Meanwhile, a majority of Brits – 53% – said they thought those in their children's generation would have a worse life than those in their parents' generation. Two-thirds of people also said they're not sure politics will ever return to normal after saying it had become more chaotic over the past ten years. Dianne from Bridgwater, described as a 'Rooted Patriot' in the report, told the pollsters: 'I think our government's the worst ones actually. 'They don't respect the people that vote for them, and if they were to do that then it would be a lot better, but they don't. You try to get the best for everybody and the government just laugh at you.' Maddie, a 'Progressive Activist' from East Dulwich in London, said: 'You notice a difference, you notice everything going up, that transport and we're all sort of living on top of each other as well. 'And the rich are richer and the poor are poorer.' It's not all bad news, though – the survey found people are largely very positive about the area in which they live. While 'broken' was the most common word to describe the UK as a whole, people mostly said the place where they live is 'quiet', followed by 'nice', 'rural', 'safe' and 'peaceful'. And in stark contrast to their attitude towards politicians, a majority Brits from all seven of the 'segments' included in the report said they trusted their neighbours. Luke Tryl, Director of More in Common, said the research shows the country is 'exhausted, increasingly fragmented, and yearning for change – but deeply divided on what that change should look like'. He added: 'Britain has seen difficult times before, and the purpose of this research is to help leaders navigate these new fault lines to find a way out of the current era of malaise. 'If political leaders want to rebuild trust and build a broad coalition to fix a Britain that increasingly feels broken, they will have to navigate the new political map of Britain.' Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ For more stories like this, check our news page. MORE: Until I had one, I was ignorant about the reality of miscarriages MORE: Map reveals Nato's maritime security challenges – from Russia to terrorism MORE: Delays and diplomacy: Inside Starmer's migrant deal announcement with Macron
The National
3 hours ago
- The National
Jeremy Corbyn's new outfit won't back indyref2. No British party will
'When that party launches, which I'm expecting to be later this month, will be the start of us getting serious in Scotland and finding out who the members are when they join and trying to get, we're looking at the end of August before we get any real meeting of what will be the new party in Scotland. Until then, we don't really have a position other than we are happy to take part in the coalition, electoral alliance talks in Scotland on that basis, on the basis of supporting a referendum.' So, a big vote of thanks to Jim Monaghan for straightening that out for us. In fact, there is a very simple answer to the question of what will be the position of the Scottish plook on the arse of Corbyn's new party. It will be whatever the arse says it will be. The arm of this new British political party located in Scotland will be no different from the Scotland branch offices of the other British parties. Parties are not permitted to have different positions in different parts of the UK. If the likes of Anas Sarwar tries to give the impression that 'Scottish' Labour has a position on any issue that is distinct from that taken by his boss, Keir Starmer, he is lying. Which will shock nobody. The same goes for the other British parties that are either squatting in Scotland's parliament or hoping to do so. None of them can possibly have a distinct position on the constitutional issue. It is impossible for Sarwar to be in favour of a new referendum while Starmer is against it. Because it is all a single party. And Starmer is in charge. Sarwar is there to try and look as much like a real party leader as he can – no much! – so that the British media can go on promulgating the lie that Scottish Labour are (a) Scottish, and (b) a real political party. It is not Scottish, it is British. It is not a political party, it is a sham. It is part of the apparatus which provides the illusion of democracy and respect for Scotland's distinctiveness. It is all entirely false. The speculation about this new party's position on an independence referendum has nothing to latch on to. If that position is to be inferred from Jeremy Corbyn's stated attitude over the past few years, it is as plain as if it was the victim of one of Jim Monaghan's 'clarifications'. If I were to attempt to sum it up, I'd say Corbyn is not – or tries to appear as if he isn't – as explicitly or fervently opposed to a referendum as many (most?) other British politicians. But now is never the time. That being his position, it is also the position of the bit of his party that calls itself 'Scottish'. If they tell you differently, they're lying like Sarwar. It is all irrelevant anyway. Because even when British politicians try to look as if they are not anti-democratic, they are operating within a system which is inherently anti-democratic. As is the case throughout the discourse around the constitutional issue, people talk of a referendum but never define or describe it. As if this referendum could be only one thing and everybody already knows what it is so it doesn't need to be stated. Generally, what people have in mind is a referendum such as had in 2014. They have been 'conditioned' to think of a Section 30 referendum as the 'gold standard' of democratic events. It most emphatically is not! You are probably asking the obvious question. If a referendum held under 'powers' transferred from Westminster to Holyrood is not the 'gold standard', what is? Or perhaps you are wondering what precludes a referendum held under transferred 'powers' being a proper constitutional referendum. I shall attempt to address both these points. The following suggested criteria for a true constitutional referendum were first published in July 2023 as an appendix to the Stirling Directive. Though no longer online, the criteria were referred to and republished in November 2024. In short, a true constitutional referendum must be binary: The options must be discrete, defined and deliverable – they must be two quite different options and not two variations on the same thing. Both options must be tightly defined at the outset and may not change in the course of the campaign. What is voted on must be what has initially been proposed. Both options must be deliverable, in that the winning option and the following actions must be implementable immediately and without further process. To satisfy the previous criteria, the referendum must be on the question of whether to end the Union with England-as-Britain. The legislation authorising and regulating the referendum must be determinative and self-executing. The outcome must be acknowledged as an expression of the democratic will of the sovereign people of Scotland and therefore binding on all parties. It should also be understood and acknowledged that the outcome of one referendum cannot preclude future campaigning for other constitutional change even where such change would alter or obviate the prior choice. The referendum process must be impeccably democratic. The franchise must be as wide as possible and based on strict criteria for residency within Scotland. Registering a vote must be made as easy as possible but with due regard for security and confidentiality. The referendum must be held under the auspices of the Scottish Parliament with oversight and services provided exclusively by Scottish institutions. Every effort must be made to eliminate or at least minimise external interference. For the purposes of a proper constitutional referendum on the question of the Union, Britain shall be classified as an external (foreign) power. For the purposes of a proper constitutional referendum on the question of the Union, political parties registered as such and headquartered other than in Scotland shall be regarded as agencies of the country where they are registered and headquartered. In summary, a constitutional referendum is binary, with options which are discrete, defined and deliverable. It must be entirely made and managed in Scotland by Scotland. It must produce a clear decision and not merely a result. It must meet internationally recognised standards for a democratic event. And the outcome is the undeniable expressed will of the sovereign people of Scotland. These criteria were not meant to be prescriptive. The intention was to provoke a discussion about the form of referendum Scotland's cause requires. Most of the criteria are, however, quite evidently essential. That the referendum must be binary. That the options be fixed and not permitted to change in the course of the campaign. Perhaps most pertinently of all in the present context, the stipulation that the referendum must be determinative and self-executing. A referendum held under transferred powers can never be determinative and self-executing because this would mean that the people had the final word on the matter and not Westminster. A proper constitutional referendum would acknowledge the people of Scotland as the ultimate authority, not Westminster. The British state not only will not transfer powers for a proper constitutional referendum, it cannot do so. Supposing it was possible for the British state to transfer powers such as would allow a proper constitutional referendum, this would breach the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. The doctrine which underpins the entire edifice of the British state. Without ultimate political authority being vested in a parliament under the near total control of an executive whose clients are not the people but the ruling elites, the whole thing comes tumbling down. The three pillars of the British 'system' are unchecked power, unearned privilege and unregulated patronage. None of these pillars can exist in a political system which is truly democratic. If the people had the authority which the term 'democracy' implies, it is not believable that they would tolerate the structures of power, privilege and patronage which define a British state which serves the few regardless of the cost to the many. A proper constitutional referendum is informed by the principle that the people of Scotland are sovereign. The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty and the principle of popular sovereignty are mutually exclusive. They are incompatible and irreconcilable. Therefore, no British government could ever acknowledge the sovereignty of the people in any meaningful way. They may state it as a slogan. But they absolutely cannot give it political effect. It follows that, whatever rhetoric they contrive to make it appear otherwise, no British political party can ever support a proper constitutional referendum. The power to legislate for a proper constitutional referendum cannot be given in any case. Regardless of the compelling reasons why the British will not and cannot give that power, the power itself is inherently 'ungiveable'. The right of self-determination is inalienable. It is a human right and cannot be surrendered, transferred, forfeited, abrogated or removed. It is as inherent to the people as life is to the person. If the power to exercise the right of self-determination is in the gift of another, this necessarily implies that it is not present in the people. But it is an inalienable right and cannot be other than present in the people. I hope this has gone some way towards explaining both why no British political party can ever genuinely support a proper constitutional referendum and why a referendum held under powers transferred from Westminster can never be a proper constitutional referendum. Peter A Bell via email
