How the future of the Right is being shaped... over exquisite lunches at London's most exclusive clubs
The future of Right-wing politics in Britain is being decided on the cigar terraces of Mayfair. As the opinion poll surge of Nigel Farage 's Reform UK shakes the foundations of the Conservatives, power-brokers from both parties are cutting deals and war-gaming defections on adjoining tables in the capital's most salubrious salons.
The Tories have been described as the most successful political party in the world, on the back of 200 years of near-electoral dominance. But if leader Kemi Badenoch is going to maintain that reputation until the next election, it will require a revival of Lazarus-like dimensions.
According to a YouGov poll last week, Mr Farage would win 271 seats if an election were held now – well ahead of Labour on 178. The Conservatives would trail the Liberal Democrats on a dismal rump of just 48 seats.
It has led to long, dark nights of the soul for Tory grandees and donors: do they stick with the Conservatives, even if they are sleepwalking to electoral doom? Do they try to form a pact with Mr Farage? Or do they just jump ship completely?
The result has been a series of lunches and dinners in ultra-exclusive clubs such as 5 Hertford Street and its sister institution Oswald's, both owned by entrepreneur Robin Birley.
Oswald's, which is frequented by the likes of the Prince of Wales, Tony Blair, Boris Johnson and the Beckhams, was the venue for a splashy £1 million fundraising event for Reform earlier this year.
And on a single day this month, the same lunch service at Oswald's boasted former prime minister David Cameron, his ex-chancellor George Osborne and Tory leadership hopeful Robert Jenrick all dining together, next to Mr Farage and his treasurer Nick Candy in deep conversation on a nearby table – and with former Tory Cabinet minister Jacob Rees-Mogg, who has urged the two parties to form a pact, offering greetings from a third table.
In the same week, a short walk across Berkley Square at 5 Hertford Street, popular with Eurocrats and stars such as Hugh Grant, a single lunch sitting offered the spectacle of billionaire Michael Spencer, Lord Cameron's former treasurer, dining with Francis Maude, an ex-Tory chairman, under the watchful eyes of Mr Farage's inner circle, including Arron Banks and Andy Wigmore – the self-styled 'bad boys of Brexit' who helped fund Mr Farage's Brexit campaign in the 2016 referendum – and Mr Farage's mysterious fixer, 'Posh' George Cottrell.
As the wine flowed – full-bodied red for the Tories, chablis for the Faragistes – it represented a neat microcosm of the shifting tectonic plates: Lord Maude – tipped to return to the chairman role – is understood to have been lobbying Lord Spencer for funds for the party, while the Faragistes were drawing up a list of Tory donors to target for defection.
At the centre of this venn diagram of plotting is Mr Jenrick, who is more open than Mrs Badenoch to cutting a deal with Reform – and is said to have received Lord Cameron's backing to succeed her as leader.
Meanwhile, at The In & Out private members' club, a more traditional Armed Forces venue situated at the other end of Piccadilly, allies of Mr Farage and Mr Jenrick have met for informal discussions about 'uniting the Right'. Conspirators have even floated the idea of Mr Jenrick acting as chancellor in a Farage administration, although both sides furiously deny any such plans.
Mr Jenrick has also lunched at 5 Hertford Street with Rupert Lowe, the Great Yarmouth MP who lost the Reform whip after a spectacular bust-up with Mr Farage.
Even many moderate Conservatives, facing the loss of their seats, are now considering a merger.
One member of the Leftish One Nation group said: 'A pact with Reform is inevitable now.'
The MP added: 'There should be a non-aggression pact where we agree to not stand in the five seats Reform already have, and we let Nigel take his pick of seats where he is coming second to Labour. And Reform would stand down in seats we are more likely to win.
'It would end up giving them the North to save the Home Counties.'
An insider said Tory leader Mrs Badenoch 'would not be able to do the deal' but added that the timing had to be right for her successor to do so.
The source said: 'At the moment there no point doing any type of deal because Reform is on a high. Labour has imploded too early – all the benefit is going to Reform. Kemi isn't nimble enough to capitalise on it.'
Mrs Badenoch is continuing to pursue a 'slow and steady' approach, and regularly speaks to Lord Maude. 'He tells her to be patient and give the public the chance to come around,' the source said.
Even Mrs Badenoch's most vociferous critics say a leadership challenge is unlikely in the near future. Says one: 'She's 99 per cent safe until May.
'No one will want to own the next disaster – and there are a number coming down the line.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
37 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Cutting personal independent payments: potentially devastating or justified?
As predicted (Starmer offers 'massive concessions' on welfare bill to Labour rebels, 26 June), an attempt has been made to salvage the welfare bill. Discontented MPs and disabled people alike will welcome the assurance that people currently receiving personal independence payments (Pip) or the health element of universal credit will be protected from changes. But the episode is damaging, has caused thousands of disabled people needless worry, and may come to be seen as pivotal in Keir Starmer's tenure. There is something deeply invidious about having two classes of benefit recipients – the protected current recipients, and those making future claims. At the same time, it is clear that the benefits system does need reform and, in particular, needs to support people into work rather than taking a punitive and brutal approach to cost saving. How Starmer has ended up in this position is fascinating, if it were not extraordinary for a government with such a majority and the potential to make radical and equitable change to be repeatedly wrongfooted. U-turns look weak and messy, and presenting them as a response to active listening is unlikely to convince anyone. Starmer claims not to be ideological, and there is the issue; policy is being shaped not by a coherent strategic vision and principle-driven aspirations for better lives, opportunities and genuine equality, but by economic necessity and caution. It's a flawed model, certain to intensify divisions between ministries, Labour members, taxpayers, benefit recipients and the wider electorate. There is major learning and reflection needed by the government; the optics have gone badly wrong, but the welfare reform chaos is a symptom of a much deeper political Melanie HenwoodHartwell, Northamptonshire I am a social worker and I support cutting Pips. I have encountered a number of young adults trapped in a cycle of welfare dependency, unemployment and chaotic lifestyles. They share a belief that the state must fund every aspect of life, and a lack of understanding that benefits come not 'from the government' but are redistributed from taxation of the population. Pip is often claimed on the basis of anxiety or depression, but the idea of working to support oneself, or seeking training or education to make work more attainable, is absent from their thinking. The answer? Probably a combination of education, early interventions and nudges towards culture change, including reducing the availability of Pip. In the long term the status quo won't help the young people I work and address supplied What is not being made clear in government statements and coverage of the cuts to disability benefits is the personal independence payment's relationship to work. Pip is paid to help with the additional costs arising from disability. It is paid to people in work and out of work. It is crucial in enabling people to stay in work, paying for technical and personal support, health needs, travel and other costs. It also enables people who cannot work full-time to work. What will happen to these working people when they can no longer afford the additional costs? It's clear the government does not understand the role of Pip in enabling BetteridgeManchester As we approach the parliamentary vote on the new welfare bill, spare a thought for the many Pip recipients who received the benefit when it was known as disability living allowance. I suspect, for many, the scars still linger from that government change to the system. What that revealed was that disability allowance was not directed to those most in need of it due to their disability. Rather, receiving the new benefit depended upon one's ability to fill out a 40-page form. Next, it depended on having the physical and mental resilience to challenge the result and take it to a tribunal. This was a protracted and stressful period of time. For many, who made it that far, the tribunal reversed the DWP scoring and people found that they had their old level of benefit reinstated. Just a shame that stress makes many medical conditions far worse for the individual. Many years ago, I believed that the DWP wanted to help those with serious disabilities. These days, I have as much faith in them as they appear to have in disabled people (DWP letters now seem to be written with a subtext of 'you're a fraud and we'll catch you').Name and address supplied Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
The billionaire US tennis star for whom Wimbledon's £3m prize pot is pocket money: New Yorker Emma Navarro, 23, stands to inherit £3.5BILLION from her tech tycoon father - and she's had fair share of on-court spats
Wimbledon handed tennis stars a major boost in the build-up to this year's tournament by announcing a record prize pot of £53.5million, with singles champions set to take home a cool £3m. The sum represents an increased on the £2.7m taken home by last year's champions Carlos Alcaraz and Barbora Krejcikova, but the Wimbledon title would prove more more significant for one star than the prize money at the All England Club. US star Emma Navarro, who was raised in New York, boasts a personal fortune so vast that the tournament's prize money will be like short change. Emma is the daughter of wealthy American billionaire investment tycoon, Ben Navarro, and the tennis star is quietly sitting on a £3billion ($3.8bn) inheritance. Tycoon Ben, 62, married to Emma's mother Kelly, built his billionaire empire thanks to numerous business ventures, most notably being the founder and owner of Sherman Financial Group, which has assets such as Credit One Bank. Despite her affluent background, Navarro has put the work in on the court to have risen to a career high ranking of eighth in the world last September. The 24-year-old's rise followed a career best run of Grand Slam results having reached the third and fourth round respectively at the Australian and French Opens, before reaching the last eight at SW19. Her run to the quarter-finals at Wimbledon included a stunning win over Coco Gauff, before she was beaten by the eventual tournament runner-up Jasmine Paolini. Navarro's best Grand Slam performance, however, came later in the year when she reached the US Open semi-finals in front of a home crowd but fell to the eventual champion Ayrna Sabalenka in straight sets. A quarter-final run at this year's Australian Open and a first WTA 500 title in Mexico in March have seen Navarro's own personal winnings from the sport reach $4.6m (£3.4m). Navarro had previously ground her way through the challenging US college tennis circuit before turning pro and the American has not been afraid to take on rivals on the court when she has felt the need. She generated headlines during last year's Olympic Games in Paris after being embroiled in a post-match spat with Chinese star Zheng Qinwen. After losing in three sets to the Zheng in the third round of the women's singles event, Navarro grasped her opponents hand during the handshake and had a tense exchange with the Chinese star. Navarro was seen shaking her head after exchanging words with Zheng, who would ultimately go on to claim the Olympic title. The pair posed together at a tournament in March last year before the spat, with Navarro claiming later that Zheng 'didn't necessarily treat me or the sport with respect' In her post-match comments, Navarro did not pull any punches about her view of Zheng, accusing her of being 'cut-throat' and added she was a player she doesn't respect. 'I think she goes about things in a pretty cut-throat way,' Navarro said. 'It makes for a locker room that doesn't have a lot of camaraderie, so it's tough to face an opponent like that, who I really don't respect. 'But, kudos to her, she played some good tennis there at the end. She played better than me, so congrats to her.' When asked about Navarro's comments, Zheng responded: 'She told me she doesn't know how I have a lot of fans. 'It looks like she's not happy with my behaviour toward her. If she's not happy about my behaviour, she can come and tell me. I would like to correct it to become a better player and a better person.' In a perceived dig at Navarro, Zheng then added: 'I'm glad that she told me that, I will not consider it an attack because she lost the match.' Navarro and Zheng has yet to meet since, with the pair narrowly avoiding a showdown at the US Open when the Chinese star was beaten in the quarter-finals by Sabalenka. With Navarro addressing the media prior to Zheng and Sablanenka's match, she was again asked about her comments at the Olympics and doubled down on her forthright opinion of her rival. Despite Navarro's comments, Zheng would ultimately go on to be crowned Olympic champion 'I don't want to go super into the weeds with it, but I think during that match and, you know, on the practice court and the last few times I've played her, I felt just a little bit disrespected by her' Navarro said. 'I think she didn't necessarily treat me or the sport with respect. That's why I said what I said after the match. But, yeah, that's it. She added: 'I haven't spoken to her since and no, I didn't surprise myself, I felt that way the whole match. 'Even if I had won, I probably would have said the same thing. It wasn't a sort of in the moment, emotional thing. It was kind of just how I felt. And I think it got a lot more attention than I thought it was going to. 'I think maybe it's just one person's opinion, but it wasn't an emotional outburst. It was kind of just matter of fact, how I felt.' With fans awaiting the next meeting between the pair, all eyes will be on the Wimbledon draw to see when Zheng and Navarro could potential clash. A meeting would undoubtedly be high-profile due to the pair being seeded fifth and ninth respectively, meaning a showdown would be in the latter stages of the tournament. Zheng recently fell foul of British fans at Queen's when she overcame Emma Raducanu, after the Chinese star opted to change her shoes when the home favourite was attempting to save a break point, prompting boos from spectators. The competitive spirit shown by Navarro has run through her family, as her grandfather was ex-Ivy League footballer turned coach Frank Navarro. He was widely heralded for his work at America's most prestigious colleges including Princeton and Columbia. The 23-year-old is not the only athlete in the Navarro family, her grandfather Frank Navarro was a former American college footballer turned coach Frank served as a head coach for Williams College, Columbia University, Wabash College and Princeton University and even introduced the 'Monster Defence' at Williams. Navarro has offered fans glimpses at her life on and off the court through her Instagram, with her following having soared after impressive results over the past year and a half on tour. After heading into last year's Wimbledon with a following of 40,000, there are now over 240,000 tracking her life and progress. Navarro's account is dedicated mostly to the sport she loves, with the odd glimpse into a more luxe life via shots of boutiques and her jet-set life on the Women's tennis tour. There's also plenty of photos of the family pets, including Marti, a shaggy haired black and white dog that seems to hold a special place in Emma's heart. Although the American will be hoping to impress again at Wimbledon, there's certainly no financial pressure firing her on; the impressive family purse means she could retire in luxury tomorrow if she wanted to. Ben has also showed interest in his daughter's passion, investing in the tennis world first purchasing Charlestown Tennis LLC through his Beemok Sports company on 2018 - which holds the longest-running women-only tennis tournament, the Charlestown Open. Before splashing out nearly $300milliion (£237m) in 2022 to obtain the Western and Southern Open, which is a major tennis tournament. The Western and Southern Open saw 19 of the top 20 tennis players compete at the competition back in 2022 and is one of only nine tennis events that is recognised globally as a top-tier tournament for both men and women players. Regardless of her result at Wimbledon, Navarro already has a financial security most players can only dream of before their playing days come to a close. Navarro is reportedly in line to inherit an estimated £3.5billion ($4.8bn) which towers over the tennis greats such as Roger Federer $550m (£401m), Rafael Nadal $220m (£160m) and Novak Djokovic $240m (£175m).
Times
2 hours ago
- Times
How Surrey are bucking trend for declining crowds at county matches
In a cricket context, a significant development has been happening in south London. At a time when crowds for domestic first-class cricket have been dwindling worldwide, Surrey are bucking the trend. Their past two home games, against Yorkshire and Essex, have each broken the record for championship crowds at the Oval in the 21st century, a culmination of a determined effort throughout the club to promote the county game. The visit of Durham (a Sunday to Wednesday fixture) is Surrey's fifth home Championship fixture and their last until September 8. During the course of this week's match, it is likely the club will break the attendance figures this year for the whole of last season, even though there will still be two home games to play. It fits a pattern of rising interest and attendances in first-class cricket and rising membership, at a time of decline or stagnation elsewhere. Some numbers, first of all. Over the past decade, Surrey's attendances for championship cricket have doubled, from 33,121 in 2015 to 65,433 last year. This year's average attendance has been 13,206 per game, with a peak of 14,982 against Essex. Total attendance so far in 2025 has been 52,825, so an average gate against Durham should see them past last year's figure. Membership has risen from a little under 10,000 a decade ago to more than 20,000 now. It is worth exploring why. No one would doubt that Surrey have some enviable advantages through a long-term staging agreement with the ECB and a ground that has benefited from significant investment, in one of the great capital cities of the world, sitting on the edge of a wealthy financial district. It would be easy for them to sit on their laurels and yet there has been a concerted effort to promote the less obviously marketable aspects of the county game, to see county members not as a problem to be solved but as their best customers, and to align a successful four-day team with a distinct marketing push. Oli Slipper, the chairman, credits the work of Richard Gould, formerly the chief executive of Surrey now at the ECB, and Richard Thompson, his predecessor as chairman, for their determination not to see county and championship cricket left behind after the introduction of the Hundred. He makes the point that Test cricket remains by far the biggest driver of ECB revenues, and therefore a vibrant championship, as a bedrock for that, is essential. He has no truck with the divisive narrative around county or franchise, red ball or white ball, recognising instead the potential for a virtuous circle, with audiences and interest from one feeding into the other. 'So many people have almost given up on red-ball cricket, because it is difficult, but we see a vibrant red-ball crowd and many white-ball fans converting. We see a good audience there,' he tells me. Their marketing of the championship has involved various recent initiatives, at no great extra financial cost. The Essex game was a designated 'Festival of Red Ball Cricket' match, the second year such an initiative has been held. More than 3,000 of the almost 15,000-strong crowd in that fixture were first-time visitors to the club, and 40 per cent were under 45. Every championship match offers free entry after tea, the club allow spectators to play cricket and wander the outfield in the breaks, and to watch a Test-class team (when at full strength) on the field, they charge only £15 per adult per day and £1 for under-16s — great value when set against the cost of international tickets. Andrew Lane, the finance director, points me to the flexibility of various membership models. Previously, the club found a significant drop-off after the affordable under-16 rate finished, so now they offer a 16-21 membership for £73. For £144, there is a 22-25 age bracket membership, which guarantees entry to every Surrey match and the Hundred for the short-of-money, post-university, just-moved-to-London crowd. Eventually, they hope to transition these to a full membership at £270. Lane is convinced that the quality of the free broadcast stream (viewing figures for the championship this year for home matches are already double that of last year) is an important factor in the rise of championship crowds. Now, the four-day game is easy to follow and watch day-to-day, which allows the narrative to build and supporters to engage with it, encouraging many to pop in during or after work, especially on Fridays. The settled Friday to Monday starts for the early championship programme combined with this year's good weather has been a significant factor. It means that, for Surrey, the championship more than pays its way. Lane says that putting membership receipts to one side and accounting simply for takings at the ticket office, bars, restaurants and shop, then over the course of seven home championship games, match-day receipts should exceed costs by about £300,000. For Surrey at least, four-day cricket is not a loss-leader, but an essential part of their offering. All this is one reason why the club is against a reduction in championship cricket from 14 matches. A domestic schedule review is under way, with various options under consideration amid a strong push from the Professional Cricketers Association and many counties to reduce the red-ball programme. Recommendations, if and when agreed by the 18 counties, are set to be approved by the Professional Game Committee on July 8 and ratified by the ECB at the end of the month. There are five convoluted options on the table, all of which — bar one — would mean the championship programme is cut to 12 (or 13) matches. Surrey's preference would be an elite eight-team top division and a ten-team second division, with 14 matches, as of now. Given there is broad agreement across the county game to reduce the T20 Blast to ten or twelve games (but scheduled on better nights of the week to sell) Surrey's vision for a 14-match championship programme should still be feasible. Behind Surrey's rise on the field has been Alec Stewart, no longer the club's full-time director of cricket but still the most influential cricketing voice there. As one of England's finest players, the DOC behind Surrey's three-timer in the championship, and the man responsible for the production line of England talent from the club, his views should carry weight. He sees a clear delineation between the championship as an elite cricket competition — there to promote best versus best and to help produce England players — and the more commercial offering of the Blast and other short-form competitions. He reckons 14 games is a bulwark against rain and one-innings matches and if scheduled right should be both a good competition to watch and one that provides a thorough grounding to help produce England players. I stand to be corrected, but I cannot believe there is anywhere else in the world that would have doubled their four-day, red-ball support over the past decade. Those who see Surrey as an outlier, with unique advantages, are right to some degree, but there are also lessons to be learnt: they see county cricket as a growth business not a declining one; they see members as an asset, not a problem; there is a 'whole' club determination to push the county game and they have built a brilliant stadium and team. It is a template that is working.
