Most Tories aren't welcome in Reform, says Lee Anderson
The Reform chief whip and MP for Ashfield said most of the Tory parliamentary party would only want to cross the floor to 'save their jobs'.
It comes after Sir Jake Berry and David Jones this week became the first two former Cabinet ministers to defect to Reform from the Tories.
Mr Anderson entered the Commons as a Tory MP in 2019 but was suspended in February 2024 amid a row over comments he made about Sir Sadiq Khan, the Labour Mayor of London.
He went on to join Reform the following month, becoming their first representative in the House of Commons.
Nigel Farage's party has since surged in the polls, and currently leads the Tories by an average of almost 10 points, while also enjoying a narrow lead over Labour.
In an interview with The Telegraph's politics newsletter, Mr Anderson was asked how many of the current 120 MPs Reform would be willing to welcome.
'Most of the best ones lost their seats'
He replied: 'Not many, because they'd just be coming to save their jobs. But let me tell you about the makeup of the Tory Party at the moment.
'Most of the best ones lost their seats, a lot of my good friends lost their seats in the Red Wall. You've got 120, you've got 30 wets, you've got 30 who would consider aligning with our politics.
'And the [others] haven't got a clue who they are, they just want to be MPs. So I think they're toast, mate. They don't know what they stand for.'
Announcing his defection on Wednesday night, Sir Jake suggested the Tories had governed no better than Labour and accused both parties of having wrecked the country.
Mr Anderson also accepted there would be 'bumps in the road' for Reform after James McMurdock announced over the weekend he had permanently quit the party.
The MP for South Basildon and East Thurrock said he had decided to stay on in the Commons as an independent MP following allegations surrounding his business dealings during the pandemic.
Despondency about Tory prospects
Reform is understood to also be considering whether to welcome Jonathan Gullis, a former Tory minister.
No formal conversations between the party and Mr Gullis have taken place so far, but The Telegraph understands he is sympathetic to its positions on a number of issues.
On Wednesday night, Mr Gullis told GB News he could 'understand' why Sir Jake had left the Conservatives and said he was more despondent than ever about Tory prospects.
He has previously called for Mr Farage to receive a peerage and suggested last year that Reform was attempting to convince him to cross the floor.
'The trajectory is up'
Pointing to Reform's success at May's local elections, in which it won control of 10 councils and two mayoralties, Mr Anderson said: 'We're only going one way, the trajectory is up.
'We're a growing party, we're a startup party, we're learning. There's bumps in the road, there's going to be casualties on the path to victory in 2029.
'And what we're doing at the moment is we have a weekly meeting with our chairman, with Nigel, with the other MPs. We're developing policy behind closed doors, and that will be released as the election gets nearer and nearer.'
Mr Anderson said he had been 'mobbed' by 15 teenagers from Birmingham who were on a visit to the Houses of Parliament early this week, and said every single one had been a Reform supporter.
He added: 'The young people in this country are rebelling. They've had enough, they've seen what's happening to this country and they're thinking they've had enough.'
' They love Nigel Farage, he has a huge following on TikTok, on his social media. They want something different.'
Asked whether he would back a change to a proportional voting system, a commitment made in the Reform manifesto last year, Mr Anderson said he was in two minds on the issue.
Speaking during a general election campaign event, Mr Farage declared he wanted to see the first past the post voting system scrapped and that there would be huge public support for such a move.
PR 'a much fairer system'
But Mr Anderson said: 'It is party policy. I'm mixed on this personally, I mean it's up for debate, we're a democratic party. I suppose we'll come to a decision on this. Look, I see the benefits of PR [proportional representation]. It's a much fairer system, [it would have won us] a lot more MPs.
'But you know what? We also have to think about it very, very carefully, if we had PR in place, we've got [Jeremy] Corbyn now and Zarah Sultana thinking about forming a political party with the Gaza independents probably sat behind him, joining as well.
'That would mean that old Jezza, he'd probably get 60 or 70 MPs as well. And you know what? That's a dangerous place to be, and I think personally to have 60 or 70 of them in the chamber, maybe having the balance of power in some votes, that scares me a little bit. So I think we have to be very, very careful.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Rhyl Journal
15 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
Officers considering legal action against Police Scotland over Trump visit plans
The Scottish Police Federation (SPF), which represents 98% of all police officers in Scotland, said the force has already breached health and safety standards in the run up to the visit by the US president. Thousands of officers are expected to be involved in what Police Scotland has described as a 'significant policing operation'. The White House confirmed Mr Trump will visit his golf courses in Aberdeenshire and Ayrshire between July 25 and 29. He will meet the Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and the First Minister John Swinney during his private trip. The visit is likely to result in widespread protests, following similar demonstrations during his last visit to Scotland. David Kennedy, general secretary of the SPF, suggested planning for the visit has already put officers at risk. He said: 'We currently have workforce agreements in place to protect police officers and provide minimum standards of Health and Safety at work. 'Sadly, we have seen these agreements breached in the days leading to the arrival of Potus (President of the United States) and as such we are seeking legal advice regarding potential legal action against the service.' Speaking to STV News, Mr Kennedy said he had 'major concerns' about the plans to police Mr Trump's trip. He told the broadcaster: 'We do not have enough police officers in Scotland. 'Anyone that says we do, I don't know where they get those figures from. 'We know what police officers have to do day in, day out and we need more officers in Scotland. 'When these events come along that puts those officers that are here under so much pressure.' Police Scotland said earlier this month it would seek help from the Scottish and UK Governments over the 'considerable' cost of policing the visit. It has also asked for support from Northern Ireland's police force, the PSNI. There had been speculation the King would host the American leader in Scotland after a meeting was suggested at Balmoral or Dumfries House, in a letter he wrote to Mr Trump in February inviting him to make the state visit. But it is understood that both sides will wait until the president's official state visit later this year. Police Scotland's Assistant Chief Constable Emma Bond said: 'We are working closely with the Scottish Police Federation to address any concerns they may have.' A spokesperson for the PSNI said: 'There are well established processes for any UK-based police services to request support from other services at times of peak demand. 'These requests are managed via the National Police Co-ordination Centre (NPoCC) and we can confirm that PSNI have received a request to provide mutual aid to Police Scotland which we are currently assessing. 'The decision to provide officers under the mutual aid process will be considered against our own demands, ensuring that we retain the capacity to respond effectively to local issues and maintain our own operational competence.'
The Independent
15 minutes ago
- The Independent
Why millions of people could benefit from self-driving vehicles in the UK
A government minister has detailed the benefits of self-driving vehicles as a public consultation launches ahead of its roll-out in the UK next year. Launched today (July 21), the consultation on the automated passenger services (APS) permitting scheme will allow 'representative groups, industry stakeholders, trade unions and members of the public' to voice their opinions on how self-driving vehicles could be used. It comes ahead of the proposed roll-out of taxi-, private-hire- and bus-like services with self-driving technology from spring 2026, prior to the implementation of the Automated Vehicles Act in 2027. Lilian Greenwood, future of roads minister, said: 'Self-driving vehicles are one of the most exciting opportunities to improve transport for so many people, especially those in rural areas or unable to drive. We want to work with passengers and industry to make this new form of transport safe and accessible, as we take our next steps towards adoption. 'This technology doesn't just have the potential to improve transport for millions of people. It will help stimulate innovation, create thousands of jobs, and drive investment to put more money in people's pockets – all part of delivering our Plan for Change.' It follows on from a Government decision to 'fast-track' pilots of self-driving passenger vehicles to spring 2026, which would allow companies to pilot 'small-scale' services conducted without a safety driver monitoring the vehicle for the first time. Users would be able to book the service via an app, similar to a typical taxi or ride-hailing service. Key pointers for the consultation include how self-driving cars could be made more accessible for disabled and older people, and how 'services of self-driving vehicles are approved by councils'. The new consultation will run until September 28, 2025. When speaking on the roll-out of Self-driving taxis and bus-like services, transport Secretary Heidi Alexander said: 'The future of transport is arriving. 'Self-driving cars could bring jobs, investment, and the opportunity for the UK to be among the world-leaders in new technology. 'With road safety at the heart of our pilots and legislation, we continue to take bold steps to create jobs, back British industry and drive innovation.'
The Independent
15 minutes ago
- The Independent
Pensions aren't working – Labour is right to grasp the nettle
Put simply, unless we act, tomorrow's pensioners will be poorer than today's, because people who are saving aren't saving enough for their retirement. And crucially, because almost half of the working-age population isn't saving anything for their retirement at all.' It's fair to say that the secretary of state for work and pensions, Liz Kendall, has had a challenging time of it since she took her first ministerial job a little more than a year ago. But that doesn't mean that everything she says is wrong – or that every initiative she takes should be doomed. On pensions, she seems determined to make sure she's not forced by the Treasury into another precipitate and politically disastrous move before first winning the arguments on reform, not least within her own party. State and private pensions are ripe for further restructuring, as is the wider social security system, and the country cannot afford another debacle on the scale of the recent welfare reform bill. Neither can Ms Kendall, or her impatient colleague, the chancellor. Fortunately for the government, much of the background work was completed some years ago, and the machinery to reshape policy is available 'off the shelf'. The Pensions Commission, which last reported in 2006, was a rare success in that many of its recommendations were actually implemented and proved to be highly successful. Now, for example, some 88 per cent of workers are auto-enrolled into a private pension, with at least 3 per cent of their salary paid by their employer into an approved scheme. The result is a widespread, but still inadequate, building-up of private pension provision. Not enough is being put aside for old age and infirmity, particularly by younger workers – who, tragically, have the most time on their side to make their savings grow – and the self-employed. The UK, post-Brexit and in a more unstable world, is hampered by low investment, sluggish productivity growth, an expensive national debt, and a seemingly intractable cost-of-living crisis. As Ms Kendall points out, the triple lock – which guarantees that the state pension rises in line with inflation, or wage increases, or by 2.5 per cent, whichever is the greatest – costs some £31bn a year; even if this figure stabilises as inflation subsides, an ageing population, living longer but in poorer health, will push the overall cost of state retirement age benefits well beyond the current figure of about £140bn a year, or 5 per cent of GDP. Given that these benefits constitute by far the largest component of the total social security bill, welfare reform is impossible without some way of putting them on a more sustainable footing. To the dismay of some, Ms Kendall has taken one immediate step in that direction by bringing forward the next statutory review of the state retirement age, which has already been raised by successive governments. While natural justice and practicalities will protect many who are now in their sixties, for those currently in their forties and fifties, facing further postponements in their state pension eligibility is akin to chasing the proverbial pot of gold at the end of the rainbow (and it's not that golden, either). It is true that life expectancy nowadays is far higher than when the Liberal chancellor David Lloyd George established the state pension in 1908 – it now stands at 82 years, against 52 in the Edwardian era – but no one can make sensible provision for their retirement if their state entitlement keeps disappearing over the horizon. If it is to be raised – perhaps to 70 or so – to take account of (sometimes expensive) advances in healthcare and a changing society, then it should be kept there permanently. There is, therefore, much for Ms Kendall and the Pensions Commission to do – especially in making the country, and particularly the parliamentary Labour Party, face up to those 'tough choices' that politicians themselves so often talk about but ultimately duck. Policy must be evidence based, and thus persuasive, and the commission will help with that. One thing that would be highly perverse in this context would be for the chancellor to attack savings, and tax pension pots, in her next Budget. Rachel Reeves herself has spoken of the imperative to increase investment by pension funds in productive infrastructure schemes. It would hardly be sensible, then, to start taxing them even more heavily, or to force them into unsuitable or risky pet infrastructure projects that will leave pensioners shortchanged. The updated strategy for pensions, both state and private, will also need to be meshed with whatever reforms to the way we pay for social care eventually emerge from the Casey Review, commissioned by Wes Streeting. Younger folk have more than enough to deal with today, and find saving difficult. Yet one distant day, when they are too old or sick to work – unlikely as it may seem now – they might be grateful that Ms Kendall, otherwise long forgotten, put provisions in place to make their lives a little easier.
