Britain must keep the Elgin Marbles, Nigel Farage says
The priceless artefacts must not be handed over to Greece, the Reform UK boss said.
7
7
7
Chairman of the British Museum George Osborne is reportedly negotiating a 'reciprocal loan deal' with the Greeks.
In return Athens would provide the museum with revolving displays of other ancient artefacts.
Mr Farage told the Sun on Sunday: 'No. If the Elgin Marbles had stayed in Greece, they wouldn't even exist today.
'The British Museum has been the most fantastic protector for some of the world's treasures and should continue to be so.'
7
This week former Tory prime minister Liz Truss and historian Dr David Starkey signed a letter to Sir Keir Starmer claiming the museum is part of a "covert" and "accelerating campaign" to hand the marbles to Greece.
She said: 'Those trying to undermine our national culture should be taken on, not appeased.'
7
7
The marbles, also called the Parthenon Sculptures, were shipped to London in the early 19th Century when Lord Elgin was British ambassador to the Ottoman Empire.
Greece has been demanding their return for decades.
A law prevents treasures like the Marbles from being given away by the museum.
And the British Government says there are no plans to change the law.
It comes after a deal was struck with France to loan the UK the Bayeux Tapestry.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
New polling shows Reform is winning over Britain's Christians
When we look at how people vote in elections and why they choose certain parties, analysis often focuses on age, education, location or socioeconomic status. Less discussed in Britain is religion. But close to two-thirds of its adults are still religious – expressing either a religious identity, holding religious beliefs, or taking part in religious activities. For the one-in-three adults in Britain who are Christian, this identity remains an important influence on their political behaviour. New polling, published here for the first time, shows how Reform UK is disrupting our previous understanding of how Christians vote in British elections. The relationship between Britain's Christian communities and the major political parties goes back centuries. The Conservative party has been very close to English Anglicanism since its emergence in the mid-19th century. Catholics and free-church Protestants (such as Baptists and Methodists) have tended towards the Labour and Liberal/Liberal Democrat parties. Even as Britain has become more secular, these relationships have persisted. Anglicans, for example, have tended to vote Conservative even when the party was in dire straits. In the 2024 election, 39% of Anglicans voted Tory even as the party's national vote share fell to 24%. Since the 1980s and particularly in elections since 2015, however, we have started to see changes to the Christian vote. The traditional Catholic attachment to Labour has deteriorated, as has Labour's appeal to other Christian communities such as Baptists, Methodists and Presbyterians. Instead, driven by the rising salience of social values (attitudes towards immigration, social change and national identity) as a determinant of political support, the socially conservative leanings of some Christians of all stripes has led to increased support for the Conservatives. And those who traditionally did so – the Anglicans – have become even more supportive. The result has been a steady coalescing of the Christian vote behind the Conservatives. But now, new polling by YouGov (on June 23-24 2025) for the University of Exeter reveals that this realignment is being disrupted by the growing popularity of Reform UK. Instead of asking who people would vote for tomorrow, a nationally representative sample of 2,284 adults was asked how likely they were to ever vote for each major party, on a scale from zero (very unlikely) to ten (very likely). While not the same as a direct question about how someone would vote in an election, the likelihood question provides a much richer measure of the strength of their support for all of the major parties. Among Anglicans, Labour remains deeply unpopular: over half gave the party a 0. In contrast, the Conservatives still enjoy strong support among Anglicans, with 35% giving them a vote likelihood of seven or higher – the kind of support associated with voting for the party in an election. Reform, however, has caught up. Despite only 15% of Anglicans voting Reform in 2024, 38% now rate their likelihood of voting for the party as high. That's the same as the proportion who are strongly opposed to Reform – showing that while the party polarises Anglicans more than the Conservatives, Reform could win as much Anglican support as the Tories in an election. Catholics show a similar trend. Labour's traditional support is eroding: 40% of Catholics said they had zero likelihood of voting Labour, while 29% are strong supporters. As with Conservatives for the Anglican vote, Reform is almost level-pegging with Labour for the Catholic vote at 28%. It has even supplanted the Conservatives, of whom 22% of Catholics are strong supporters. It is not yet clear why this is happening. The distinction of Christian (and non-Christian) voting patterns is not an artefact of age – there are many studies that prove this is the case. It may be that Reform's stances on issues such as immigration resonate with Christians' concerns to the extent that they are willing to set aside their historic party loyalties. Or it may be that Christians are as prone as other British voters to turn to Reform out of frustration with the performances of Labour and the Conservatives in office. Swing voters and party competition This data also shows the extent to which voters' support for parties overlaps or is exclusive. In other words, which voters have a high vote likelihood for only one party (and so are likely committed to backing that party in an election), which do not have such high likelihoods for any party (and so will probably not vote at all), and which have similarly high likelihoods for more than one party (effectively swing voters, persuadable one way or the other). Among the religiously unaffiliated, 29% aren't strong supporters of any party. For Catholics, it's 26%. Anglicans are more politically anchored, however, with only 20% in this category. While traditionally, we would have expected this to reflect Anglicans' greater tendency to support the Tories, only 17% of Anglicans are strong supporters of only that party, compared with 21% who are firmly behind Reform. These aren't swing voters; they've switched sides. A further 12% of Anglicans have high vote likelihoods for both the Tories and Reform. These are swing voters that the two parties could realistically expect to win over. Catholics are even more fragmented. Only 13% are strong supporters of Labour alone, along with 12% and 17% who are strong supporters of the Conservatives and Reform alone, respectively. Few Catholics are torn between Labour and the other parties, but 5% are swing voters between the Conservatives and Reform: the Tories' gradual winning over of Catholics over the last 50 years is also being challenged by the appeal of Reform. The party has provided a socially conservative alternative to the Conservatives, with the result that the Christian vote has become more fragmented. The Tories are no longer the main beneficiaries of Labour's loss of its traditional Catholic vote. In addition, Reform is as popular as the Conservatives among Anglicans, and as popular as Labour among Catholics. This suggests it is appealing across the traditional denominational divide more successfully than either of the major parties. If there is to be a single party that attracts the bulk of Britain's Christian support, at this point it is far more likely to be Reform than anyone else.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
The decline of our once-great universities is nothing to celebrate
Thirty years ago this summer, I was making a decision. Go to university to study politics, or accept a job selling computers at the then-princely salary of £13,000? For a boy from the Northumbrian countryside with a healthy fear of debt, it wasn't a simple choice. I chose university, because I guessed it was a better path to my long-term goals. And, to be honest, because I preferred reading books and sleeping late to plunging straight into the 9-to-5. Would I make the same choice today? In the decades since my decision, for a large number of school-leavers the answer is and has been Yes. Even though Higher Education (HE) is now both more expensive and less enjoyable than when I became a student, the pull of 'uni' is strong. Fees and debt; limited teaching by demoralised lecturers; worries about mental health – none has reduced the annual flow towards higher education. More than 40 per cent of 18-year-olds apply to university. Will that flow of students – and therefore money – continue over the next few decades? Britain is gambling a lot on the assumption that school-leavers will remain keen to spend their time and money on a three-year undergraduate degree. If that proves incorrect – and there are growing reasons to suspect it will – the consequences will be felt beyond our struggling universities. The latest official forecast is that 40 per cent of universities will run financial deficits this year. Talk of collapse and merger is commonplace. This has a simple cause: money out exceeds money in. It costs more to teach a British student for a year than that student pays in tuition fees. A £9,250 annual fee can feel huge to students and parents, but it's been frozen since 2017 so its real value has fallen by a third. Meanwhile, costs have risen. Science degrees can cost more than £11,000 a year to teach. For years, universities bridged this gap with foreign students, who can and will pay much higher fees. They now account for more than half of tuition income at many Russell Group universities. This was never a resilient business model and it recently collided with political reality. Labour, under pressure from Reform, has restricted visa rules for foreign graduates and plans a levy on universities' international fee income. Applications are already falling from countries such as Nigeria, and vice-chancellors are eyeing the big earners India and China nervously. The pros and cons of international students have been debated endlessly elsewhere, so I'll leave that to others. My interest here is in the bigger question of how many people will go to UK universities in the years ahead. For we have inadvertently built an HE system reliant on high and growing numbers of young students; without those numbers, there is trouble ahead. The UK is nearing the end of a demographic upswing in university applications – we had a small post-millennium baby-boom that peaked around 2012. But what happens after that wave peaks at the end of this decade? Even gloomy official forecasts for the future of the HE sector imply that student numbers will go on rising, powered by an apparently unshakeable appetite for the university experience among the young. HE policy sometimes feels like it is based on the idea that the next 30 years will look a lot like the last 30. The Government's Office for Students and the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies both see rising domestic and international enrolments as essential to keeping the system solvent into the 2030s. The admissions service Ucas confidently expects continued growth in applicants. It wouldn't take much deviation from the optimistic model to deliver disaster. A five per cent fall in 18-year-old applications or a 15 per cent drop in international recruitment could push dozens of universities into a full-blown crisis. Both are perfectly plausible, and not in the distant future. These icebergs could hit in the next parliament. Here, some readers might shrug: too many graduates, too many universities, too woke. But losing universities would have grave economic effects both local and national. These are major employers, export-earners and generators of high-productivity workers, engines of R&D and incubators of start-ups. The UK economy isn't so strong that we can afford to throw away a strategically important sector for cultural reasons. But readers cynical of the value of a modern degree do have a point, which is why our national bet on future 18-year-olds' behaviour is risky. For decades, graduates enjoyed a solid and persistent 'wage premium' over other workers but it is waning. In 2000, the typical graduate earned twice as much as a worker on the minimum wage. Now, the difference is barely 30 per cent. The gap later in life is narrowing too. And all that is before we know the full impact of AI on the job market. After all, 18-year-olds don't just go to uni for fun. They want graduate jobs and careers. So what happens if those jobs start to disappear? From finance to technology, firms that were big recruiters of graduates are cutting back, partly because a smart machine is quicker and cheaper than a smart 23-year-old. Many say demonstrable skills are more important than the generic credential of a degree. Adzuna, a job site, reckons graduate recruitment ads are down around a third since 2022. Can HE avoid the icebergs ahead? Only if it can change to fix a national failure that is scarcely discussed by politicians who prefer shallow cultural rows about universities. This failure is the collapse in adult learner numbers. Between 2010 and 2019, mature student numbers fell 22 per cent. Universities that used to educate people of all ages have been pushed by funding policies to become finishing schools for under-25s. That makes no sense in a time of 100-year lifespans and 60-year careers. Two of the biggest forces of this era are demographics – fewer young people, more old ones – and AI. Britain's university sector is not responding to either of them. Instead of betting the house on teenagers, institutions should be incentivised to become centres of lifelong learning: flexible, modular and open to people at every stage of their career. I'm glad I chose university 30 years ago: you wouldn't be reading this if I hadn't. Now, approaching 50 with maybe 20 years of work ahead of me, I hope I get another chance to make that choice.
BBC News
2 hours ago
- BBC News
Badenoch says Conservatives would ban strikes by NHS doctors
Kemi Badenoch has said the Conservatives will ban strikes by all NHS doctors if they return to Tory leader said her party would introduce legislation for minimum service levels and block doctors taking widespread industrial action, placing them under the same restrictions that apply to police officers and of resident doctors, formerly junior doctors, began a five-day strike on Friday after the government and British Medical Association (BMA) failed to reach an agreement over previous government passed a law requiring minimum service levels in certain sectors, including some health services, but only ever got as far as considering it for doctors. In the UK, the only people legally prohibited from going on strike are members of the police force and non-civilian members of the armed forces. Doctors have the same right to strike as any other employee in the public or private BMA says that despite a 5.4% average pay rise this year, following a 22% increase over the previous two years, pay is still down by a fifth since 2008 once inflation is taken into account.A pay uplift of 26% is needed to reverse real-term wage decline, the union announcing her policy on Sunday, Badeonch accused the union of becoming "more and more militant", adding that the pay rise resident doctors had already received was "well above anything that any other group has had"."Doctors do incredibly important work. Medicine is a vocation, not just a job. That is why in government we offered a fair deal that supported doctors, but protected taxpayers too," she said."That is why Conservatives are stepping in, and setting out common sense proposals to protect patients, and the public finances."We are making an offer in the national interest – we will work with the government to face down the BMA to help protect patients and the NHS."Ahead of the beginning of strike action, Health Secretary Wes Streeting said the government would "not let the BMA hold the country to ransom" and insisted that disruption in the NHS would be kept to a minimum. NHS England had ordered hospitals to only cancel non-urgent work in exceptional circumstances. No official figures have been released yet on the impact of the latest strike. Some hospitals are reporting more than 80% of non-urgent work is still being done with senior doctors covering for resident several patients have told the BBC operations which had been scheduled during and around the strike period had been cancelled or postponed. The Conservative party claims that its proposed changes would bring the UK in line with other nations across the world, such as Australia and Canada – which have much tighter restrictions on industrial nations such as Greece, Italy and Portugal also have laws ensuring minimum service levels are in place across their health BBC has approached Labour and the BMA for comment on Badenoch's proposals.
