Sir James Cleverly set to return to Tory front bench as shadow housing secretary
Sir James served in the foreign office and as home secretary when the Conservatives were in power.
He stood as a candidate in last year's Conservative leadership election, but lost out on the Tory top job ahead of the final heat between Mrs Badenoch and her now shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick.
Since the leadership contest, he had returned to the Tory back benches as the MP for Braintree.
As well as Sir James's appointment, it is understood Kevin Hollinrake will move to the role of party chairman, replacing Nigel Huddleston, who will become shadow culture secretary.
Mr Hollinrake was previously in the shadow MHCLG job, which will be filled by Sir James.
Stuart Andrew will become shadow health secretary, replacing Edward Argar, who resigned citing health reasons.
Further changes are expected to be confirmed later on Tuesday, and a Conservative source said earlier that they will 'reflect the next stage of the party's policy renewal programme and underline the unity of the party under new leadership'.
As he prepares for his last parliamentary oral questions from the front bench, I want to put on record my sincere thanks to Ed Argar for serving in my Shadow Cabinet.
I wish him the very best for a speedy recovery and return to full health, and so I will be making a few changes… pic.twitter.com/FWoC7L19nd
— Kemi Badenoch (@KemiBadenoch) July 22, 2025
Allies of shadow chancellor Sir Mel Stride believe he will remain in his post, while attention will be focused on whether Mrs Badenoch keeps Mr Jenrick in his current role.
The former leadership contender has strayed well beyond his justice brief, building a prominent social media presence with campaigns on a range of issues from tackling fare dodgers on the London Underground to the impact of immigration on housing.
Since moving to the backbenches, Sir James has used his influential position as a former minister to warn against pursuing populist agenda akin to Nigel Farage's Reform UK.
Appearing at the Institute For Public Policy Research (IPPR) think tank last week, the senior Tory hit out at calls to 'smash the system' and 'start again from scratch', branding them 'complete nonsense'.
He also appeared to take a different position on net zero from party leader Mrs Badenoch in a recent speech, urging the Conservatives to reject climate change 'luddites' on the right who believe 'the way things are now is just fine'.
Earlier on Tuesday, Mrs Badenoch said she was 'saddened' that Mr Argar feels 'unable to continue' in his position, but agreed 'that you must put your health first'.
In a letter to the party leader dated July 9 and shared by Mrs Badenoch on X on Tuesday, Mr Argar said: 'I had a health scare earlier this summer and remain grateful to the doctors and hospital staff who looked after me.'
He added: 'I have been well looked after, but have also listened to what the doctors said to me, and have listened to my family, and have concluded that lightening my front-bench workload over the coming months, in order to complete my recovery and fully restore my health in that period, is the sensible approach.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
31 minutes ago
- The Independent
What is a wealth tax – and would it work in the UK?
Pressure is growing on Rachel Reeves to find new ways to boost the ailing economy after government borrowing reached the second-highest June figure since 1993 last month. Many now predict the chancellor will have little choice but to tweak taxes to find more funds for the Treasury following dramatic changes to government policy over cutting welfare spending and stripping back the winter fuel payment. At the same time, calls are also growing to axe the two-child benefit cap – a Tory-era policy which experts say keeps 400,000 children in poverty and runs contrary to Labour 's missions. These policy decisions, paired with a difficult economic backdrop, will require funds from somewhere. The chancellor has so far stuck to Labour's manifesto commitment not to raise taxes for working people, meaning tweaks to national insurance, income tax, and VAT are off the table. This means more creative tweaks may be under consideration for her next autumn budget, building on changes already made to levies like inheritance tax and employers' national insurance. One option an increasing number of campaigners are pointing to is a ' wealth tax', an economic policy adopted by very few countries which focuses on the ultra-rich. Here's everything you need to know about the idea and what the experts say about it: What is a wealth tax? A wealth tax is a direct levy on an individual's total net assets – things like property, investments, cash, and other possessions. Unlike most regular taxes, the idea is to target accumulated wealth, rather than only income earned that year. Alongside being a new way to raise revenue for the exchequer, the policy is also designed to redistribute wealth to reduce economic inequality. The UK already has some taxes that focus on assets, such as inheritance tax, capital gains tax, and council tax. Tweaking any of these may also be on the table for the chancellor later this year. Capital gains tax is most similar to a wealth tax in that it sees a levy charged on the sale of an asset. However, most models of a wealth tax would see an annual charge based on the value of assets held, even if they are not sold. The idea of a wealth tax has proven divisive among economic experts, with debates ongoing around its fairness, revenue-raising potential, and economic impact. Could a wealth tax work in the UK? Campaigners say a wealth tax could generate significant sums for the Treasury, whilst only affecting a small number of individuals who are less likely to feel the sting of higher receipts. Tax Justice UK is calling for a two per cent levy on individuals who own assets worth more than £10 million. They say this would affect 0.04 per cent of the population, while raising £24 billion a year. The calls come at a time when the wealth of the ultra-rich in the UK has increased massively in recent decades, while living standards have dropped for those on low- to middle-incomes. The Sunday Times rich list recorded 171 UK billionaires in 2023 – up from 15 in 1990. At the same time, there are now record numbers of children living in poverty in the UK, and in precarious living conditions like temporary accommodation. A wealth tax should be seriously considered by the chancellor, said author and host of the Macrodose podcast, James Meadway: 'It starts to chip away at the idea that we're just going to allow wealth to pile up in a very few hands forevermore.' Responding to criticism that a wealth tax would threaten investment in the UK, the economist said: 'Investment has fallen off a cliff between Brexit and the financial crisis. Sixty per cent of wealth in Britain is inherited. It's not something that's been built up by somebody going off and setting up a new business. 'If these people were any good, our economy would be better. It isn't better, so they're not that good, so it doesn't matter that much.' He added: 'It's not going to solve every single economic problem, but 24 billion is not a number to be sniffed at if you're the government right now looking at how you're going to continue to fund the NHS, how you're going to pay for not imposing massive benefit cuts, how you're going to get rid of the two child benefit cap. 'There's a whole stack of things that we could do with that money that isn't being done at the minute because it's just sitting in the hands of very, very wealthy people.' What are the issues with a wealth tax? One of the most difficult factors in calculating the benefits of any wealth tax is predicting what the behavioural response will be. While a wealth tax would raise fairly large sums in any scenario, this uncertainty means it is hard to model. A common concern put forward is the risk of 'capital flight,' where wealthy individuals – who tend to be more globally mobile – simply leave the UK, or at least move some of their assets. Wealth can also be held in a diverse range of assets, anything from cars to art, meaning it may be hard for tax authorities to know exactly how to enforce the levy. Dan Neidle, founder of Tax Policy Associates, said it is highly uncertain how much could be raised by implementing a wealth tax. While it is difficult to estimate exactly how many wealthy individuals would leave the UK should the measure come into force, the tax expert points out that just ten leaving could reduce the revenue by billions. This is because 15 per cent of the projected yield would come from just ten ultra-wealthy individuals, while 80 per cent would come from less than 5,000. Alongside the risk of capital flight, Mr Neidle argues that the economic damage of a wealth tax to the UK would be massive. He explained: 'If you tax something, you get less of it – always. All taxes are a trade-off; you need to just be clear about what they are. With a wealth tax, you're taxing savings and investment, so you get less savings and investment.' The tax expert points to modelling of wealth tax in the US and Germany, which found the long-term effect was a two per cent and five per cent reduction in GDP respectively. This would be damaging for the economy and hit employment hard. 'We need to respond not to what we want policies to do, but what they actually do,' Mr Neidle added. 'There are lots of ways you can reform tax and tax the wealthy fairly in a way that doesn't damage the rest of us.' These could include reforming land tax, capital gains tax, and inheritance tax. Any of these is probably a more likely option for Labour than introducing a wealth tax. But as autumn approaches, calls for some form of more redistributive measure will likely only grow louder.
Daily Record
31 minutes ago
- Daily Record
Extra £3.45 million awarded to study into possible upgrades to key Dumfries and Galloway road
The UK Government has allocated the cash to a project looking into bypassing the A75 around Springholm and Crocketford. An extra £3.45 million is to be put into investigating upgrades to the A75. The UK Government has allocated the cash to a study looking into bypassing Springholm and Crocketford. The new funding is part of a £66 million package Chancellor Rachel Reeves has announced to improve transport links in the west of Scotland. She said: 'We're pledging billions to back Scottish jobs, industry and renewal - that's why we're investing in the major transport projects, including exploring upgrades to the A75, that local communities have been calling for. 'Whilst previous governments oversaw over a decade of decline of our transport infrastructure, we're investing in Britain's renewal. This £66 million investment is exactly what our Plan for Change is about, investing in what matters to you in the places that you live.' The need to upgrade the A75 was identified in the Scottish Government's second Strategic Transport Projects Review and the UK Government's Union Connectivity Review. Despite roads devolved to the Scottish Government, in 2022, the then Chancellor Jeremy Hunt announced £5 million for a feasibility study into bypassing Springholm and Crocketford. That was increased to £8 million by Tory Prime Minister Rishi Sunak in 2023 – but after Labour won last year's General Election, the amount allocated was reduced to 'up to £5 million'. The aaward of an extra £3.45 million now takes the total for the study to a potential £8.45 million. Scotland Secretary, Ian Murray, said: 'This £66 million investment in Scotland's roads demonstrates the UK Government's commitment to improving infrastructure and driving economic growth in all parts of the UK as part of our Plan for Change. This investment will make a real difference to people's daily lives and to the local economies of the south of Scotland, Ayrshire and Renfrewshire. 'The A75 is strategically important just not within but beyond Scotland. Its upgrading is long overdue. I am pleased that the UK Government has stepped up to fund the delivery of the A75 feasibility study in full. 'This investment is yet another example of how the UK Government is building the foundations for a stronger, more prosperous future that benefits communities right across Scotland.' While the UK Government is funding the study, work to upgrade the road will come from Holyrood. The Scottish Government appointed technical advisors to work on plans for upgrades last year.
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Shouts of 'shame' ring-out during Swindon council asylum debate
Conservative councillors were heckled with shouts of "shame" during a council debate on asylum motion, which failed to pass, proposed the Cabinet produce a report on how Swindon can avoid its housing stock from being used to house asylum seekers, saying working Swindon people feel like "second class citizens".Council Leader Jim Robbins said there are no asylum seekers in council properties calling the proposal "poorly thought out".During the debate which included several passionate speeches, Labour Councillor Repi Begum, spoke about her lived experience and called the arguments from the opposition "racist tropes" - something that was denied. The motion was proposed by Conservative Councillor Daniel Adams and seconded by fellow Tory Councillor Gayle Cook who said that local people should be "put first" adding "charity starts at home".Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors voted unanimously against the motion with 12 Conservatives voting for it - resulting in it failing to Adams also asked for £238,000 of council money to be put into local services and not into housing asylum Robbins said this money is used for emergency accommodation which prioritises Swindon families with children but that also includes giving those granted a right to remain in the UK a temporary home whilst permanent accommodation is that he was "really pleased the motion was defeated" and that he was "proud" of Swindon's history of "welcoming people from all over the world". During the debate references were made to the youth of Swindon being unable to afford housing or rent in the Begum said using arguments like "our children can't get homes is an age-old racist trope - they're taking our homes"."When people hear leaders using that language it allows the average Joe Bloggs to act up and that's why we had the race riots of Summer 2024," she added."It endangers people like me, a third generation Brit, a hard working, law abiding, higher rate tax paying, decent, civilised human being who happens to be British - like it or not."After several arguments for and against the motion, Mr Adams, said: "I never mentioned race once, I'm truly shocked, it's this rhetoric that's designed to shutdown debate and lead to the issues we're seeing on our streets today."Ms Begum closed the debate by saying: "When you say this isn't about racism, you haven't been attacked with a baseball bat walking down the street because politicians like you decide to tell who has a right to be here and who hasn't got a right to be here." In a recent report by the BBC the Business Secretary, Jonathan Reynolds said the government shared the public's "huge frustration" at the pressure the asylum system puts on housing acknowledged concern about the Home Office competing with local councils to find temporary homes for asylum seekers and homeless people said the solution lay in building more homes, processing asylum applications faster, removing those with no right to be in the UK and cutting small boat crossings.
