Corbyn accused of running ‘sexist boys’ club’ by co-leader of new left-wing party

Jeremy Corbyn is seeking legal advice after Zarah Sultana sent an “unauthorised email” from Your Party’s account inviting its supporters to become paid members.

As the left-wing MP accused Your Party of being run as a “sexist boys’ club”, Mr Corbyn called on his backers to ignore Ms Sultana’s email.

In a statement signed off by the party’s five male MPs, ignoring Ms Sultana, he said anyone who signed up should immediately cancel direct debits and that “legal advice is being taken”.

Responding, Ms Sultana said she had been sidelined by the party she co-founded and that she has “been subjected to what can only be described as a sexist boys’ club”.

She confirmed she had unilaterally taken the decision to send out the membership email to “safeguard the grassroots involvement” that she believes is essential to the party’s success.

The move would allow the left-wing challenger party to start taking paid-up members, as opposed to those who have simply indicated their support via email.

It attracted 20,000 paid members within hours, she said, which could mean income of more than £1m per year.

Former Labour leader Mr Corbyn is seeking legal advice after the message was sent to Your Party’s supporter list.

In a statement, Ms Sultana said: “After being sidelined by the MPs named in [Thursday’s] statement and effectively frozen out of the official accounts, I took the step of launching a membership portal so that supporters could continue to engage and organise.

“This was in line with the roadmap set out to members … my sole motivation has been to safeguard the grassroots involvement that is essential to building this party.

“Unfortunately, I have been subjected to what can only be described as a sexist boys’ club: I have been treated appallingly and excluded completely.

“They have refused to allow any other women with voting rights on the working group, blocking the gender-balanced committee that both Jeremy and I signed up to.”

Writing on X (Twitter), Mr Corbyn said: “This morning, an unauthorised email was sent to all Your Party supporters with details of a supposed membership portal hosted in a new domain name.

“Legal advice is being taken. That email should be ignored by all supporters.”

Mr Corbyn urged anyone who had signed up to cancel any direct debits.

“Soon, you will be able to turn your support into membership and shape the future of our party and our country,” Mr Corbyn added.

It is the latest chapter in a public spat between the co-leaders, which began when the new venture was originally announced by Ms Sultana, who said in July she was quitting the Labour Party to co-found the new venture with Mr Corbyn.

But Mr Corbyn appeared unready for the announcement, making no public statement on the launch until the next day.

Their relationship further broke down after she accused him of “capitulating” over antisemitism when he was Labour leader.

The Islington MP said it was “not really necessary” for Ms Sultana, with whom he is currently co-leading the as-yet-unnamed party, to “bring all that up”.

It came after Ms Sultana used an interview with the New Left Review to say Mr Corbyn as Labour leader “capitulated to the IHRA definition of antisemitism”.

The Coventry South MP also said Mr Corbyn alienated voters by “triangulating” on Brexit and that Labour under his leadership was “frightened and far too conciliatory”.

Mr Corbyn said on Tuesday his new party will hold a founding conference in November, with delegates chosen by lottery.

In an email, Your Party said membership applications would open by the end of September.

But it did not give precise dates for the conference, saying only that it would see “thousands” of delegates “chosen by lottery to ensure a fair balance of gender, region and background”.

Ahead of that conference, the party said it would hold “regional assemblies” where members can “listen to each other, break bread and debate” founding documents.

Thursday’s email took supporters to a page where they could choose a £5 monthly subscription or opt for a £55 annual payment. “This is your chance to help build something new. A party that belongs to its members, not the establishment,” it said.

Trump calls ‘livid’ Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension over Charlie Kirk comments ‘great news’

Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show has been pulled off the air “indefinitely” after the host’s comments about the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, reportedly leaving the comedian “livid” about the decision.

ABC confirmed the suspension after Kimmel said earlier in the week that the “MAGA gang” was trying to “score political points” from the fatal shooting of Kirk. A protest in support of Kimmel has formed outside the gates of Disney, ABC’s parent company.

President Donald Trump, who has shared his contempt for Kimmel in the past, celebrated Kimmel’s axing, calling it “Great News for America”. Trump also appeared to call for the ousting of other late-night hosts, Jimmy Fallon and Seth Meyers, who have also been critical of his presidency.

Hours before the decision was made public, Trump-appointed chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Brendan Carr, said his agency could hold ABC, Disney, and Kimmel accountable for the comments, claiming the late-night host appeared to be making an intentional effort to mislead the public into believing that Kirk’s assassin was a Trump supporter.

Tyler Robinson, the 22-year-old man suspected of killing Kirk, was charged with aggravated murder, among other counts, and faces the death penalty if convicted. Authorities say he held a “leftist ideology.”

Why King Charles can’t forget his relationship with Nixon’s daughter

At last night’s state banquet, Trump talked from the heart – he waxed lyrical about the “priceless and eternal” kinship between the UK and the USA, doubled down on the King as his “friend” and wrapped the special relationship in a florid package of “history, fate, love and language”. But it was the more scripted King who penetrated deepest into what might have been a really “special relationship”, alluding to that once-upon-a-time moment when Charles admitted, “I myself might have been married off within the Nixon family!”

The attendees tittered gingerly, most none-the-wiser as to what the old King was talking about. But beneath her sapphire tiara you can be sure the Queen knew precisely what Charles was alluding to. That same fated summer of 1970, when a gauche Prince of Wales first met the impossibly English and pricelessly confident Camilla at a polo match, there was another woman in the frame.

When the world’s most “unlikely sex symbol” (cue a very green, 21-year-old Charles) was bumped from Canada to America on a two-day stopover, all eyes were on the prince and President Nixon’s pocket-sized eldest daughter, Tricia. Confident, blonde and crucially, a smidgeon older than Charles, here was a Transatlantic version of Camilla: a young woman with peaches-and-cream sex appeal and political pedigree; small wonder the prince looks terrified in all the footage.

That summer, President Richard Nixon had his eye on the main chance; knee-deep in the quagmire of the Vietnam war and always susceptible to old-school imaging, by all accounts he was “unusually excited about the royals” and hosted a programme of events that threw the prince into constant contact with Tricia. These included a Washington Senators baseball game at RFK Stadium, where the couple sat side by side, engaging in giggling conversation, and a 700-strong dinner-dance at the White House.

That same summer, Tricia graced America’s TV cameras with a tour of the upper floor of the White House. Standing on the Harold Truman balcony in a startling white lace mini-dress, her interview is coquettish yet assured, its style a salient reminder of just how much the American presidential system borrows from Britain’s constitutional monarchy. Often referred to as an elective kingship, arguably the only magic ingredient the USA lacks is the transcendent glamour of the hereditary principle. This was a way of getting the best of both worlds.

Decades later, with Tricia safely married to a Harvard lawyer, Charles conceded, “That was quite amusing… they were trying to marry me off to Tricia Nixon.” In America at the time, there was little doubt that this was a special relationship that could seal the real deal. According to one columnist, “Nixon was so infatuated” because he “lacked what Charles and Anne had in abundance”. The article goes on to mock the parvenu president and his “intense but vain search for the magic which the prince… carried along so casually”. Which is one way of describing Charles’ unsure gait and untamed fop of dark hair.

In the end, the media dubbed them “the match that didn’t take”, and Nixon’s wide-eyed wonder at the immutable appeal of monarchy was nothing new. For all the king-bashing during the American Revolution (neatly alluded to at the Royal state banquet), Thomas Jefferson admitted of royalty in 1789 that “some of us retain that idolatry still”. Stateside, the later wealth-generating 19th century coincided with the growing popularity of Britain’s monarchy under Victoria.

America’s vulgar plutocracy couldn’t get enough of our ancient families and titles, in an era when marrying an impoverished English lord became a well-trodden path, most famously modelled by the 9th Duke of Marlborough and his miserable American bride Consuelo Vanderbilt-Balsan. Jennie Jerome, later Lady Randolph Churchill, was an altogether more successful (if less rich) import. Today, Keir Starmer’s reveal of the Churchill archives at Chequers works on more than one level. As President Trump is always keen to remind us: “seen from American eyes, the word special does not begin to do” the two countries’ relationship justice.

Perhaps not, but if in 2025 Britain is prepared to flaunt all its old-school glory (including a “so beautiful” Kate wrapped in a gold frock coat, strategically located next to a puffed-up Donald) in the vain hope of better trading terms, we can only wonder where a Nixon in Buckingham Palace might have left us.

Presumably, as a single woman from America’s first family, Tricia would have avoided the more vicious criticism and snobbishness that plagued Wallis Simpson (although the Watergate scandal may well have up-ended the Windsors’ claim to political impartiality). As for the twice-married woman from Baltimore who snared Edward VIII, Mrs Simpson didn’t have a hope in hell of winning the snooty British public around. JohnTravolta dancing with Prince Diana in 1985 was far nearer the mark – sufficiently fleeting and Hollywood-performative for everyone to feel a winner (Charles long since forgotten as the star attraction of Windsor PLC).

Nearly a century on from Mrs Simpson, Meghan’s marriage to Prince Harry suggests that little Britain’s capacity to deliver a latent sneer lives on. Meanwhile, over in California, Meghan’s limpet-like commitment to her duchess title has done little to allay UK fears of being used.

As for Trump, the man who has it all except a crown, his version of America does not recognise the Meghan Markles of this world. This 47th president, of Scottish protestant descent and the son of a keen monarchist, clearly feels much closer to the British royal family than to a mixed-race princess from his own country. His lavish praise went in one direction only, as he pointedly insisted the king had raised a “remarkable son, His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales”, who Trump assured us would have “unbelievable success in the future”.

Prince Harry and his choice of an American bride were the unspoken elephant in the room – a reminder that only half of America backs this controversial President whom Starmer’s Britain has set upon the highest pedestal. It speaks to the perversions of a world divided as never before, led by Donald Trump, who encourages those divisions, and that the current rupture at the centre of our own royal family has actually proved something of a diplomatic asset during this unprecedented second state visit.

As to whether Queen Camilla appreciated being reminded of her blonde rival from over 50 years ago, a little light diplomacy behind closed doors may be required…

Tessa Dunlop is the author of ‘Elizabeth and Philip, The Story of Young Love, Marriage and Monarchy’

Theresa May accused of being insensitive after referring to assisted dying as ‘suicide’

Theresa May has been accused of being “deeply insensitive” after the former prime minister referred to assisted dying for terminally ill people as suicide during a debate on the matter last week.

Baroness May, one of around 190 peers with their names down to speak on the bill across a two-day debate that will resume on Friday, referred to it as an “assisted suicide bill” and said it “effectively says suicide is OK”.

In a letter to the former prime minister, seen by The Independent, 13 assisted dying campaigners have denounced the language she used, saying they “listened with dismay” as she made her intervention.

“We are not suicidal – we want to live, and to make the most of the time we have left with the people we love. But we are dying and we have no choice or ability to change that,” they said.

“We are not seeking to make a choice between living and dying but between two kinds of death. All we ask is for the choice, safety and peace of mind that legalised assisted dying would bring as we approach the very end of our lives.”

In the emotional letter, they added: “To equate choice and control over the timing and manner of inevitable and imminent death with suicide is deeply insensitive to those of us facing this position.

“We hope that you and other peers will reflect on your choice of words as the bill progresses through the House of Lords.

“We would welcome the opportunity to meet and talk to you about our concerns.”

Baroness May used her intervention in the House of Lords to express concern about a lack of safeguards in the bill, as well as concern over the bill’s possible impact on people with disabilities, chronic illness and mental health problems.

She argued “there is a risk that legalising assisted dying reinforces the dangerous notion that some lives are less worth living than others”.

Baroness May told the Lords: “There is a danger that this could be used as a cover-up; a cover-up for mistakes made in hospital, or for perhaps a hospital-acquired illness, infection, which has led to an increased likelihood of death.

“I have a friend who calls it the ‘licence to kill’ bill.”

The former PM added: “This is not an assisted dying bill but an assisted suicide bill. As a society, we believe that suicide is wrong … but this bill, in effect, says that it is OK. What message does that give to our society?

“Suicide is not OK. Suicide is wrong. This bill is wrong. It should not pass.”

Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, who introduced the bill in the Commons last year, said she found the “framing around suicide very uncomfortable”, adding that “the terminally ill people I’ve met are definitely not suicidal”, rather, they are dying.

She said that while Baroness May had made a “very powerful contribution”, the two are “at different sides of this argument and the debate”.

On Baroness May’s suggestion around cover-ups, Ms Leadbeater added: “The last thing that the bill would enable would be cover-ups, because it’s such a thorough process and it creates a framework around the assisted death rather than the lack of framework that there is at the moment.”

Sophie Blake, who has stage 4 breast cancer and is one of the signatories on the letter, told The Independent she found the former prime minister’s language to be “really offensive, very insensitive and hurtful”.

“The [terminally ill] women I know have got the most fierce passion for life. They will go through the most gruelling treatment just to gain extra precious days to be with their loved ones.

“To be told that we are suicidal when we do everything we can, with such determination, in desperation to live longer – to me it feels like there is a complete lack of understanding and acknowledgement of what terminally ill people will go through to live”, she said.

Ms Blake added: “To conflate assisted dying with suicide is not just semantics – it’s deeply cruel. We are not suicidal, we are dying. We deserve the chance to face our final days with safety, peace of mind and dignity, not stigma.

Meanwhile, Nathaniel Dye, another signatory of the letter, has previously described the bill as a chance to “act with kindness” and provide people a choice “at their darkest hour”.

Mr Dye, who has terminal cancer, told a Westminster press conference earlier this year that without this legislation, he would be left with “no choice whatsoever: I die in pain or I die in pain”.

The bill, as it stands, requires an application for an assisted death to be approved by two doctors and an expert panel. It would make assisted dying available to adults in England and Wales with a terminal diagnosis of less than six months to live.

With around 190 peers having put their names down to speak across the two-day debate, it could surpass the previous record of 187, for the EU withdrawal bill’s second reading debate in 2018.

Last Friday’s debate, during which 89 peers gave their views, will resume on Friday at 10am.

Baroness May has been contacted for comment.

If you are experiencing feelings of distress, or are struggling to cope, you can speak to the Samaritans, in confidence, on 116 123 (UK and ROI), email jo@samaritans.org, or visit the Samaritans website to find details of your nearest branch

If you are based in the USA, and you or someone you know needs mental health assistance right now, call or text 988, or visit 988lifeline.org to access online chat from the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline. This is a free, confidential crisis hotline that is available to everyone 24 hours a day, seven days a week. If you are in another country, you can go to www.befrienders.org to find a helpline near you

The Rashford moment that revealed why Barcelona may revive his career

Marcus Rashford mopped his brow and hugged his Barcelona boss Hansi Flick as he walked off St James’ Park. Then a big smile flashed across Rashford’s face. A rare smile. Flick offered a whisper of praise, and no wonder.

Come his substitution in the 81st minute he’d conjured two goals, his first for the Catalans, after an assist against Valencia at the weekend.

A difficult Champions League tie at Newcastle was won thanks to his ruthless improvisation. A thrilling performance that shows he is happy, motivated, confident and, perhaps, getting back to his world-class best.

Manchester United fans must have looked on grumbling about what they are missing. No fall outs, or accusations of sloppy training sessions here. Just raw talent, some trickery, a turn of pace, one stunning first-time pass, and a classy finish from that right boot.

A performance that indirectly begs a persistent question asked on so many levels. Is Ruben Amorim worth it?

Rashford is not the marauding kid of old, but there was ample evidence here that he’s reviving his faltering career and set to become a key asset for England in a World Cup season. Meanwhile, his parent club toil.

“I am not surprised. His skills are unbelievable, his finishing is unbelievable. His last few years were not easy. We always see this in training and we saw it today,” said Flick, of Rashford’s first Champions League goals for four years. “I’m happy to have him. Two goals will help a lot to get Marcus to the next step. He must make the next step.”

Take note, Amorim. Less agonising for Manchester United is Rashford’s likely rise in value should his stock soar.

The 27-year-old netted twice in nine minutes to silence St James’ Park. His first was a pinpoint header from Jules Kounde’s cross. The second, a sublimely clean, vicious strike from 20 yards that dipped and pinged in off the bar.

The smile at the end was significant. Gareth Southgate once had to ask him for a happy face after a particularly good England outing, he looked so serious even in victory. Here it came naturally. Barca and this version of Rashford are a match, and one that silenced the early earthquake of an atmosphere on Tyneside.

“I’m full of excitement”, said Rashford. “Motivated and determined. It is refreshing to play with these players.”

Eddie Howe’s men ended the game in messy fashion, despite Anthony Gordon’s 90th-minute goal reviving hope for injury time.

There’s a reason why St James’ Park – on and off the pitch – serves up fierce bursts of intensity and noise on a Champions League night. Landmark games against European royalty are simply so rare.

Chances to mix it with the elite have been so sparse in the past decades and it’s why there was raw energy and intimidation crackling in the Tyneside night. A strength, certainly, in sparking – even scaring early on – illustrious opponents like Barcelona.

But it also reveals weakness. Experience counts at this level. Especially the wily patience to see off an early storm, and wait for the gaps to appear, which they did.

In the 2002 season, when Sir Bobby Robson, formerly of both these parishes, led Newcastle into battle against the likes of Juventus and Inter, he scanned a Uefa statistics sheet before the opening game.

Shaking his head, sucking air in sharply he said: “50 games, 60 games, these guys have played the equivalent of two domestic seasons in this competition. That’s where we need to be.”

Didn’t happen. This is only Newcastle’s fourth group stage campaign since their first in 1997 under Kenny Dalglish. The Catalans have won it five times.

This was United’s 29th group stage game in club history. Barca striker Robert Lewandowski was playing for the 134th time in the Champions League in his career alone. A gulf in experience, but for an hour not much in it until Rashford’s class was kindled.

This was not a classic Tyneside Euro night, despite memories of Faustino Asprilla’s hat-trick, those gravity defying leaps to head home Keith Gillespie’s crosses being relived in the build-up.

Howe hoped for a repeat of the intensity of that 4-1 demolition of PSG two years ago – the best atmosphere and player-crowd connection generations could recall.

Howe can be encouraged by the first hour. Anthony Elanga’s pace opened up the visitors twice. But clinical finishing is needed, and instead Gordon and Harvey Barnes failed to take chances amid the early show of force. Missing Alexander Isak? Of course they were.

“We were in the game, never out of it, but I am disappointed we didn’t score the first goal,” Howe said. “That was crucial.”

Two years ago in this competition Newcastle won just once in six games, twice defeated by Dortmund, goalless against Milan, and denied victory in Paris by a 98th-minute Kylian Mbappe penalty. An early exit but were lessons learned?

Progress this time will depend on beating middle-ranking opponents including Union SG, Athletic Club, Marseille and Bayer Leverkusen.

How Macmillan Cancer Support built a movement that reaches everyone

Cancelling Jimmy Kimmel reveals the crude truth about Trump’s definition of free speech

Nothing reveals Donald Trump’s double standards on free speech more emphatically than the way the Jimmy Kimmel TV show in America has been taken off air.

Talk show host Kimmel was dropped after accusing the “Maga gang of trying to score political points” off the murder of Charlie Kirk and mocking Trump’s reaction to it as “how a four-year-old mourns the death of a goldfish”. You can question Kimmel’s sense of taste, but you would expect a champion of free speech to leap to his defence.

Trump has done the opposite and even took time out during his state visit to Britain to post his approval of Kimmel’s silencing on his Truth Social platform.

No one has ever accused Trump of having a sense of irony. But you would like to think that he paused for just a moment to consider the inconsistency of praising the virtues of free speech in his Windsor Castle banquet speech, and shortly afterwards celebrating the demise of someone for exercising that supposed cherished freedom.

It reveals the crude truth about Trump’s definition of free speech: you can say anything you like as long as you don’t criticise him. Nor was he merely commenting on the censorship of Kimmel from the sidelines: his departure seems to have been the direct result of action by Trump’s allies in the US.

His show was suspended by the ABC network after pressure on its owners, Disney, from Brendan Carr, the head of America’s media regulator, the Federal Communications Commission. Carr called Kimmel “truly sick” and accused him of “lying to the American people”. Carr just happens to have been appointed to his role by, yes, you guessed it, Donald Trump.

Respected US media commentator Stephen Battaglio of the Los Angeles Times said of Carr on the Today programme: “He is an agent of Donald Trump. He wakes up in the morning, and the first thing he asks himself is ‘How can I please the president?’” As Battaglio pointed out, Kirk, the outspoken pro-Trump advocate assassinated at a Utah Valley University event last Wednesday, was himself a passionate advocate of free speech. “He said a lot of things that were loathsome to many people. However, he was willing to go into the arena and debate and challenge people who didn’t agree with him. I cannot imagine he would have approved of something like this in his memory.”

Battaglio said Disney TV chiefs who had buckled to pressure could rue the day they dumped Kimmel at Trump’s behest. It could lead to other celebrities and broadcasters, horrified at the way someone could be “shut down for something they said in a moment of creative expression”, refusing to go on ABC shows in a show of support for Kimmel. Battaglio said: “There could be a wider reaction to this that Disney may come to regret.” It is too soon to tell whether that will happen, although US show business figures, including actors Ben Stiller, Wanda Sykes and Jean Smart, have already criticised the firing of Kimmel. Compare and contrast Kimmel’s fate with that of Brian Kilmeade, a presenter on Trump’s beloved right-wing Fox TV. Kilmeade recently called for mentally ill and homeless people to be killed. As US comedian Paul Scheer observed: “So let me get this straight. Kimmel is off the air for his comments about the politicisation of an assassination – but this is totally fine.” Kilmead later apologised for his remarks.

It is hard to grasp the breathtaking degree of Trump’s hypocrisy in the Kimmel affair. Judging from his outrage, one imagines he would be even more angry if Kimmel accused him of having a “low IQ” and falsely claimed he had lied about being born in America. Except Kimmel did not say those things. Both were insults hurled by another former TV show host, Trump himself – about Democrat opponents Kamala Harris and Barack Obama. Before narcissist Trump and vice-president JD Vance lecture Britain on free speech, they should look in the mirror first.

Boris Johnson at heart of furious Tory row at state visit reception

A state reception dinner for British right-wingers descended into a bust-up between Boris Johnson and other senior Tories over the party’s record in government.

In an astonishing turn of events, a witness described “real anger” as the meeting of minds led to a spat between Liz Truss, Mr Johnson and his former boss, broadcaster Andrew Neil.

The event, at the luxury Peninsula hotel in London’s Mayfair, was hosted by US broadcaster Newsmax and included guests of honour Marco Rubio and US Treasury secretary Scott Bessent. Both are in the UK for Donald Trump’s state visit.

Nigel Farage and Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg were also there representing the right of British politics.

After canapes, Mr Farage and the US cabinet members left, before the rest of the guests, who also included Sir Sajid Javid and Mark Harper, were treated to dinner.

Mr Johnson then gave a speech defending his record on Brexit, and it was at this point that a witness said “tensions were evident over the last government’s record”. Right-wing critics have rounded on Mr Johnson for overseeing mass migration into Britain as PM, with Reform UK dubbing it the “Boris wave” of migration.

The witness told The Telegraph that tensions came to a head when former transport secretary Lord Harper raised the need for welfare reform and immigration control, before being rebuked by broadcaster Mr Neil about why the Tories had not done so in power.

The witness added: “At that point, Boris robustly defended his government’s record. Boris argued that Brexit gives us powers to reduce immigration if we wish, and said he did reduce it. He also said we shouldn’t bash the contribution migrants make to Britain.

“There was a robust exchange of views, and everyone defended themselves well, but real anger is obvious. The Reform attendees were of the view that this is why the Conservatives don’t function well as a party any more.”

Sir Jacob reportedly attempted to make peace between Tory critics supporting Reform and those defending the Conservatives’ record, apparently believing the two parties should work together.

Mr Neil has long been critical of the former PM after his stint as Mr Johnson’s boss at The Spectator magazine.

A series of scandals erupted at the weekly publication under Mr Johnson’s editorship, including several affairs leading to it being dubbed the “Sextator”.

More recently, Mr Neil delivered a scathing verdict on Mr Johnson’s trustworthiness after he failed to submit to a BBC grilling before the 2019 general election and was the only major party leader not to do so.

In a damning monologue, he said: “The theme running through our questions is trust.

“And why, so many times in his career in politics and journalism, critics and sometimes even those close to him have deemed him to be untrustworthy. It is of course relevant to what he is promising us all now.”

The latest row between the pair came after a week in which Mr Farage welcomed a fresh handful of defectors to Reform UK, with high-profile former Tories Maria Caulfield and Danny Kruger joining the party.

Mr Kruger became the first sitting MP to defect to the party, while Ms Caulfield became the 13th former Tory MP to join Mr Farage’s ranks.

As he left, Mr Kruger urged other Tory MPs to join him in Mr Farage’s party, saying: “I would hope that colleagues who share my view about the crisis the country is in [recognise] the opportunity that Reform offers to save our country.”

Ms Caulfield, meanwhile, told GB News: “If you are Conservative right-minded, then the future is Reform.”