Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
LAST UPDATE | 9 Jul 2022
UK DEFENCE SECRETARY Ben Wallace has ruled himself out of the current Tory leadership race to replace outgoing Prime Minister Boris Johnson.
Wallace said that he had considered entering the race, but opted to stay out to focus on his current portfolio.
“After careful consideration and discussing with colleagues and family, I have taken the decision not to enter the contest for leadership of the Conservative Party,” Wallace said in a tweet.
“It has not been an easy choice to make, but my focus is on my current job and keeping this great country safe. I wish the very best of luck to all candidates and hope we swiftly return to focusing on the issues that we are all elected to address.”
After careful consideration and discussing with colleagues and family, I have taken the decision not to enter the contest for leadership of the Conservative Party. I am very grateful to all my parliamentary colleagues and wider members who have pledged support. 1/2
— Rt. Hon Ben Wallace MP (@BWallaceMP) July 9, 2022
It comes as four candidates have publicly declared that they intend to stand for the leadership, including former Chancellor Rishi Sunak who unveiled his campaign yesterday evening.
Former equalities minister Kemi Badenoch is the latest to throw her hat into the ring, with a plan for a smaller state and a government “focused on the essentials”.
The MP for Saffron Walden said she supported lower taxes “to boost growth and productivity, and accompanied by tight spending discipline”.
Writing in The Times, she also hit out at “identity politics” and said Boris Johnson was “a symptom of the problems we face, not the cause of them”.
MP for North East Derbyshire, Lee Rowley, said he was backing Badenoch.
Meanwhile, former minister Steve Baker has backed Attorney General Suella Braverman’s campaign – despite previously saying he was seriously considering putting himself forward for the top job.
Braverman, writing in the Daily Express, promised “rapid and large tax cuts” to ease inflation and said the energy crisis meant “we must suspend the all-consuming desire to achieve net zero by 2050”.
Foreign Secretary Liz Truss is also widely expected to run for leader.
Tory MPs Chloe Smith, Julian Knight and Jackie-Doyle Price expressed their support for the senior Cabinet minister on Friday, although she is yet to launch a bid.
Smith said Truss is “the right person to take our country forward”, while Knight said she would “deliver on the promise we made to our voters”.
Jackie Doyle-Price told The Times Truss would be “a vigorous defender of women’s rights” in an apparent reference to her defence of single-sex spaces.
Isle of Wight MP Bob Seely also told BBC Newsnight he believes Truss is most likely to provide “clarity of leadership”, and he suspects she will announce her candidacy over the weekend or early next week – although that is “up to her”.
Baker, a prominent Brexiteer, had told the PA news agency that Tory blog ConservativeHome “consistently put me in their top 10 for next prime minister, they sometimes put me in their top five”.
But he said it would be “very difficult” to persuade colleagues to back him for the party-wide ballot without Cabinet experience.
On Friday evening, he tweeted: “I considered standing for the leadership. My priorities were delivering against our manifesto with our mandate, cutting taxes and seeing through Brexit.
“Happily I no longer need to stand. @SuellaBraverman will deliver these priorities and more.”
Yesterday, Sunak announced his bid for leader on Twitter, saying: “Let’s restore trust, rebuild the economy and reunite the country.”
His move came as allies of former foreign secretary Jeremy Hunt, who was runner-up to Boris Johnson in 2019, said he was “virtually certain” to stand again this time.
Among those publicly backing Sunak are Commons Leader Mark Spencer, former Tory Party co-chairman Oliver Dowden, former chief whip Mark Harper, ex-ministers Liam Fox and Andrew Murrison, and MPs Bob Neill and Paul Maynard.
The former chancellor released a glossy launch video in which he set out his family history, saying: “Our country faces huge challenges, the most serious for a generation.
“And the decisions we make today will decide whether the next generation of British people will also have the chance of a better future.”
Those in support of Sunak have been sharing a link to his campaign website, www.ready4rishi.com.
It appears that a site with a slightly different name, www.readyforrishi.com, which redirects to the official campaign page, was set up in December 2021.
Sunak’s team said domains are bought all the time, adding that they had been transferred a number of them.
Even before he made his formal announcement, Sunak had come under fire from Johnson loyalists, with Brexit opportunities minister Jacob Rees-Mogg denouncing him as a “high tax chancellor” who failed to curb inflation.
Rees-Mogg went on to tell the BBC’s Any Questions on Friday: “I will not be endorsing Sunak for prime minister.
“I belong to a party that believes in low taxation and the former chancellor has talked about low taxation and delivered higher taxation.”
The absence of a clear front-runner in the leadership race has tempted a number of less-fancied contenders to step forward – with backbencher John Baron saying he will be “taking soundings” over the weekend.
Tom Tugendhat, the chairman of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, has already said he will be be putting his name forward.
More are expected in the coming days including Sunak’s successor as chancellor, Nadhim Zahawi, and Truss.
While Zahawi has not yet launched a bid, Tory peer and minister Lord Goldsmith said on Friday evening he “stands apart from most rivals”.
Elsewhere, Defence Secretary Ben Wallace is tipped to be a front-runner should he mount his own campaign.
Defence minister James Heappey told The Telegraph in comments reported on Friday that Wallace had “spent the last 48 hours thinking really hard about whether he wants to do it”.
“He says it straight,” he said. “There is a dimension that Ben is now known on the world stage as a safe pair of hands.
“His biggest selling point is that he is good, honest, decent, hard working, communicates in a way the public understands and likes and is honest about what he does and doesn’t know.”
Following elections to the executive of the backbench 1922 Committee on Monday, the new body will draw up a timetable for the leadership election.
Additional reporting by Tadgh McNally
Landing slots in Heathrow is a red herring… If passengers want to come to Ireland for business or leisure 2 things…
1. They will book flights over whatever routing to get to Ireland from wherever they are
2. If there are profitable routes to fly, airlines will provide capacity to Dublin London … The volumes on this route will always be served
Consolidation of the airline business will happen… smaller carriers will be absorbed into bigger groups or will fail. IAG seem willing to preserve an excellent Irish brand and operation.
Landing slots in Heathrow is simply a valuable asset on the Aer Lingus balance sheet at present… nothing more.
I haven’t seen figures for traffic specifically connecting in Heathrow for Dublin/Ireland nor have I seen figures for the proportion of UK based traffic using Heathrow-Ireland which would provide proper fact based argument as opposed to ill informed scare mongering rhetoric. You would think a journalist would do this research!!! Journal?
If this small profitable, lean, well run airline is vulnerable then instead of allowing it to fail, precisely this partnership styled buyout might be the best protection for the 4000 jobs over trying to tough it out against much bigger competitors.
Toughing it out or being influenced by government or political non business groups could kill the airline and lose that employment.
Don’t talk sense here, the lefties don’t like it.
Its not sense to say that the landing slots are a valuable balance sheet asset – and nothing more!
They produce the wherewithal to generate a significant element of the airline’s income.
Aer Lingus could not operate without them, in any meaningful way.
Can you demonstrate that with financials?
The transatlantic is vastly more profitable.
IAG could use Dublin as a t/a hub as a second hub to Heathrow and expand Aer Lingus as a financed subsidiary fed with IAG traffic.
If Aer Lingus fails or is bought, is it going to be a case of boat traffic only… I don’t think anyone believes that?
A strong ownern/partner is exactly what Aer Lingus needs.
That’s intangible and subject to fluctuations.
I’d prefer to stay on point – as, you well know, my point is valid.
It is virtually impossible to buy a slot at LHR, and will be for many years – perhaps decades.
A BS asset – yes. But a major generator of business and income….
And London city, Gatwick and Stansted don’t?
Very roughly, AL passenger income is about 1m a month – split fairly equally between shot and long haul.
Shorthall carries about 5 times more passengers – so the slots are the most important possession that the airline has.
As mentioned, slots cannot be bought. Aircraft can easily be bought or leased.
If revenue per month is split evenly, and the pax ratio is 5:1 short/long haul, then long haul is much more profitable. EI would be better off concentrating on this, and regional UK connections to Dublin make massive sense. So slots to London become less important to EI’s long term revenue generation.
Fergal there’s no need to bring a bit of common sense and business acumen to the debate here. There are far better places for that. All you need to remember here in the Journal comments section is:
Privatisation of anything is bad. End of story
Slots to London? Its the LHR slots that are being discussed.
Yes longhaul is more profitable – must most airlines want a mix. Flying into Europe etc.
Which would be impossible for AL without the LHR slots.
Those slots alone make up a significant amount of the airline’s €1.3 b value.
Meant LHR gravel.
Jason wants Aer Lingus to operate longhaul and UK/Dublin only.
Because its more profitable. If only business was as simple as that.
If that business model worked – which it doesn’t – Ryanair might just have adopted it….
As things stand, BA use 10-14 of *their own* Heathrow slots to service Irish flights every day. If anything, they would cut those services rather than EI’s, but since BA are under no obligation whatsoever to service those routes, it’s fair to assume they use Heathrow slots on these routes because it makes business sense.
It’s also worth noting that none of Iberia’s Heathrow slots have been taken away from them since the merger with BA.
As such, I’d say a far bigger threat to Aer Lingus services to LHR is if they try to stay independent and end up going to the wall.
Either way though, while connectivity with London is clearly vital to Ireland, connectivity with LHR in particular is not. There are already more flights from Ireland to other London airports than to LHR, and in my experience, most people do their utmost to avoid LHR if at all possible. There are also several other options for long haul connections – Paris, Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Abu Dhabi, Dubai.
Fair enough CT – but LHR continues to grow alarmingly as itis most people’s preference; on the tube, less than 15 miles from central London.
And it will contract to grow, with a very strong lobby for a third runway. Over 75 million passengers a year – the busiest in Europe and third in the world.
Put simply – its where airlines want to be…..
*continue
Again Cornelius that kind of analysis isn’t appreciated or even under stood by the left here.
By the way some people are acting, you’d swear Heathrow is the only option to go anywhere. As you say, from Dublin, you could use any of the European hubs, Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Paris or Istanbul. Much more beyond though, Abu Dhabi or Dubai. Even within North or South America, you could use JFK, Newark, Washington, Atlanta, Philadelphia or Chicago. From Shannon, JFK, Chicago or Philaselphia. Even from Cork, theres a double daily service to Amsterdam, besides the Heathrow route
Besides all that though Heathrow as a hub needs to compete with all of the hubs mentioned above anyway. Even if the Heathrow services form Shannon for example are loss making why would anyone expect Aer Lingus to keep them on anyway? They could cut them in the morning and the government would be powerless. All they could do is make a bit of noise. IAG have promised 5 years more of these services, 5 years longer than the government has now. What more can be expected of a private company?
For people travelling from Ireland to London (as opposed to connecting in London on the way somewhere else), the best airport really depends on whereabouts in London you’re going. London City airport is by far the best option for people going to the City or East End. Stansted is just as good as LHR for the East End or North London. Luton is much better than LHR for North London. Gatwick is the best for South London. Flying into LHR is really only the best option if you want to go to West London.
The other main reason people fly to LHR is to connect to somewhere else – but as I said you don’t have to go to via London at all if your destination is further afield. I honestly don’t think it would be a disaster if there were fewer flights from Ireland to LHR, but in any case I don’t think that’s a likely outcome if this deal goes through.
Will, didn’t say that at all. Can you point where I said it? What I am saying is that EI has huge growth potential on longhaul, both in pax and revenue terms, via Dublin from UK regional airports, and that LHR slots are not the most important part of it’s business model.
Agree with most of that CT. But London is where/the route people prefer.
Will said 75 million pass through Heathrow ever year – but another 75 million go through Gatwick, Stansted, Luton, City and Southend.
Yes there are many competitors – but few in the aviation industry will plan anything without factoring in London.
The third runway at Heathrow is inevitable – as is a second at Gatwick.
London seem to be absolutely pivotal in this industry – although, as you say, it doesn’t have to be.
More BS Jason- you just love to hear yourself talking! Ps your beloved Ryanair put the prices up for pre booking seats between 10 & 20 %! No doubt you’ll say this is something to do with bird strikes etc etc
Protect- it’s bs that EI has huge growth potential? Or is it bs that UK regional airports offer great business opportunities to EI? Or is bs that EI can improve revenue by offering more long haul routes? What’s bs exactly? And I’ve not once mentioned FR here, that’s your obsession.
As for my own voice, it’s a public forum, open for anyone to comment. I actually agree with you that FR can charge too much on routes where they are the only carrier, but you don’t seem to get that there is a massive difference between Dublin and Stansted in terns of how pricing structures work. So that’s it, I agree with some of what you say, I’ve tried to explain some of the rationale behind their pricing etc., as I’ve first hand knowledge. So good luck to you.
This present government of ours would sell their grannies for a few euros so it’s not if they sell their stake in our national airline it is when?
FF sold EI off, not the current government.
Has anyone noticed yet government tactics on almost everything? Deferred, or pushed down the road for a few years and hopefully whatever the issue is they can sneak in under the radar in a few years time!
What’s the rush? It’s a difficult decision. One that should be throughly examined. I wouldn’t want them to make a snap decision either way. Personally, I’d prefer them not to sell, but what the hell do I know? Maybe we’re better off without an airline that will struggle. If you could swap the Air Lingus share for say…Metro North without the burden on the tax payer, is that worth it? Overall, that could more beneficial as we already have very good connectivity through other airlines. I think the government are correct to take their time on this.
I am curious why does the Journal refer to IAG as “British airways parent company” rather than the parent company of Iberia & BA as it should be referenced
Should the journal name ALL its subsidiaries – every time IAG is mentioned!!!?
Well they feel the need to mention BA? I am curious as to why BA and no other subsidiary? Considering IAG’s head office and registered address is Spain not Britain!
No – its Head Office is London. When Diageo is discussed here, Guinness will be mentioned – for reasons of relevance.
In this thread, IAG’s other subsidiaries have no real relevance – as they operate largely in different markets.
Whereas BA has…
Registered legal office for IAG Is where? Madrid
Will said ‘Head Office’ – and he’s correct.
Quick make a load of promises and sell it, by the time anyone realises it will be to late and if anyone says anything tell them how bad SF are.
He who pays the piper calls the tune
The five year deferral proves the real intent, Are Lingus will have no guaranteed access to Heathrow after five years. The only guarantee IAG have given is, they will not sell the slots but I doubt there was ever any intent to do that.
It is like the government’s pledge on privatisation of Irish Water, lots of tinkering around the edges but the door is still open, when the opportunity was there to close and firmly lock it.
You know IAG could by the remaining 75% and do what they want? They don’t need the 25% state holding.
They won’t have 75%, from what I recall O’Leary said Ryanair would follow the government’s lead which would leave IAG with 46%, assuming all others go along with it.
Ryanair will very soon be legally required to offload 25% of their share in Aer Lingus. They know this so they will sell their shares if this offer goes through because it will allow them to sell for what they paid, allowing them to save face with their own shareholders. This would give IAG a controlling share hypothetically*
Of course you don;t really care about that or Aer Lingsu for that matter, all you care about is government bashing to suit what your far left agenda demands of you.
*Obviously this isn’t going to happen. IAG will leave it off if it means the government holding onto their 25.1% stake. You wouldn’t blame them with that government stake being kicked around like political football among clueless back bench TD’s and even more clueless local councillors, as we saw in Co Clare recently
Only problem bob is Ryanair can’t offload them if no one wants to buy them. They’ve been hawking them around for a while now and can’t get a buyer.
Exactly which is why this approach is great timing for Ryanair seeing as they’ll likely have to sell the shares anyway. Aer Lingus shares were worth quite a bit less several months ago and their value will fall even further than that if IAG give up on their takeover approach. If Ryanair can sell at this €2.55 a share offered by IAG, they will get back what they paid for their shares. Hard to tell exactly who would buy Ryanairs share if not IAG.
What cast iron guarantee does Aer Lingus give to Cork and Shannon ? IAG wants to develop and grow Aer Lingus. Ryanair gained over 9m customers in the last 12 months that’s almost the total amount Aer Lingus fly today. What cast iron guarantee does Aer Lingus have on its future NONE! Long term thinking not parish politics are needed here.
It is so myopic and naive of people to think their darling rip off air-line will remain patriotic.
At best it will be run as a proper independent business as opposed to a government backed money losing cartel with “connected” board members and suited slibhins. The chickens are finally coming home to roost. Cocadooledoo.
Nothing is permanent in this life, they can promise all they want but they will find a way.
It is a criminal act to sell aer lingus
Anyone else think we’re being overly patriotic to Aer Lingus. I’m working as a corporate travel consultant and to be honest people are much happier paying less for the Stansted/Gatwick etc flights to Dublin. And if flying Dublin via London to another international destination, any airline is fine by them in my experience.
Are the hotels lobby a shareholder? This is a matter for the people who own the business and what is acceptable to them and to no one else. a shareholder has no responsibility for irish transport that is none of their concern nor should it be.
Why is there a constant reference to British Airways in these Aer Lingus sale stories?. IAG is a company that owns BA and other airlines Inc Iberia, not the other way around. this is not a BA against the Irish. So please Journal change the record… no need to sensationalise the headlines.
Two words ” NO SALE”
have your say