Ex-England bowler James Anderson awarded knighthood in Sunak's resignation list
Former England cricketer James Anderson has been awarded a knighthood in Rishi Sunak's resignation honours list.
Sir James, who retired from test cricket in July having taken more wickets than any fast bowler in test history, is joined on the list by a number of Tory politicians who received peerages and knighthoods.
Former education and housing secretary Michael Gove was confirmed to have been given a seat in the House of Lords after being heavily tipped for a peerage.
Mr Gove, who is now the editor of the Spectator magazine, has served in the cabinet of four prime ministers.
Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor in Mr Sunak's cabinet, and ex-foreign secretary James Cleverly were awarded knighthoods.
There were also knighthoods for former defence secretary Grant Shapps and ex-work and pensions secretary Mel Stride.
Elsewhere, Matthew Vaughn, the filmmaker behind Layer Cake, Kick-Ass, X-Men: First Class, and the Kingsman films was also awarded a knighthood for his services to the creative industries.
Alongside Mr Gove, Mr Sunak made four other former Tory MPs peers – including ex-transport secretary Mark Harper, former chief whip Simon Hart, ex-Scotland secretary Sir Alister Jack and former attorney general Victoria Prentis KC.
Two other senior Tories, former head of the number 10 policy unit Eleanor Shawcross and ex-conservative party chief executive Stephen Massey, were also given peerages.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
17 minutes ago
- Spectator
Nigel Farage is looking unstoppable
Opinion polls are notoriously a snapshot rather than a prediction, but the latest Ipsos survey of more than 1,100 voters should put a huge spring in Nigel Farage's step, and terrify both the Tories and Labour, who are placed nine points behind the surging populists. The poll gives the highest ever level of support for Reform The poll states that if a general election were held tomorrow, a Reform government would be elected on 34 per cent of the vote, putting Reform leader Nigel Farage in 10 Downing Street as Prime Minister with a massive majority. Labour would be reduced to 25 per cent, and the Tories to just 15 per cent and a pathetic rump of just ten seats or so in Parliament. The remaining Westminster crumbs would be divided between the Lib Dems (11 per cent) and the Greens (9 per cent) giving each only a handful of seats. The poll gives the highest ever level of support for Reform, a party which has just five MPs in the present Parliament and didn't even exist five years ago. This is very bleak news indeed for the Conservatives, and again raises the possibility that Britain's once natural party of government is facing total extinction. This Ipsos poll offers little comfort to Labour either, whose current Commons majority would be completely demolished. Moreover, the poll claims that Sir Keir Starmer is 'enjoying' a record low level of popularity, with just 19 per cent of people happy with the Prime Minister's performance – less even than the 22 per cent who were satisfied with Gordon Brown after just a year in office. With Starmer facing a substantial Labour backbench revolt against the government's planned welfare 'reforms', the new poll apparently justifies Farage's recent strategy of appealing to natural Labour voters, as well as to those Tories who have already defected to Reform, disappointed by Kemi Badenoch's lacklustre leadership. The fieldwork for the poll of 1,180 voters was carried out before the recent hiccup over the short lived resignation of Reform's chairman Zia Yusuf, before the abrasive entrepreneur returned to the party after just two days – albeit in a new role overseeing party finances. But such internal spats are unlikely to dent the rebel party's surging popularity, and neither of the two major old parties have come up with convincing policies to counter Reform's revolt.
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Keir Starmer is not having a good war
This is not been Keir Starmer's finest week on the world stage. At the G7 on Tuesday, the Prime Minister breezily dismissed talk that the Americans would shortly join Israeli's attack on Iran. 'There's nothing the President said that suggests he's about to get involved in this conflict,' he insisted. 'On the contrary, throughout the dinner yesterday, I was sitting right next to President Trump, so I've no doubt in my mind the level of agreement there was.' Within hours, Trump left Alberta to return to the White House Situation Room and approve the final attack plan for Iran. Then there was the row over whether US bombers would launch from Diego Garcia, the British military base on the Chagos Islands. Yet legal advice from Lord Hermer – Starmer's choice of Attorney General – ensured that there was confusion about the legality of Britain's potential involvement in the conflict. Unsurprisingly, the American assault ended up being launched from Missouri instead. This was followed by Whitehall briefing about 'de-escalation' and diplomatic options – even while Washington was preparing to attack. Starmer himself said that 'the principle is that we need to de-escalate this. There's a real risk of escalation here that will impact the region.' It is only, now, on Sunday morning that Sir Keir Starmer has had to give the US his belated support for the bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities. He posted on X that the White House has 'taken action to alleviate the threat' and is urging Iran to negotiate– a very different line to that adopted on Tuesday and then on Thursday. Jonny Reynolds, the Business Secretary, told Sky that the UK was informed in advance of the US assault. But at every stage, Britain appears to have been out of step publicly with what the Americans were doing privately. Most concerning is the timing of Starmer's suggestion on Tuesday that there was 'no doubt in my mind' that Trump would not bomb Iran. It came just as America was trying to convince Iran that they were serious about intervention, in a last effort to bring them to the negotiating table. The Iran assault appears to be more evidence for my colleague Tim Shipman's thesis in this week's Spectator cover. Until now, foreign affairs have been a refuge from Keir Starmer's domestic travails. But international events threaten to torch the government's economic plans and widen fissures between Labour's leadership and much of its parliamentary party. They now also risk exposing the PM as flat-footed and fumbling, adept at summitry but lacking judgement in a crisis.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Wes Streeting questions affordability of setting up NHS assisted dying service
Wes Streeting has voiced doubts over whether the NHS can afford to establish an assisted dying service, after MPs passed a bill to legalise the procedure last week. The health secretary was previously a supporter of assisted dying but switched sides last year, expressing concerns about the ethics of offering such a service before significant improvements could be made to the NHS. 'The truth is that creating those conditions will take time and money,' he wrote in a message to constituents. 'Even with the savings that might come from assisted dying if people take up the service – and it feels uncomfortable talking about savings in this context, to be honest – setting up this service will also take time and money that is in short supply. There isn't a budget for this. Politics is about prioritising. It is a daily series of choices and trade-offs. I fear we've made the wrong one.' The bill will now head to the House of Lords, where there are expected to be continued battles over its progress, with campaigners urging peers to use 'dark arts' to impede it. MPs who backed the legislation have said it would be anti-democratic for peers to block the private member's bill passed by the elected house. Writing on Facebook, the health secretary said he wanted to speak directly to his Ilford North constituents on the issue. 'There is no doubt that this is a major and profound social change for our NHS and our country. I can understand why many people who are facing terminal illness, or fear terminal illness, are seeking the right to die at a time and manner of their choosing and I have enormous respect for their position,' he wrote. 'I also have the utmost respect for Kim Leadbeater and my other friends and colleagues in parliament who have supported this bill. I've seen first-hand how hard Kim has worked to listen to everyone's views and take onboard amendments to her bill with integrity.' But Streeting said he was disturbed by the concerns about the bill that have been voiced by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Physicians, the Association for Palliative Medicine and disability campaigners. Streeting said the department would work closely on the technical aspects of the bill, even though the government was neutral, and that Stephen Kinnock, the care minister, would work on the bill should the Lords pass it, in order to make sure 'we do a good job with it for the country'. The impact assessment produced by the government on the bill suggested that panels set up to approve procedures would cost about £2,000 a day, adding up to between £900,000 and £3.6m over a 10-year period. The total cost of running the panels – and employing a dedicated commissioner – would be between £10.9m and £13.6m a year. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion However, the assessment estimated that the bill would ultimately cut end-of-life care costs by millions, with a central estimate that 2,183 people would use the service by its 10th year. The bill, which passed with a majority of 23 on Friday, would allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales who have fewer than six months to live to apply for an assisted death. This would be subject to approval by two doctors and a panel including a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist. The Labour peer Charlie Falconer, who is expected to take the lead on the legislation in the House of Lords, said despite the depth of feeling on the issue, peers should not use procedural devices to block it. 'The overwhelming instinct in the Lords will be not to block or delay but to see whether there can be any improvements which do not interfere with the bill's principles,' he wrote in the Sunday Times. 'The last time there were votes of real substance on this issue was on a bill I introduced in 2014 for which the votes in the Lords were in favour. There have been many new peers introduced into the House since then, and many departures. Where the House's views are now is difficult to judge but they will work towards a bill that gives effect to the Commons' view.'
