Tory rift after Rishi Sunak backs Lee Anderson over migrant f-word slur

‘Foul language’ will turn off floating voters and risks ‘making the Tories the even nastier party’ says Grieve

Rishi Sunak has been warned against turning the Conservatives into the “even nastier party” after he backed his deputy party chair telling migrants who don’t want to live on a barge they should “f*** off back to France”.

No 10 defended Lee Anderson but his words were met with horror by many in his party unnerved by a lurch to the right on immigration.

Tory MPs branded him a “fascist” who is peddling “cheap populism”.

Dominic Grieve, the ex-attorney general who was the Conservative MP for Beaconsfield in Buckinghamshire for more than two decades, told The Independent that “such foul language” would turn off floating voters and risked “making the Tories the even nastier party”.

It came as:

• Boris Johnson ally and ex-minister Zac Goldsmith said he is “very tempted” to support Labour at the next election
• Minister Robert Jenrick was forced to reject Mr Anderson's verdict that the Tory party had “failed” on immigration
• Ministers were told they risked sending an “appalling signal” after Mr Jenrick hinted at quitting the European Convention on Human Rights over Rwanda
• Ex-Labour MP Diane Abbott deleted a tweet about 41 drowned migrants, saying they “have indeed f***ed off. To the bottom of the sea.”

Major Tory donor Alexander Temerko, a Ukrainian-born businessman, also expressed concerns, warning the topic of immigration was “delicate” and calling for more co-operation with France, as he said ministers should be “be more aggressive and decisive in actions rather than words”.

Mr Anderson has refused to apologise for his incendiary comments, made after a group of 20 migrants were granted a last-minute reprieve as the first group boarded the Bibby Stockholm barge in Dorset.

On those complaining about the accommodation, Mr Anderson said: "If they don't like barges then they should f*** off back to France."

He was backed by Alex Chalk, the justice secretary, who said while the MP’s language was “salty” his ”indignation is well placed” and his comments were “not bigotry at all”.

No 10 said the cabinet minister had been speaking for the government when he backed Mr Anderson. The Independent understands chancellor Jeremy Hunt also backs Mr Chalk’s sentiment that the “f*** off back to France” comments were “not bigotry at all”.

Lee Anderson at centre of new Tory rows (PA)

But a separate row emerged after Mr Anderson claimed that the party had “failed” on immigration. That was rejected by immigration minister Mr Jenrick and Downing Street, which said it was “making progress” but not complacent.

In a separate Tory rift, former Conservative minister Zac Goldsmith said he was “very tempted” to back Labour at the next general election.

The Tory peer – who recently quit Rishi Sunak’s government in a blaze of acrimony – attacked his own party for not having “a clear answer” to climate change.

One senior Tory, a former minister, warned Mr Sunak against following Mr Anderson’s “cheap populism” and urged the party to remember “this is as big a problem for France as it is for us”.

Another former Tory minister told The Independent the comments look “chaotic and unsophisticated – which puts Rishi in a slight mess”.

Mr Grieve argued that it was a “sad commentary on the current state of the Conservative party” when its deputy chairman “resorts to crude and threatening profanities”.

He also said the silence from the cabinet in condemning Mr Anderson was “deafening” and that Mr Chalk had been “dragged down” by actively defending the rhetoric.

Sir Jake Berry, the former Tory chairman, said: “It’s not the sort of language I would use,” though he agreed with the “sentiment” of Mr Anderson’s comments which “reflect the frustration of the British people”.

Immigration minister Robert Jenrick also defended Mr Anderson, saying he was “expressing the deep frustration of the British public”.

Robert Jenrick defended Anderson’s remark (PA)

London mayor Sadiq Khan accused the government of stoking “division and hate”, while the Liberal Democrats said the government’s defence of Mr Anderson was “toe-curling”.

Chris McEleny, general secretary of Alex Salmond’s pro-independence Alba Party attacked “the broken politics of pound-shop Enoch Powells”.

Labour’s shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper accused the Tories of “promoting division” and “lashing out” due to their failures on tackling unlawful migration and the asylum backlog.

She told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “It is clearly the wrong language to use and it is ramping up the rhetoric as a distraction from the fact the government is failing.”

Home secretary Suella Braverman known to support quitting ECHR (PA)

Meanwhile, Mr Jenrick caused dismay in some Tory circles after hinting the Tories could quit the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) if Rwanda flights continue to be blocked.

At least eight cabinet ministers are among the senior Tories prepared to put leaving the ECHR at the heart of the next election campaign, according to The Telegraph.

Lord Heseltine told The Independent that pulling out of the convention would “send an appalling signal to the world about Britain’s view of international law”.

The former deputy PM said it was part of the “Brexit disaster”, arguing that the right of the party “know Brexit has failed and is constantly looking for ways to reinforce prejudices”.

Meanwhile, asylum seekers who refuse to move onto the barge are being threatened with eviction and potential homelessness, as resistance hampers ministers’ ambitions to pack 500 people on board.

Mr Jenrick threatened to pull support for anyone who did refuse to go on the barge. “If you decline the accommodation that’s provided, such as a barge, then we will consider removing your asylum support and that individual will ultimately have to fend for themselves,” he told BBC Radio 4.

A “significant” number of asylum seekers who had objected to moving to barge have since changed their minds, he said.

“We are a generous country but it is not an a la carte menu from which people can choose the particular hotel or location that suits them best,” he said. “If you are destitute, then you will accept the decent accommodation the state is able to provide for you.”