These are some of the revelations the former prime minister made during a two hour chat with Nick Robinson on the BBC journalist’s Political Thinking podcast.
Sunak, billed as the youngest British prime minister in 200 years, said he could now speak with “a sense of perspective” eight months on from leading the Conservative party to its worst election defeat.
He admitted he might have become prime minister too early in his political career, but argued that he did the right thing in stepping forward to provide leadership when Liz Truss stepped down after her disastrous budget.
Sunak was keen to set the record straight on his legacy, especially as the Labour chancellor Rachel Reeves has claimed the Tories left her with an unforeseen £22 billion “black hole”.
He pointed out: “When I took over (as prime minister in October 2022), remember that inflation was running at 11 per cent. Everything that people were buying was just going up and up and up.
“By the time I left, we hadn’t just halved it. It was back to where it was meant to be – on target. I think that was a milestone and that matters because it eases the pressure on people’s finances.”
Also, Britain’s was the fastest growing economy in the G7, he said.
When Robinson suggested Sunak that hadn’t lost the appetite for politics and might quite “fancy” getting the prime minister’s job back, he vigorously disagreed: “That’s not where my head is at. I’m one of those people who looks forward. It’s ‘what’s next?’ I’m still motivated by many of the same things. (It would) be wrong to pretend otherwise. I still care about making a difference, trying to change people’s lives for the better.”
He wanted to “use the experience I’ve had of being a young prime minister to do that in a different way”.
Sunak referred to the Richmond charitable project he had set up with his wife Akshata to help develop maths and numeracy skills among young people. That this is named after his constituency of Richmond and Northallerton in Yorkshire might be a hint that he is not yet ready to give up being an MP.
More than once, he told Robinson: “Look, I am 44. I’ve got years ahead of me, and I don’t want being prime minister to be the only thing that defines me, professionally. I think I’ve got plenty more to contribute, and I’m just going to do that in a different way going forward.”
Sunak with Boris Johnson
He rejected the suggestion that there might have been a moment when he “wanted out” and flee to California.
Sunak said: “The ironic thing is that when I moved back to the UK, it was because I missed home. Years ago, I worked in California for a while. But I came home because I missed it, missed my family.
“This is my home, right? That’s where I went (to Richmond in Yorkshire) after that election (defeat) morning. And I love it. I am here as an MP. I love being an MP.” Sunak was frank in acknowledging that his authority as prime minister was limited, because the Conservative parliamentary party was not united.
“Also, politically, a large part of the Conservative party, indeed, the wider Conservative family, was not best pleased to see me in the job.”
Asked why he had appointed Suella Braverman as home secretary, although she came from the hard right of the party, he explained he decided to adopt the “big tent” approach.
“Remember, your ability to get things done in part is a function of your political position, and that is the reality – that I hadn’t won a leadership election,” he said.
“At the time it was a good thing for the country that the party just got on with it. But it hindered me in being able to do the job. I hadn’t won a national election.”
Asked if he assumed he would lose the general election – which most people in the country did – he said: “I didn’t think that. You can’t do this job if you think that. I thought I could make a difference. (But) I knew it’d be very hard.”
He had become prime minister during Diwali of 2022 and was able to light candles in Downing Street, which he had first done as chancellor.
That had been a source of huge pride for him and his family. Two generations after his grandparents arrived in Britain, their grandson was in Downing Street.
“People kind of noted it, but got on with their lives,” Sunak said. “That said something special about our country.”
His maternal grandfather lived to see him become prime minister. “He wasn’t particularly well, but he did come to Downing Street which was very special. He actually passed away after I stepped down as leader of the opposition.”
Sunak spoke at his grandfather’s funeral. “He grew up in a village in northern India (where) there was no running water, electricity, any of these things. He had a scar across his chest because his dad had kept cattle. And an ox at some point – when he was a kid – had injured him with its horns. I was talking about the circumstances in which he grew up. And he got to come to Downing Street and sit in my office and see my red box. And it meant a lot to him.”
His mother’s family had settled in Leicester, where his grandfather worked for decades as a civil servant for HMRC, played tennis at his local club into his seventies and was a long-time member of the Lions’ Club.
Sunak spoke about how his parents had brought him up, along with his brother and sister, to believe that education was the way to bring about social mobility.
Sunak with Suella Braverman
And he explained how his sense of “duty” had been guided by the notion of dharma in Hinduism, as he has done before (in an interview with Eastern Eye on the eve of the general election last July), but this time in greater depth.
He referred to Lord Krishna’s discourse with Arjuna in the Mahabharata which made up the Bhagvad Gita.
“This is one of our religious scriptures,” Sunak said, recalling he had sworn on the Gita when he became an MP in 2015 and, later, a member of the Privy Council.
“Dharma is a concept of duty which is described in there, which is about doing your duty, detaching yourself from the outcomes. You are entitled to put the effort in. You’re not entitled to the fruits of that effort and you’ve just got to focus on doing your best.”
This was “a very helpful concept” for him when he decided he would take on the challenge of becoming prime minister. “I said, ‘Look, this is my job. This is what I’m here to do. I’m well placed to try and solve the economic challenge that our country is facing.’”
Sunak always kept a statue of Ganesh on his table. When then prime minister Boris Johnson fell seriously ill with Covid, Sunak was chancellor. He cleared his desk to give the prime minister greater freedom to move around.
But Sunak left his statue of Ganesh behind in the hope it would bring the prime minister good luck – “which it did”
It has been acknowledged for many years that a brown or black person can be British.
Now, Sunak’s bold declaration will make it easier for the UK-born children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of first-generation immigrants to feel they can be Hindu or Muslim, British and English – all at the same time.
In any case, more and more Britons have mixed-race origins.
The debate that Sunak has triggered may have unintended but beneficial consequences – it will probably help non-white people to feel an integral part of this country.
The discussion about Englishness initially began with a podcast discussion between Fraser Nelson, a former editor of the Spectator, and a man called Konstantin Kisin.
In an article in the Times, Nelson recognised the significance of their exchange: “Is Rishi Sunak really English? Until recently I had no idea this was a controversial question, but the debate is fast evolving amid the Trump ‘vibe shift’. The once unthinkable is being said regularly – yesterday’s taboos are becoming today’s orthodoxies. A new breed of digital discussion programmes is shaping the national conversation.
“One of the best and longest running is Triggernometry, which specialises in giving guests questions they don’t expect. I was in the chair this week and until this point had never given Sunak’s (to me, screamingly obvious) Englishness any thought.
“‘He’s a brown Hindu, how is he English?’ asked Kisin, the interviewer. ‘By being born and bred here,’ I replied. Kisin disagreed – he said that he, as a Russian immigrant, could never be English and nor could his English-born son…. I seemed to have enraged those who believe English is a term of ethnicity, nothing else, so the likes of Sunak will never – can never – become English.”
Braverman weighed in with an opinion piece in the Daily Telegraph, in which she endorsed the traditional definition of Englishness: “I was born here, raised speaking the Queen’s English, and educated in England. Yet I am not English. My parents, members of the Indian diaspora, were born in Kenya and Mauritius. They acquired British citizenship, but they were not – and could never be – considered English. For Englishness to mean something substantial, it must be rooted in ancestry, heritage, and, yes, ethnicity – not just residence or fluency.”
The former home secretary, who has positioned herself on the right of the Tory party – she has Goan roots – admitted: “I don’t feel English because I have no generational ties to English soil, no ancestral stories tied to the towns or villages of this land.”
She went on: “My heritage, with its rich cultural and racial identity, is something distinct. I am British Asian, and I feel a deep love, gratitude and loyalty to this country. But I cannot claim to be English, nor should I. This is not exclusionary – it is honest. And it’s what living in a multi-ethnic society entails.
“How many generations must pass before one can claim to be English?” she asked. “Five? Six? It is a question without an easy answer.”
The vast majority of Telegraph readers agreed: “If we are to defend Judeo-Christian civilisation, British values, and the distinctiveness of English culture, there must be some form of consensus.”
Former prime minister Rishi Sunak with his wife Akshata Murty (left), their children Anoushka and Krishna and his mother-in-law Sudha Murty (second from left) are pictured during their visit to the Taj Mahal in Agra last month
She concluded that “we – especially those of us on the Right – must stop being so squeamish about national identity. To preserve British values and English culture, we need clarity, not denial.
“We have allowed what once made England distinctive to be diluted, denigrated, and demonised. Now, more than ever, we must define what it is we are fighting for – before it slips away entirely.”
Sunak made his landmark declaration when he was asked about Braverman’s comments on the BBC’s Political Thinking podcast by journalist Nick Robinson.
This is almost certainly the first time someone prominent in public life has redefined Englishness.
Sunak, 44, born in Southampton of Punjabi parents who came from Kenya, said: “I mean, of course I’m English. (I was) born here, brought up here, yeah, of course I’m English. Actually, funnily enough, I think when we were doing that first one of these (inter[1]views) some time back, you asked about the Tebbit test.”
The Tory politician Norman Tebbit had said: “A large proportion of Britain’s Asian population fail to pass the cricket test. Which side do they cheer for? It’s an interesting test. Are you still harking back to where you came from or where you are?”
It so happens that last Sunday (9), around 1,000 people, almost exclusively of Indian origin, gathered in Queensbury in northwest London to celebrate India’s victory in the Champions Trophy cricket final in Dubai.
Sunak continued: “It struck me, actually, this debate, it kind of moves well beyond that, because it is not enough just to support England at cricket. It turns out it may not be enough to even play for England in cricket or football. You still can’t be English. You look at the composition of our England cricket team, England football team.
“On this definition (by Braverman), you can’t be English even playing for England, let alone supporting them. So I found the whole thing slightly ridiculous.”
“Mad?” suggested Robinson. “I genuinely thought it was ridiculous. Of course, I’m English.”
“Why is this being debated, do you think, because it is?” asked the presenter.
“It’s beyond me, but, as I said, I find it ridiculous,” remarked Sunak.
Robinson prompted the former prime minister to finished off his sentence: “For the record, Rishi Sunak is…”
“English,” said Sunak.
“And proud of it,” said Robinson. Sathnam Sanghera, author the book, Empireland, rejected Braverman’s thesis: “This is the logical conclusion to her deranged, racist politics and the open sewer of our current discourse. A race now, I guess, for the first brown Tory to deport themselves to a country they don’t know.”
The historian Dan Snow poked fun at Braverman by referring to a King of England who had lived most of his life in France: “Someone needs to ask her whether Richard the Lionheart was English.”
In the Observer, columnist Keenan Malik said ideas of race and ethnicity had become conflated.
He wrote: “‘They think they’re English because they’re born here. That means if a dog’s born in a stable it’s a horse.’ That was a staple of the comedian Bernard Manning’s routine back in the 1970s.
“Enoch Powell had, a decade earlier, expressed the same sentiment in more refined language: ‘The West Indian or Asian does not, by being born in England, become an Englishman. In law he becomes a United Kingdom citizen by birth; in fact he is a West Indian or an Asian still.’
“Few today would laugh along with Manning or take seriously the claim that only white people can be English. Britain has transformed over the past half-century, and most English people now embrace Ian Wright and Idris Elba as being as English as David Beckham or Joanna Lumley.”
In an article in the Daily Telegraph, “How English are you?”, Iain Hollingshead quoted Prof John Denham, a former Labour MP and now the director of the Centre for English Identity and Politics at the University of Southampton.
Denham told the paper: “Braverman has a particular view – it’s not what most people feel, but she’s perfectly entitled to feel it. And she has something important to say, which is that national identity is more than a passport and that it includes some sense of history, belonging and values.
“Ethnicity properly understood is about all the history and values which go towards making a national identity. Braverman makes the classic confusion of reducing ethnicity to a narrow question of race.”
“Ten years ago, it looked as though there was an upsurge in people identifying primarily as English,” Denham explained.
“Now, there’s a more subtle shift towards people identifying as both English and British. Having a strong English identity is highly associated with a sense of patriotism – and being patriotic about both England and Britain. When you ask people about what values they associate with Englishness and Britishness, there’s very little difference on values such as tolerance or sense of humour.
“However, strong Englishness identifiers tend to be associated with much more positive values than those who identify simply as British. So, the degree of patriotism is the key distinguisher.”
The paper said Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, “tried to champion ‘our existing identity with passion’ before drying up on Sky News when asked to explain English identity. In a subsequent radio interview, he resorted to clichés about landscapes, literature and Sunday roasts.”
In the Financial Times, columnist Robert Shrimsley said Braverman “bellowed out sort-ofalien status as she curried favour with the ethno-nationalists of the populist right”.
Shrimsley recalled: “It brought back a decades-old memory of a discussion with an ex-colleague, who explained that as the grandson of Polish Jewish immigrants, I was not English. It didn’t matter, he handsomely reassured me, since I was British.
“Culturally, I was very English. I am indisputably a Londoner and I passed what was known as the cricket test espoused by former Tory chairman Norman Tebbit, in that I cheered for England in sporting events. …. Mind you, we have all witnessed the backlash against black footballers if they fail on the national stage.”
He warned the debate “ought to be a concern to everyone. After all, if there’s no evidence God was born here, can we still claim he’s an Englishman? He’d be a British deity at best. It gets worse. Was Churchill English? His mother was an American of French Huguenot descent. And as for the King, wasn’t his father Greek?
“This may sound facetious, but if political discourse is moving to a place that attempts to deny belonging to people born here and place it only in the hands of a purer class of citizens, it begins to matter quite a lot. Like many people of immigrant descent, I feel intensely patriotic, proud of my country, defensive of its laws and traditions, and devoted to Winnie the Pooh. Once, that seemed enough.”
Sunak will go down in history as Britain’s first Indian and Hindu prime minister. But he will probably also be remembered in years to come for widening the definition of Englishness.
There was anger too at how the bright, bubbly youngster had been failed by the authorities supposed to be in charge of her care.
Sharif, 43, Batool, 30, and her uncle, Faisal Malik, 29, all lost bids on Thursday to appeal against their sentences.
The court also refused a plea by the solicitor general's office to impose a stiffer whole-life sentence on Sharif.
Sara's father was sentenced in December to 40 years in prison for her murder, while her stepmother was ordered to remain in jail for at least 33 years.
Her uncle was sentenced to 16 years after being found guilty of causing or allowing her death.
Sara's body was found in bed at the family home in August 2023 covered in bites and bruises with broken bones and burns inflicted by an electric iron and boiling water.
Sara Sharif. (Photo: Surrey Police)
Seeking to reduce Sharif's term, lawyer Naeem Majid Mian argued that although Sara's treatment had been "horrendous" it did not merit his 40-year sentence.
"There was no intention to kill... and (the death) was not premeditated," he added.
But documents submitted to the court on behalf of the solicitor general, one of the government's top legal officers, called for Sharif to have an indefinite sentence imposed.
"It is submitted that the judge was wrong not to impose a whole life order on the offender," said lawyer Tom Little in a text submission.
A lawyer for Sara's stepmother also told the court that her sentence of 33 years was too long and did not "justly reflect her role".
Dismissing Sharif's appeal, Lady Chief Justice Sue Carr, the highest-ranking judge in England and Wales, said: "We can see no arguable basis to challenge the conclusion of the trial judge."
Passing sentence in December after the trial, judge John Cavanagh said Sara had been subjected to "acts of extreme cruelty" but that Sharif and Batool had not shown "a shred of remorse".
They had treated Sara as "worthless" and as "a skivvy", because she was a girl. And because she was not Batool's child by birth, the stepmother had failed to protect her, he said.
"This poor child was battered with great force again and again."
A post-mortem examination of Sara's body revealed she had 71 fresh injuries and at least 25 broken bones.
She had been beaten with a metal pole and cricket bat and "trussed up" with a "grotesque combination of parcel tape, a rope and a plastic bag" over her head.
A hole was cut in the bag so she could breathe and she was left to soil herself in nappies as she was prevented from using the bathroom.
Police called the case "one of the most difficult and distressing" they had ever dealt with.
The day after Sara died, the three adults fled their home in Woking, southwest of London, and flew to Pakistan with five other children.
Her father, a taxi driver, left behind a handwritten note saying he had not meant to kill his daughter.
After a month on the run, the three returned to the UK and were arrested after they landed. The five other children remain in Pakistan.
There has been anger in the UK that Sara's brutal treatment was missed by social services after her father withdrew her from school four months before she died.
Sharif and his first wife, Olga, were well known to social services. In 2019, a judge decided to award the care of Sara and an older brother to Sharif, despite his history of abuse.
The school had three times raised the alarm about Sara's case, notably after she arrived in class wearing a hijab which she used to try to cover marks on her body which she refused to explain.
(AFP)
The review was commissioned in January by Home Secretary Yvette Cooper to examine terror legislation "in light of modern threats we face" after prime minister Keir Starmer pledged to update legislation following the Southport killings.
Axel Radukabana, 18, stabbed to death three young girls and wounded 10 others last July in the northern English town of Southport.
Hall's report explicitly rejected broadening the definition of terrorism, which currently requires violence to be committed "to advance a political, religious, racial or ideological cause".
He warned that any expansion would risk "unintended consequences" including potential infringement on freedom of expression and misallocation of counter-terrorism resources.
"Treating every violent eccentric as a potential terrorist would skew the threat level and divert resources," Hall said in his report. "The risk of unintended consequences through rushed reform is extremely high."
The killer was later jailed for a minimum of 52 years but his actions were not classified as terrorism due to lack of evidence of ideological motivation.This classification decision proved controversial, particularly as Rudakubana was also convicted of possessing ricin and an al Qaeda training manual. The attack sparked days of nationwide rioting, fuelled by disinformation on social media.
FILE PHOTO: Floral tributes are laid following a vigil for the victims of the knife attack in Southport, Britain July 30, 2024. REUTERS/Temilade Adelaja
While defending the decision not to classify Rudakubana as a terrorist, Hall acknowledged the emerging threat posed by what he termed "male loners, accessing violent material online, desperate for notoriety" and recommended a new approach to address this danger.
His report calls for the creation of a new criminal offence targeting individuals who plan to kill two or more people, regardless of motivation, with penalties including life imprisonment. This would close what Hall described as "a real and not theoretical gap" in existing law.
"It has become clear to me during the preparation of this report during January and February 2025 that there is a real and not theoretical gap for lone individuals who plan mass killing," Hall wrote. "No prosecution would be available if the police raided an address and found careful handwritten but uncommunicated plans for carrying out a massacre."
The report also stressed the need for police to learn from counter-terrorism practices in managing risks from violent individuals without clear ideological motivations. This includes developing "a bespoke policing response" drawing on counter-terrorism expertise in monitoring dangerous lone actors and distinguishing between "internet rhetoric and real-world attack planning".
Such an approach might have identified Rudakubana, who was flagged to the Prevent counter-terrorism programme three times but subsequently dropped due to lack of evidence of extremist ideology.
Hall also criticised the handling of public information following the Southport attack, adding that "near silence" from authorities is no longer viable in the age of social media. "The disinformation generated on social media, combined with widespread allegations of a 'cover-up', risked far more prejudice to any trial than the placement of undisputed facts about the attacker in the public domain," he noted.
A government spokesperson confirmed that legislation would be amended to "close the gaps identified" in the report and announced plans for a public inquiry into the Southport tragedy. The government will also examine Hall's observations regarding the challenges of tackling misinformation on social media following such incidents.
(with inputs from Reuters)