Markus Andrews

Labour has marched into an 11-point lead over the Conservatives in the latest poll, as Boris Johnson comes under increasing pressure over the Partygate scandal.A steady flow of Tory MPs have called for the prime minister to go in the wake of the Sue Gray report – with a growing number worried that the party is heading for defeat at the next general election.The latest Savanta ComRes survey puts Sir Keir Starmer’s party on 42 per cent – up two points from the firm’s last poll, and Mr Johnson’s party down three on 31 per cent. More

Bookmakers have shortened the odds on Boris Johnson being replaced as prime minister as outrage over the “Partygate” scandal refuses to die down.Veteran Whitehall civil servant Sue Gray has finally delivered her report into the string of lockdown-breaking social events that occurred behind the scenes in Westminster in May, June, November and December 2020 and April 2021, while the rest of the country was pulling together, making personal sacrifices and observing strict rules to fend off Covid-19.“There were failures of leadership and judgement by different parts of No 10 and the Cabinet Office at different times,” she wrote.“Some of the events should not have been allowed to take place. Other events should not have been allowed to develop as they did.”Her inquiry had been delayed by the Metropolitan Police launching an investigation of its own based on the evidence she had collected, which ultimately led to 83 individuals receiving 126 fixed-penalty notices, the PM, his wife Carrie Johnson and chancellor Rishi Sunak among their number and forced to fork over £50 each.Mr Johnson has repeatedly attempted to ride out the storm of indignation, protesting his innocence with credulity-straining excuses and brazenly rejecting calls to step aside despite being found to have broken his own laws in office.But he is not out of the woods yet and must still appear before the Commons Privileges Committee to answer questions about whether he knowingly misled Parliament over Partygate, having regularly denied holding any prior knowledge about what went on.Many of his own MPs, meanwhile, remain incensed and are unconvinced by his message that the country must move on and allow him to focus on supporting Ukraine and addressing the cost of living crisis.At the time of writing, 28 Conservatives have openly called for Mr Johnson’s resignation – including former attorney-general Jeremy Wright – and 16 have admitted to sending letters of no confidence to Sir Graham Brady’s 1922 Committee of axe-wielding backbenchers.A total of 54 would be required to trigger a vote of no confidence in the Conservative Party leader and Andrew Bridgen MP, for one, has said he believes the true tally in Sir Graham’s hands is “close” to that number, representing 15 per cent of the 359 Tories in the Commons.Two senior members of Parliament have meanwhile said that a loss in the upcoming by-elections in Tiverton and Honiton in Devon and Wakefield in West Yorkshire could inspire more Conservatives to reach for their feather quills.The betting site Smarkets now believes that there is a 62 per cent chance of Mr Johnson facing a no-confidence vote this year.Should that happen, the company forecasts an extremely close vote that would see the PM forced from office, seeing that result as 53 per cent likely.All of which means there is only a 41 per cent probability of Mr Johnson clinging to power into 2024, the latest point at which he could face another general election, placing him at his weakest since just prior to the local elections of early May.As to who might succeed him, former health secretary Jeremy Hunt, who recently published a book on NHS reform, is at an all-time-high price of 15 per cent, foreign secretary Liz Truss is on 12 per cent and Tom Tugendhat on 11 per cent.Mr Sunak, once a clear favourite, has recovered after being it a string of accusations about his personal wealth, rebounding from five per cent to nine per cent.Patrick Flynn, Smarkets’ political analyst, commented: “There was a prevailing sense among political journalists, and the betting markets, that Boris Johnson’s position as Conservative leader looked more secure after the damp squib Sue Gray report, with the chance of the prime minister leaving his post falling from 36 per cent to 22 per cent after its publication.“However, a trickle of public criticism of Johnson from Conservative MPs over the last week has now turned into a stream, and rumours are abound in Westminster that the threshold of 54 letters requesting a vote of no-confidence in the PM has been reached.“Momentum seems to be moving in one direction, and a confidence vote could turn wavering MPs against the prime minister. MPs, especially those in marginal constituencies, may fear that if they don’t get rid of Johnson this year, they may end up with an unpopular leader taking them into a general election, potentially putting their seats at risk.”Another bookmaker, Coral, responded to the Gray report by placing Mr Johnson at 5/2 to survive the furore, with spokesman John Hill saying there was only a 28 per cent likelihood of him being forced out of No 10.The betting firm has listed his most likely challengers as Ms Truss (6/1), Mr Hunt (13/2), Mr Tugendhat (13/2), Penny Mordaunt (9/1), Ben Wallace (10/1), Sajid Javid (12/1), Mr Sunak (14/1), Nadhim Zahawi (16/1) and Michael Gove (20/1).Star Sports meanwhile puts the chance of a no-confidence vote being triggered this year at 2/5 and likewise lists Mr Hunt and Ms Truss as the PM’s best-placed possible successors at 5/1. More

Boris Johnson is in “real trouble” and a vote of no confidence in his leadership could come as early as next week, the former Conservative leader William Hague has predicted.It comes amid a growing trickle of Tory MPs calling for the prime minister’s resignation in the wake of senior civil servant Sue Gray’s report into the Partygate scandal.The former cabinet minister, Andrea Leadsom, said in a letter to constituents there were “unacceptable failings of leadership that cannot be tolerated and are the responsibility of the prime minister”.While the MP did not call for Mr Johnson’s resignation, she said every Conservative “must now decide individually on what is the right course of action that will restore confidence in our government”.Lord Hague, the Tory leader between 1997 and 2001, said the comments were “another indication” the Conservative Party is “moving faster” towards a vote of no confidence.He told Times Radio: “A leadership ballot, which I said earlier could come next week, or at the end of June, a few more letters like that, and it will come next week”.Under the party’s rules, 54 MPs must write a letter expressing no confidence in Mr Johnson’s leadership to the chair of the Conservatives’ 1922 committee, Sir Graham Brady, for a vote to be triggered.Referring to calls from MPs such as Sir Bob Neill urging the prime minister to step aside, Lord Hague stressed: “Boris Johnson is in real trouble.“The Sue Gray report has been one of those sort of slow fuse explosions in politics, it’s still going along, a lot of people misread it really the events of last week meaning the trouble is over.” More

Nearly two million tonnes of Co2 emissions could have been cut each year if the government had insulated homes rather than offering tax relief on fossil fuel extraction, a think tank has said.Analysis previously reported by The Independent has suggested that Chancellor Rishi Sunak’s new tax relief on investment in oil and gas extraction in the UK will cost the taxpayer up to £5.7 billion in the next three years.That money could have instead been used to insulate two million British homes over the same period, saving 1.8 million tonnes of Co2 emissions every year, according to think tank E3G. Insulation would also have reduced the average household bill by £342 a year, helping families cope with the cost of living crisis, according to the analysis.Last week, the chancellor announced a series of measures to tackle soaring prices in Britain. They included a temporary 25 per cent windfall tax on the profits of oil and gas companies to help support struggling households.In order to ensure that companies are not deterred from investment by the new levy, Mr Sunak announced that those that invest in oil and gas extraction would be entitled to hefty tax relief on that spending. The incentive means businesses will overall get a 91p tax saving for every £1 they invest in fossil fuel extraction.The investment insentive was slammed by climate groups and opposition politicians who pointed out that climate scientists, the United Nations and the International Energy Agency have made it clear that the world needs to stop new investment in fossil fuels if it wants to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. They questioned why the government didn’t extend the incentive to include investment in renewables. E3G said incentivising oil and gas investment encouraged a slow transition to renewables and pushed companies to allocate profits towards new oil and gas developments instead of renewable alternatives. If that revenue had instead been spent on supporting energy efficiency measures, it would have the potential to lift households out of energy poverty for good, the think tank added.Energy efficiency was absent from the chancellor’s emergency support package announcement, meaning UK households’ long-term reliance on gas will remain, it said.The government has repeatedly defended its need to invest in the oil and gas sector arguing that North Sea oil and gas are crucial to the UK’s domestic energy supply and security for the foreseeable future. A spokesperson for the government told The Independent last week that the tax break allowed for investment in activities to cut emissions, which could include electrification.“In addition, there are already numerous generous incentives available to bolster investment in renewable energy, including the super-deduction, the UK’s competitive R&D tax relief regime and the Contracts for Difference scheme – making sure the UK continues to invest in clean energy too,” the spokesperson said. More

Historically skeptical about European Union efforts to deepen cooperation, Danish voters on Wednesday will choose whether to abandon the country’s decision three decades ago to opt out of the bloc’s common defense policy. The Danish referendum comes as the latest example of European countries seeking closer defense links with allies in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It follows Sweden and Finland’s historic bids to join NATO — something to be taken up at a summit next month.Denmark joining the EU defense policy would have a relatively modest impact on Europe’s security architecture, particularly compared to Sweden and Finland joining NATO. But Christine Nissen, a researcher with the Danish Institute for International Studies, said both moves are “part of the same story,” and would strengthen military cooperation on a continent stunned by the war in Ukraine.She said the main effect of abandoning the opt-out decision would be that Danish officials could stay in the room when EU colleagues discuss defense topics and Danish forces could take part in the bloc’s military operations.Denmark, a founding member of NATO, has stayed on the sidelines of EU efforts to build a common security and defense policy in parallel with the trans-Atlantic alliance. It was one of four opt-out moves that Danes insisted on before adopting the EU’s Maastricht Treaty, which laid the foundation for political and economic union.The 1992 waiver means Denmark hasn’t participated in the EU’s discussions on defense policy, its development and acquisition of military capabilities and its joint military operations, such as those in Africa and Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Danes also opted out of EU cooperation on justice and home affairs, the common currency and citizenship. The opt-out decision on citizenship, which said European citizenship wouldn’t replace national citizenship, has since become irrelevant as other members later adopted the same position. But the other provisions remain intact despite efforts by successive governments to overturn them. In a 2000 referendum, Danish voters decided to stay outside the eurozone, and 15 years later they voted to keep the exemption on justice and home affairs.This time, however, Danes appear ready to say goodbye to opting out of common defense.Social Democratic Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen called for the referendum on March 8, less than two weeks after Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24. She called on citizens to vote “yes” to abolishing the exception, saying to do so “will strengthen our security.”“I am voting in favor of abolishing the opt-out” decision, said Peter Jakobsen, a 61-year-old pharmacist in Copenhagen. “We must not stand outside. We are in the EU and we must be involved. We must make a difference.”But Sanne Michelsen, a 52-year-old shopper in Copenhagen, said she didn’t see the point of suddenly joining the EU’s defense policy after years on the outside.“This is a referendum about an opt-out that has never caused us any problem,” she said in her native Danish, before turning to English to add. “If it ain’t broken, don’t fix it.’”The “yes” side has had a clear lead in polls, with about 40% in favor of dropping the exemption and 30% against. About a fourth of voters say they are still undecided.There is widespread support for dropping the defense opt-out decision in Parliament. Only three small parties want to maintain it, two on the right and one on the left. More

A watchdog has expressed concern in response to Boris Johnson’s changes to the ministerial code, warning that the prime minister retains the ability to “critically undermine” the official in charge of investigating potential breaches.Critics of the embattled Mr Johnson accused him of “watering down the rules to save his own skin” and “acting like a tinpot despot” last week, after he announced changes to the code which mean that ministers will no longer necessarily be expected to resign if they are found to have breached it.Under the revised code, if the prime minister wishes an offending minister to retain their post, sanctions for code breaches could instead require “some form of public apology, remedial action, or removal of ministerial salary for a period”.However, not only will Mr Johnson himself still be expected to resign if the current investigation by MPs concludes that he misled parliament over the Partygate scandal, the alterations to the code were also made following recommendations by the independent Committee on Standards in Public Life.But the watchdog’s chairman Lord Evans of Weardale said on Monday that its recommendation for a range of punishments for ministers had been partly intended to remove the need for Mr Johnson to have an effective veto on whether breaches should be investigated – which he still retains.The government said on Friday that while there would be an “enhanced process” for the independent adviser on ministers’ interests, Lord Geidt, to launch his own inquiries, he would still need the prime minister’s permission.In his official response on Monday, the watchdog’s chairman Lord Evans of Weardale – a former head of MI5 – warned that although there had been “improvement”, the role of Mr Johnson’s adviser was “still not sufficiently independent”.Lord Evans also expressed concern that the prime minister retained the ability to overrule his advisor on the finding of a breach – circumstances he warned “would critically undermine the credibility of the adviser’s office”.Lord Geidt’s predecessor, Sir Alex Allan, resigned in 2020 after Mr Johnson rejected his finding that home secretary Priti Patel had been guilty of bullying civil servants.While Lord Evans said the government’s move to introduce a range of sanctions for code breaches was “in line” with the committee’s recommendations, the committee’s recommendations had been “part of a package” designed to hand greater freedom to the adviser to investigate potential breaches.In the past, governments have resisted the move to allow the independent advisor to launch their own investigations into possible ministerial breaches, Lord Evans said, given that the presumption of resignation would have handed them an “effective power to fire a minister”.But Mr Johnson’s introduction of a range of sanctions for code breaches – replacing the blanket expectation of resignation – had removed “this constitutional obstacle”, Lord Evans said, rendering objections to granting the advisor power to initiate his own investigations invalid.The watchdog also warned that the post currently held by Lord Geidt “remains an unregulated, direct appointment” by the prime minister.Lord Evans also appeared to take subtle aim at Mr Johnson’s removal of references to the seven Nolan principles of public life – integrity, objectivity, accountability, transparency, honesty and leadership in the public interest – from the foreword of the ministerial code.The Nolan principles “continue to define the public’s expectations of conduct for all those in public office”, Lord Evans wrote, adding: “High ethical standards, and effective regulatory processes to maintain the standards expected, are integral to the operation of effective government.“They are part of the checks and balances that define the character of our democracy, provide accountability in between elections and help ensure public trust in the integrity of government.”Labour is expected to attempt to force a Commons vote on the changes when parliament returns from week-long recess break – marking one of several challenges potentially awaiting the prime minister.As the number of Tory MPs coming forward with demands for Mr Johnson to resign in the wake of Sue Gray’s Partygate report continued to grow on Monday, some speculated that 1922 Committee chairman Sir Graham Brady could have already received the requisite 54 letters needed to spark a vote of no confidence, and could be waiting for the Commons to return to make his announcement. More

Labour has warned of a “cost of living tsunami” as families face price rises of up to 50 per cent on everyday grocery items.Figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show that the cheapest pasta rose by 50 per cent in the 12 months to April, while the average price of bread, minced beef, rice and crisps increased by more than 15 per cent.Charities say the increase will see more of the poorest families turn to food banks as households struggle with the brunt of the cost of living crisis, which has driven up energy bills, rent prices and food costs.It comes after The Independent revealed how tens of thousands of Britain’s poorest families stand to miss out on help measures introduced by the chancellor Rishi Sunak thanks to the benefits cap.Jonathan Ashworth, shadow secretary of state for work and pensions, said: “Prices are soaring while struggling families are cutting back or even turning to food banks.“Tory MPs last month cut universal credit in real terms after slashing it by £20 a week last year. This is a cost of living tsunami caused by years of Tory economic mismanagement.”Sabine Goodwin, coordinator of the Independent Food Aid Network (IFAN), said: “Increasing staple food prices combined with rising costs in energy are inevitably going to put yet more pressure on low-income households and in turn increase the need for food banks“The chancellor’s cash-first interventions are very welcome but they don’t go far enough given the scale of the UK’s long-standing poverty crisis.”IFAN said 93 per cent of its food banks have reported an increase or significant increase in the need for their services since the start of 2022.As part of the ONS research, statisticians chose 30 low-cost groceries that are regularly purchased by households and tracked their prices from April 2021 to April 2022. During this period, average prices jumped by 6 to 7 per cent, running close to the inflation of overall food and alcohol prices.”For months we’ve heard that families on the lowest incomes have had to make tough choices when doing their weekly food shop, putting items back on the shelves and at the till when hit with rising prices,” said Alice Fuller, head of child poverty at Save the Children UK.“This new ONS analysis of 30 everyday grocery items confirms their experiences and shows the cost of living crisis has already had an impact on people’s finances and the way they eat … The price of a basket of shopping is adding to people’s woes.”Some everyday items tracked in the ONS analysis showed a drop in prices, including cheese, pizza, chips, sausages and apples. The cost of potatoes saw the most notable decrease, at 14 per cent.However, the research, which the ONS said was “highly experimental”, does not take into account the costs associated with buying a product. While potato prices have dropped significantly, many struggling households avoid them because they take longer to boil than alternatives and therefore use more gas or electricity. In March, the boss of Iceland said that some food bank users were turning down potatoes and other root vegetables because they could not afford to boil them.At the same time that staple grocery items have increased, food bank usage has also risen, according to the Trussell Trust.Between 1 April 2021 and 31 March 2022, food banks in the charity’s UK network distributed over 2.1 million emergency food parcels to people in crisis – a year-on-year increase of 14 per cent.Elizabeth Maytom, a project manager for Norwood-Brixton Food Bank, in south London, said local demand had particularly intensified in recent weeks, describing it as “unprecedented”.“We don’t have enough stock,” she said. “Even basics like pasta and baked beans, we’re asking the general public for, which we never used to do. We’re seeing lots of people needing help for the first time.”IFAN said more than 80 per cent of its 194 food banks reported that they have struggled with food supply issues over the last four months.Kathy Bland, an IFAN member of Leominster Food Bank, in Herefordshire, said their organisation gave out 179 food parcels in April 2022, compared to 86 in April 2021.“We can’t replace the welfare system, and neither should we,” she said. “Providing long-term support for people unable to afford food isn’t sustainable.”Separate data from The Food Foundation recently showed a 57 per cent increase in the proportion of households cutting back on food or missing meals altogether in just three months.In April, 7.3 million adults lived in households that said they had gone without food or could not physically get it in the past month. This is compared with 4.7 million adults in January.“There’s no doubt that the cost of living crisis is having a devastating impact on families’ ability to afford the food they need,” said Shona Goudie, policy research manager at The Food Foundation. “This is in part due to the large increase in food prices that we’re seeing, but also due to increases in prices of other essentials (such as energy bills) which is putting pressure on families’ disposable income and therefore squeezing their food budget.”After weeks of pressure, chancellor Rishi Sunak last week announced a £5bn windfall tax of 25 per cent on oil and gas companies to help fund a £15bn package of assistance for struggling households.Mr Sunak said that almost all of the 8 million worst-off households in the UK will benefit to the tune of £1,200, made up of support measures including a £650 cost of living payment for the poorest, a one-off £300 payment to 8 million pensioner households and £150 each to 6 million disabled people.He added that he will double the assistance with energy bills on offer to all households this autumn from £200 to £400 and convert the payment from a loan to a grant.However, while benefits payments are set to soar by as much as 10 per cent from April, more than 120,000 households will lose out unless ministers raise the cap on how much they can receive from the state. More

Former cabinet ministers have warned Boris Johnson he must get serious to save his skin.The warning came as ex-attorney general Jeremy Wright became the latest Tory heavyweight to call on the prime minister to quit, and Downing Street failed to deny that Mr Johnson took part in another lockdown gathering in his flat above No 11 to mark his 56th birthday in 2020.The concern expressed to The Independent by the ex-ministers, who have not called for Mr Johnson to go, is indicative of the uncertainty even among those supportive of the PM over whether he can survive.Mr Wright, who served in the cabinets of David Cameron and Theresa May, said Mr Johnson’s continued presence in Downing Street was hindering the process of “restoring faith” in government following the Partygate scandal.Meanwhile, backbencher Elliot Colburn – MP for hyper-marginal Carshalton & Wallington – confirmed he has submitted a letter of no confidence in the prime minister, while another member of the 2019 intake of younger Tories, Nickie Aiken, urged Mr Johnson to call a confidence vote in himself.And arch-Eurosceptic Andrew Bridgen, who sent a confidence letter only to withdraw it after the outbreak of war in Ukraine, revealed he has resubmitted it, citing “anger about the culture at No 10 during the lockdown period”.With the drip, drip of letters going in to 1922 Committee chair Sir Graham Brady showing no sign of abating, the mood on the Tory benches was that the total would inevitably reach the crucial threshold of 54.Although the number of MPs openly declaring they have sent a letter stands at just 16, at least a dozen more have called on the PM to go. Mr Bridgen said he believes the true tally of letters is “close” to the trigger point of 15 per cent of the 359 Tories in the Commons.Another backbencher told The Independent that a “rush” of letters can be expected to be handed in next Monday morning, triggering a confidence vote as early as Wednesday week.The Independent understands that last week MPs made representations to Tory grandees in the House of Lords, urging them to make clear their displeasure over Partygate to help build momentum behind the drive for a vote.Former leader Michael Howard, now a Tory peer, kept out of the fray when asked if he had confidence in the prime minister, telling the BBC he was “content to leave these matters to MPs in the House of Commons”.And while expectations were high that Mr Johnson would survive the initial vote by securing the votes of 180 or more MPs, one highly experienced backbencher warned that he would be left “wounded”, encouraging would-be successors at last to strike.“At the moment there is no obvious alternative leader for people to coalesce around, and I think Boris will probably survive the confidence vote,” said the veteran MP. “But the problem, as Theresa May found, is that simply being forced to a vote leaves you wounded, potentially terminally.“After that first vote, I think people who see themselves as future leaders will put their heads above the parapet and say that they are ready to stand for election, and that changes the landscape considerably.”There were signs of discontent on the backbenches that Mr Johnson appeared to be trying to distract attention from his leadership woes with headline-grabbing initiatives on frivolous issues, like a consultation on the return of imperial weights and measures to be launched this week.Long-time Johnson critic Tobias Ellwood dismissed the measure as a sign the party was “in denial” about the threat of ejection from office at the next election, describing it as “far from the inspirational, visionary progressive thinking that we require”.And a former cabinet minister described it as “catnip rather than something more nourishing”.The ex-minister told The Independent that Johnson’s survival depended on him showing he could “get on with the job” of focusing on voters’ core concerns – like the cost of living crisis – rather than promoting himself.“He needs to provide some months of diligent and competent government, doing some solid work on which he can be judged. And frankly, we need to see a little less of him.”Another former cabinet member told The Independent: “He needs to show he is a serious prime minister.“It will take a while, because he has suffered a lot of damage, but if he can show his serious side and address the things that really matter to constituents – most particularly in terms of the cost of living – that will do him a lot of good.”The damage to Mr Johnson’s standing from Partygate was reflected in a survey of activists conducted by the ConservativeHome website, which rated him the least popular member of the cabinet and suggested that the “bounce” gained from his robust response to the war in Ukraine has dissipated.Mr Ellwood said Ukraine must not be used as a “fig leaf” to prevent discussion of the leadership.“It’s time to shake off this partisan Stockholm syndrome,” he said. “Our party brand is suffering. We will lose the next election on current trajectory as reflected in recent by-elections and local elections.”Mr Wright said that Mr Johnson should go “for the good of this and future governments”, as the evidence of law-breaking in Downing Street would make the public less likely to obey instructions in a future emergency like the Covid pandemic.The “routine disregard” within No 10 for Covid rules “betrayed at best a casual and at worst a contemptuous attitude to the sacrifices made and distress felt for the many who observed rigorously both the spirit and letter of those rules,” said the former attorney general.“I find it impossible to accept that the prime minister does not bear some personal responsibility for that tone.”Ms Aiken, MP for the Cities of London and Westminster, said she was “incredulous and appalled” by the details of lockdown-breaching parties uncovered in the Sue Gray report.“If I were in the same position, I would put myself forward to the Conservative parliamentary party for a vote of confidence,” she said in a letter to constituents.And Mr Colburn told a constituent that he had submitted a letter “some time ago” and had seen nothing in the Gray report to persuade him to withdraw it.Mr Colburn’s Carshalton and Wallington seat in south London is a top blue-wall target for Liberal Democrats, who held the constituency from 1997 until he snatched it by just 629 votes at the last election.A Lib Dem source said: “Conservative MPs in the blue wall are terrified of losing their seats and are now trying to save their own skins. It’s too little and too late.“Voters won’t forgive the Conservatives for hammering them with tax rises and holding law-breaking parties in Downing Street.” More