Markus Andrews

Cabinet minister Nadine Dorries has lashed out at critics of the decision to privatise Channel 4 – saying the “lefty luvvie lynch mob” were obsessed with a personal vendetta against her.The culture secretary said former Tory PM Margaret Thatcher – who set up Channel 4 in the early 1980s – wanted it to be “free from the constraints of the state” by the end of the decade.Ms Dorries also appeared to suggest that a “streak” of fascism had “always existed in and around Channel 4” in a piece for the Mail on Sunday.She referenced remarks made by left-wing Labour MP Claudia Webbe, who has said the privatisation was “the seedbed of fascism”.Ms Dorries wrote: “One Labour MP claimed a Channel 4 sale would be ‘the seedbed of fascism’. I shouldn’t be surprised. This streak has always existed in and around Channel 4.”The minister added: “Its former head of news, Dorothy Byrne, who has been defending the station, is the same person who in a lecture compared our prime minister to Vladimir Putin.”Ms Byrne, who has condemned the decision to sell-off the channel, said in 2019 that Mr Johnson was “known liar” who was aping Putin’s approach to the media.She said the prime minister’s move towards online videos over regular sit-down interviews with journalists reminded her of the Russian leader who “likes to talk directly to the nation”.The contentious decision to sell off the public-owned broadcaster has sparked outrage from opposition parties, some top Tory backbenchers and leading media figures.Ms Byrne claimed Ms Dorries “doesn’t know very much about the broadcasting sector” – and pointed out that said Ms Thatcher “invented Channel 4” in 1982 to spark investment in the independent TV sector.But the culture secretary insisted that she had “a truly Conservative and Thatcherite vision for Channel 4” – arguing that privatisation would allow the channel to grow and invest in better technology.Attacking the “lazy, overwrought and ill-informed rhetoric from the Leftie luvvie lynch mob”, Ms Dorries wrote: “They’re happier sneering, accusing me of not being ‘smart enough’ to understand Channel 4 or descending into full-on abusive hysteria.”In her memoirs, Ms Thatcher said that by 1988 she had decided that Channel 4 would be better off privatised, but said she was defeated by “the monopolistic grip” of the broadcasting establishment.“In 1988, Margaret Thatcher was right,” said Ms Dorries. “She could see that Channel 4 would only ever reach its full potential when it was free from the constraints of the State – and that is the vision and the outcome we will deliver.” Labour described the plan as “cultural vandalism” and warned it would cost the sector jobs in the north of England.Baroness Davidson, the former Scottish Tory party leader, has also suggested it will damaging jobs in the independent sector outside of London. “This is the opposite of levelling up,” the Tory peer said of the plan.The sell-off is expected to form part of a draft Media Bill to be unveiled at the Queen’s speech – setting out the forthcoming agenda for Boris Johnson’s government – next month.Defeat in the Commons appears unlikely, given Boris Johnson’s working majority of 77, but it might be a different story in the Lords as there is no Tory majority in the upper chamber.Tory MP Sir Peter Bottomley, who said he opposes the sale “because I am a Conservative” said peers will rebel. “The House of Lords will take out any clause that privatises Channel 4,” he said. More

Rishi Sunak has been a “remarkable force for good”, a government minister has said – insisting the country “moves on” from questions about his family’s tax affairs.The chancellor’s standing among Tory MPs has been rocked by the tax revelations, and a new opinion poll shows his approval rating has fallen to a new low of -15.However, Home Office minister Kit Malthouse denied that Mr Sunak’s political career was “toast” after The Independent revealed his wife’s non-domicile tax status.He conceded Akshata Murty’s non-dom status had created “a sense of disquiet” and had “offended a sense of fair play” – but said she “corrected that situation” by agreeing to pay UK tax on overseas income.“Both she and Rishi have recognised that situation was not favourable and it was distracting from the overall message,” he told Sky News’ Sophy Ridge On Sunday programme. “They have now corrected that situation. Hopefully we can move on.”Asked if Mr Sunak was now political “toast”, Mr Malthouse replied: “No, I don’t believe that.”The policing minister said: “Rishi Sunak has been a remarkable force for good in this country over the last two years. He is a smart, clever, committed politician who came into parliament with me and I have been deeply impressed by him ever since. I’m a big fan.”The minister, a long-standing ally of Boris Johnson, also told BBC that Ms Murty had recognised her tax arrangements “didn’t look right”.He added: “She recognised that there was a sense of fair play that had been offended by her tax arrangements.”Asked about Mr Sunak’s admission he held a US green card for almost two years while chancellor, Mr Malthouse said it was a “hang over” from his time working in America. Some Conservative MPs believe this week’s tax rows have badly damaged Mr Sunak’s chances of ever becoming prime minister. “His standing has certainly fallen,” one senior Tory told The Independent.A new Opinium poll for the Observer found that the chancellor’s approval rating has fallen to -15, making him only marginally less unpopular with the public than Mr Johnson.Mr Sunak is ranked now one of the least popular members of the cabinet, according to the Conservative Home’s regular ‘cabinet league table’ survey.Sources close to Mr Sunak have played down reports that he was moving his wife and two daughters out of Downing Street to escape the glare of the media.A photograph showed removal vans arriving in the street on Saturday to take their belongings away. But one source said they had always intended to spend more time in their west London home to be closer to their daughter’s school.A Whitehall leak inquiry has been launched in an attempt to find out who passed details of Mr Sunak’s wife’s tax status to the media.‘Not coming from us’: Boris Johnson denies briefing against SunakMeanwhile, Labour has called on Mr Sunak to urgently clarify whether he helped “shape” tax rules through the recent Finance Act 2022 to benefit wealthy investors with non-domicile status.Yvette Cooper, shadow home secretary, said there may have been a conflict of interest between Rishi Sunak’s role as chancellor and his wife tax status.“So we don’t know for example, whether the chancellor declared a conflict of interest when he was making decisions on policies, there are some policies reported that do affect non-dom people with non-dom status,” she told Sky News.Labour MSP Paul Sweeney questioned why Sunak thought his wife’s finances were “off limits” – tweeting: “When I applied for Universal Credit I was asked questions about the income of everyone in my household.”Senior Tory MP Tobias Ellwood defended the chancellor on Sunday, and said Mr Sunak had “moved forward” from a series of questions over his tax arrangements.“There have been a lot of questions, which have now all been revealed and he’s answered them as best as he can,” he told Times Radio. “He’s moved forward from this. He needs to get on with running the Treasury.” More

In January, as the Partygate scandal raged, members of Rishi Sunak’s core team were working out over dinner which jobs they would take when the chancellor became prime minister. There were jokes about changing the interior design of the larger flat at No 11, currently the prime minister’s residence, on WhatsApp.The copy for the website for his leadership campaign, based on the format of the No 11 newsletter, was ready to go.When The Independent revealed that Boris Johnson had called his Partygate comeback campaign Operation Save Big Dog, one of the core messaged a friend with a screenshot saying “He’s finished”.So confident were the chancellor’s team that the Twitter handle for the “Ready for Rishi” campaign was already prepared, along with a wider communications campaign informed by data harvested from the same newsletter, in a neat dashboard built by Mr Sunak’s tech-savvy team.He and his close circle held informal meetings with MPs and senior figures in the Tory party in order to gauge his chances of winning a leadership contest, and to measure the fallout from senior civil servant Sue Gray’s investigation and that of the police, it was claimed. The ground was laid.Revelations about his wife’s financial affairs, first reported by this publication, appear to have changed the chancellor’s plans, at least for now.Crisis meetings throughout the past week have turned from how to rethink a leadership bid to how he can survive in his current role. Relations with his neighbour Mr Johnson’s team have turned from challenging to outright sour. More

Health secretary Sajid Javid claimed non-domicile status for six years when he was a banker, it has been reported. Mr Javid admitted to The Times that he had been a ‘non-dom’ between 2000 and 2006, when he was working for Deutsche Bank. Sajid Javid told the paper that he had qualified for the scheme, which allows someone to not pay UK tax on their overseas earnings, because his father was born in Pakistan. The revelation comes after The Independent revealed that the chancellor Rishi Sunak’s wife avoided tax through her non-dom status. The health secretary added that he had also benefited from an offshore trust during his time in the financial sector. Mr Javid said: “I have been domiciled in the UK for tax purposes throughout my entire public life. Given heightened public interest in these issues, I want to be open about my past tax statuses. My career before politics was in international finance. For almost two decades I constantly travelled around the world for work.” More

Rishi Sunak has been urged to provide “full transparency” over his family’s tax arrangements and explain whether he helped to shape government finance rules to benefit his own interests.Opposition parties and campaigners have also called on the chancellor to disclose his links to Britain’s overseas territories afterThe Independent revealed claims that he was listed as a beneficiary of tax haven trusts.Labour has called on him to urgently clarify whether he helped “shape” tax rules through the recent Finance Act 2022 to benefit wealthy investors with non-domicile status.Mr Sunak’s standing among Tory MPs has been rocked after The Independent revealed that his wife Akshata Murty holds non-domicle status – although she has since said she will pay UK taxes on all her worldwide income.A Whitehall probe is now underway to find out if any government officials or advisers provided Ms Murty’s tax details.Some Conservatives believe this week’s tax rows have damaged his chances of ever becoming prime minister. “His standing has certainly fallen,” one senior Tory said.The Independent understands that Mr Sunak suggested to a contact in finance shortly before his Spring Statement that if he couldn’t become prime minister, he might return to the industry before the next election.But a source close to Mr Sunak said: “Rishi has no intention of leaving politics.”The chancellor is understood to have moved his wife and daughters out of the spotlight of Downing Street to their mews house in west London.Sir Keir Starmer’s party said a scheme in the Finance Act 2022 allowed fund manager non-doms to benefit by not having to pay tax on foreign earnings.“We need reassurances that the chancellor did not make an enormous breach by shaping tax policy to benefit his own personal finances,” said a Labour spokesperson. “He must answer these questions now and bring full transparency about his arrangements.”Labour said any “trace” of the chancellor attempting to influence the relevant rules in the Finance Act 2022 would constitute “a serious breach of the ministerial code” which requires any potential conflicts of interest to be disclosed.The government responded by defending the scheme – saying tax relief given through the new “qualifying asset holding companies” (QAHC) regime was only available to fund executives who manage portfolios on behalf of investors rather than individuals.It comes as transparency campaigners called on Mr Sunak to explain whether or not he had benefited from his wife’s family’s use of trusts set up in overseas territories.Trusts in the British Virgin Islands and Cayman Islands – created to manage the financial affairs of his wife’s family’s interests – note Mr Sunak as a beneficiary in 2020, according to people familiar with her finances and documents seen by The Independent.“We need to have clarity on these trusts on the nature of these trusts,” said Paul Monaghan, chief executive of the Fair Tax Foundation.Mr Monaghan pointed to the government’s efforts to boost transparency over wealth held in offshore entities through its recently-passed Economic Crime Bill – and ministers’ promise of a second such bill in the next parliamentary session.He added: “There is a question of potential conflict of interest for the chancellor, if he has made use of a trust in secrecy jurisdictions, when we are looking to get greater transparency and wipe away the veil of secrecy.”Tax havens often offer a high degree of financial secrecy when companies are registered there, or trusts are created as beneficiaries of companies.But the use of tax havens by British residents is entirely legal, and there is no suggestion of legal wrongdoing. A spokesperson for Mr Sunak has said they “did not recognise” the claims on the use of tax havens, while Ms Murty has declined to comment.The deepening row comes as it emerged that Ms Murty could save £280m in inheritance tax by holding onto her non-dom status.Tax expert Richard Murphy said Ms Murty might still be able to avoid up to £280m in inheritance tax because of a “loophole” created in treaty between the UK and India dating back to the 1950s.Labour and the Liberal Democrats have called on Ms Murty, who remains an Indian citizen, to pay the back taxes saved through not having to pay UK taxes on her overseas income. It has been estimated that she potentially saved up to £20m in UK tax through the legal arrangement.There are also growing questions about Mr Sunak’s use of permanent US residency status, after he admitted holding a US green card while he was chancellor between February 2020 and October 2021.There is no suggestion that either Mr Sunak or Ms Murty have broken any laws through their tax arrangements.However, on Saturday the SNP called on Mr Sunak to publish his tax returns for the period he was an MP and held a US green card to clarify whether or not he avoided paying more tax in the UK.The Lib Dems’ Treasury spokesperson Christine Jardine said Mr Sunak “must be transparent about his financial arrangements and the answer the question – have they been paying their fair share?”A senior G7 diplomat, who is not British and who worked with Mr Sunak on efforts to improve corporate tax transparency, said they would have preferred to know more about the potential conflicts of interests at play.Asked about the Finance Act of 2022, a government spokesperson said: “Relief provided under the QAHC regime is not available to individual taxpayers, whether they are domiciled in the UK or not – it is only available to fund executives who manage portfolios on behalf of investors.”They added: “The QAHC regime was consulted on widely and voted through by a majority in the House of Commons. It was introduced as part of a review aimed at boosting UK competitiveness – ensuring that taxes paid by those institutions affected was proportionate to other jurisdictions, enabling the UK to remain as an attractive place to invest and create jobs.” More

The UK has vowed to send 120 armoured vehicles to Ukraine following a meeting between Boris Johnson and Volodymyr Zelensky in Kyiv. Downing Street said Britain would also dispatch a new anti-ship missile systems to support the country against the Russian invasion.The announcement followed talks between the two leaders in the Ukrainian capital, where Mr Johnson made a surprise visit on Saturday.It is understood to be the first time the pair have met in person since the Russian invasion was launched on 24 February. Downing Street said on Saturday the prime minister was in Kyiv to “demonstrate the UK’s steadfast solidarity with Ukraine” and to discuss military and economic support with Mr Zelensky. More

Boris Johnson has been seen with Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelensky at a surprise meeting in Kyiv.The British prime minister was pictured at a table opposite Mr Zelensky on Saturday, with the Union Jack and Ukrainian flag in the background.It is believed to be the first time the pair have met in person since Russia invaded Ukraine a month and a half ago, starting a war reported to have killed hundreds of civilians and displaced millions more. A Downing Street spokesperson confirmed the two had met in Kyiv on Saturday after an image of the leaders together was met with surprise on social media.“The prime minister has travelled to Ukraine to meet President Zelenskyy in person, in a show of solidarity with the Ukrainian people,” the No 10 spokesperson said. “They will discuss the UK’s long term support to Ukraine and the PM will set out a new package of financial and military aid.”Andriy Sybiha, a Ukrainian presidential aide, said Mr Johnson had started his visit to Kyiv with a “tete-a-tete” meeting with Mr Zelensky.Ukraine’s embassy in the UK shared an image of the two leaders meeting on Saturday, with the caption “surprise” and a winking face emoji. The Tory party chair had previously said the UK prime minister was “desperate” to visit Ukraine to witness what was happening in the country under siege.But a senior government official told The Independent last month such a trip would be “nonsensical” and his time would be “better spent addressing Home Office dysfunction” over the UK’s response to the refugee crisis sparked by the war.Mr Johnson is believed to have last visited Ukraine and met Mr Zelensky at the start of February as the threat of a Russian invasion loomed. More

Thousands of people have signed a petition demanding accountability for politicians who do not tell the truth in parliament.A campaign by the fact-checking organisation Full Fact is calling for new rules that make it easier for MPs to correct mistakes – and to “sanction those who don’t”.The petition, which had been signed by more than 6,000 people by Friday afternoon, said: “As our elected representatives, MPs owe us the truth. And yet, we have a political system that operates as if honesty doesn’t matter.“There is a formal process for correcting the official record in parliament. Most MPs aren’t allowed to use it. Even if they wanted to, they wouldn’t be able to put right their false or misleading claims.“And those who can correct themselves? Government ministers, our most powerful elected representatives, too often choose not to.”It came after an investigation by The Independent, working with Full Fact, revealed that at least 27 false statements made to parliament by Boris Johnson and other ministers since the 2019 general election had not been corrected.They include claims relating to Downing Street parties, refugees, Covid boosters, crime rates, and the economy.Labour has accused the government of disrespecting the public with a “litany of lies and falsehoods”, while the Conservative former attorney general Dominic Grieve said the figures suggested “a disregard both for good governance and truth”.Some of the 17 incorrect statements made by the prime minister have been repeated several times, despite reprimands by fact-checkers and the statistics authority.Other ministers who have made false statements in parliament during the same period include Matt Hancock as health secretary, home secretary Priti Patel, attorney general Suella Braverman, and culture secretary Nadine Dorries.Full Fact said that failing to correct the record on repeated false claims in parliament meant Mr Johnson was “in breach of the rules of the House of Commons and the ministerial code”.Chief executive Will Moy told The Independent that a “crisis of honesty” in politics was damaging public trust.Boris Johnson backs down on smear linking Starmer to Savile, but does not apologise“People who are being dishonest are not being held to account,” he added. “We’re seeing senior government ministers and the prime minister repeating claims that are not true and that they have had every chance to get right, up to and including their own regulator of statistics telling them what they’re saying is not true. That is both new and shocking.”Mr Moy said that it was only “human” for MPs to make mistakes while responding off the cuff in parliamentary debates, but that mistakes must be corrected.Under the current system, only ministers can correct the official Hansard record of parliamentary debate, and they cannot be compelled to do so.Separate rules dictate that MPs cannot accuse each other of lying in the Houses of Parliament.“It is ridiculous that you have a system where the speaker can throw an MP out of the House of Commons for accusing somebody of lying, but an MP who is lying cannot be sanctioned in any way,” Mr Moy said.“Having a ban on name-calling is a good idea, having a ban on accountability is a bad idea. At the moment we have a ban on both, and that’s not working for anyone.”A government spokesperson said: “The government takes seriously its duties to ensure parliamentary accountability and scrutiny by an independent free press.” More