Markus Andrews

Dominic Cummings has said he thought that Boris Johnson being Prime Minister was “terrible for the country” and that he tried to remove him just weeks after helping to him to secure an 80-seat majority in the December 2019 election.The bombshell revelations came to light in an explosive interview with the PM’s former top adviser by the BBC’s political editor Laura Kuenssberg that aired on Tuesday night.Mr Cummings said that Mr Johnson had “hopeless” traits after his experience working with him during the Brexit referendum, but still agreed to come back and advise him at No10 three years later.However the former-aide, who left Downing Street in the autumn after a power struggle, admitted he was working to bring an end to Prime Minister’s tenure.But it was dismissed as fanciful by a senior MP, who said that Cummings would have to have launched a “military coup” to remove a leader who Conservatives thought could “walk on water” after delivering them a landslide election victory.Asked if he was looking to “hasten” Johnson’s departure from Downing Street, Mr Cummings said: “Certainly. The sooner he goes the better, for sure.”He added: “Before even mid-January (2020) we were having meetings in Number 10 saying it’s clear that Carrie wants rid of all of us.“At that point we were already saying, by the summer, either we’ll all have gone from here or we’ll be in the process of trying to get rid of him and get someone else in as prime minister.”Mr Cummings suggested that he had only helped Mr Johnson to secure his place in No 10 in order to complete the Brexit process, not because he thought he would be a good prime minister.“He doesn’t have a plan, he doesn’t know how to be prime minister, and we only got him in there because we had to solve a certain problem, not because he was the right person to be running the country,” he said.Mr Cummings gave no indication in the interview of what mechanism he might have used to attempt to remove the prime minister, or of how widely the idea of ousting Johnson was discussed.And the former vice chair of the Tory backbench 1922 committee Sir Charles Walker told Times Radio,: “There is absolutely no way on Earth a No 10 advisor, or any number of No 10 advisors, have any capacity whatsoever to remove a prime minister unless they can engineer a military coup. I’m serious about that – unless they could have engineered a military coup, they couldn’t have got rid of him.”But the revelation that officials at the heart of Downing Street were discussing an internal coup will raise further questions about Mr Johnson’s decision to surround himself with veterans of the Vote Leave campaign when he arrived in No 10 in 2019.Mr Cummings said that within days of the election victory on 12 December, the PM’s then girlfriend began manoeuvres to remove him and other key Vote Leave figures, such as the No 10 director of communications Lee Cain, and replace them with “complete clowns”.“Carrie’s view was, and is, that ‘the prime minister doesn’t have a plan, and he doesn’t know how Whitehall works; someone is going to set the agenda: it can either be the civil service, or it can be Dominic and the Vote Leave team, or it can be me’,” said Mr Cummings.  “In 2019, her view was: ‘Better that it’s Dominic and the Vote Leave team than the civil service, because that’s the route to winning and staying in No 10.’“As soon as the election was won, her view was: ‘Why should it be Dominic and the Vote Leave team?  Why shouldn’t it be me that’s pulling the strings?’“Within days we were in a situation where the prime minister’s girlfriend is trying to get rid of us and appoint complete clowns to certain key jobs,” he continued.Mr Cummings said his relationship with Johnson was already breaking down “by summer 2020”.“He was fed up with the media portrayal of him being a kind of puppet for the Vote Leave team; it was driving him round the bend,” said the former adviser.“I had a plan, I was trying to get things done; he didn’t have a plan… he didn’t have an agenda.“The prime minister’s only agenda is [to] buy more trains, buy more buses, have more bikes and build the world’s most stupid tunnel to Ireland. That’s it.“Also, he knew that we basically disagreed about what was happening on Covid, and he knew that I was blaming him for not having acted in September – which I was.  “And then I thought that his girlfriend was interfering with appointments. She wanted to have people fired, and she wanted to have people promoted, in ways that I thought were unethical and unprofessional. And that also led to a big argument between us.”A No 10 spokesperson told the BBC: “Political appointments are entirely made by the prime minister.”‘Dominic Cummings: The Interview’ was broadcast on BBC Two on 20 July at 7pm, and will be available on BBC iPlayer and BBC Sounds as a podcast More

New houses should be beautiful, environmentally-friendly and built on tree-lined streets, the Housing Secretary announced today.Robert Jenrick on Tuesday published the Beautiful Places Plan, an amendment to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) that sets out minimum design standards for planned new developments.Under the alteration both planners and residents will “find it easier to embrace beautiful, practical design while rejecting the ugly, unsustainable or poor quality.”The government will also include the word “beauty” in planning rules for the first time since the system was created in 1947 and encourage councils to develop their own local design code.A statement from Mr Jenrick said: “Our revised National Planning Policy Framework will ensure that communities are more meaningfully engaged in how new development happens, that local authorities are given greater confidence in turning down schemes which do not meet locally set standards.“This is about putting communities – not developers – in the driving seat to ensure good quality design is the norm, and the return to a sense of stewardship – to building greener, enduringly popular homes and places that stand the test of time in every sense.”In a speech to the Policy Exchange think-tank Mr Jenrick added that the aim of the changes was to echo an era when a greater emphasis was placed on delivering attractive buildings for people that installed a sense of local pride.Mr Jenrick said: “The cost exacted by poor homes and places on quality of life, on mental health, on social mobility and opportunity for young people is well known and well-evidenced.“Less explored is how the decline in quality, and yes of beauty, that we’ve seen since the post-war period has corresponded with ever-increasing opposition to new housing.“The case for new housing is more important than ever, but it is also more difficult to make than ever.“So far from beauty and quality being a luxury, it’s clear that they are key to unlocking community consent for development and housing.”As part of the changes the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has also announced the launch of a new Office for Place to drive up design standards. More

England football star Marcus Rashford has called out the Spectator over a yet-to-be-published story about income from his charity partnerships.The 23-year-old striker said the right-wing weekly is planning to run an article “about how I have benefitted commercially in the last 18 months”.In a Twitter thread he defended his partnerships and said his fees contribute to off-pitch causes such as food poverty initiatives.He tweeted: “Just heard Spectator are planning to run a story on me tomorrow about how I have benefitted commercially in the last 18 months.“To clarify, I don’t need to partner with brands. I partner because I want to progress the work I do off the pitch and most of any fee I would receive contributes to that.“Last summer, 1.3M children had access to food support, through my relationship with Burberry children have a safe place to be after school where they will be fed, following the November investment vulnerable children have safe places to go this summer holiday, and due to my relationship with Macmillan 80,000 children now have a book to call their own.The Manchester United hotshot is a prominent food poverty campaigner and has consistently been a thorn in the side of government ministers, forcing a series of U-turns over free school meals at the height of the Covid pandemic.Rashford’s Burberry partnership saw the fashion company make a number of donations to youth charities and youth clubs, including London Youth and Norbrook Youth Club in Manchester, which he attended as a child.He became the youngest person to top the Sunday Times Giving List by raising £20 million in donations from supermarkets for groups tackling the issue.In the Twitter thread, he added: “Do I have a larger commercial appeal following the u-turns? I’m sure. But I’m also a Manchester United and England international footballer. Why has there always got to be a motive? Why can’t we just do the right thing?“I actually enjoy reading bits from The Spectator now and again but this is just a non starter.”Rashford, who received free school meals himself, was made an MBE in the delayed 2020 Queen’s Birthday Honours List.The England ace was the target of online racist abuse recently after his penalty miss in the Euro 2020 final against Italy. Abusive graffiti was also left on a mural of his face in Withington, Manchester.His Three Lions teammates Jadon Sancho and Bukayo Saka also missed penalties and were subjected to vile abuse on social media. More

Ministers have been accused of “flying by the seat of their pants” over Covid controls, as business leaders warned that plans to exempt key staff from self-isolation were “unworkable”.In a day of chaos, Downing Street was twice forced to intervene after a minister suggested both that businesses could tell staff to ignore “pings” asking them to quarantine for 10 days as Covid contacts, and that pubs had been ruled out of the plan for “Covid passports”.Industry organisations warned that absences due to self-isolation were growing “exponentially” in areas such as food supply and manufacturing, with firms across the country closing their doors for lack of staff. Meanwhile, Department for Education statistics showed that more than 1 million children in England were out of school last week for Covid-related reasons.And there were complaints of a lack of clarity over the government’s scheme to allow double-vaccinated workers in key sectors to avoid self-isolation, as Downing Street said that there was no precise list of who would qualify.The backlash from business came as daily deaths from coronavirus approached 100 for the first time since mid-March, with 96 fatalities and 46,558 positive tests reported across the UK. Deaths over the past seven days were 61 per cent up on the previous week, and positive tests up 41 per cent over the same period.While Boris Johnson has argued that the figures show the UK’s vaccination programme has weakened the link between infections and serious illness or death, businesses warned that half a million workers – including the PM and chancellor Rishi Sunak – have been forced to stay home over the past week after being identified as contacts of coronavirus cases.Boris Johnson’s official spokesperson suggested that supermarket workers could be among those told to ignore “pings”, alongside healthcare professionals, truck drivers, nuclear plant staff, border officers and utility workers.But the spokesperson said applications from employers would be considered on a “case by case” basis, and that the government expected the total exempted to reach only the “low tens of thousands” before all double-jabbed people are freed from the requirement to self-isolate on 16 August.“It’s not a blanket exemption and my understanding is we’re not going to be producing a list covering individual sectors,” they said.“It’s important that anyone who feels they’re in a critical industry, or wants to raise potential issues because of isolation, is able to contact departments and get advice, and where necessary get exemptions.”Rod McKenzie, of the Road Haulage Association, said the plan felt like it had been “thought up on the hoof without proper organisation or thought”.“Truckers were classed as essential workers at the start of the pandemic; now they may be or may not be,” he said.“It’s too confusing. The criteria aren’t clear and it risks being both unfair and devastating to an already creaking supply chain.”Downing Street said that “the bulk” of employers likely to qualify for exemptions were already in touch with Whitehall departments to get clearances, which could apply to specific “business-critical” individuals or to groups of workers with a particular function.Shane Brennan, chief executive of the Cold Chain Federation, which represents businesses in the food supply chain, said any scheme would have to be “simple and quick” or it would be ignored by bosses.“What is the application process for businesses to use this?” he asked. “Who will qualify? Do you have to prove you are severely affected? How long will it take? It does feel like this is another major-scale initiative being built on the hoof, and we will try our best to help the government to make it work, but time is not on our side.”Karen Dee, chief executive of the Airport Operators Association, said there was “a risk of unnecessary temporary closures” if staff such as air traffic controllers were not exempted.And she warned: “Applying for each individual for an exemption from self-quarantine if they are ‘pinged’ is simply unworkable.”A week after warning that the “pingdemic” was on the verge of shutting factories, the Unite union said that continued “mixed messages” over self-isolation were putting manufacturing at risk.“For plants to remain open now and in the months ahead, there needs to be faster testing, the continuation of free lateral flow tests for employers, a statutory sick-pay rate that means people will actually stay off if ill, and the extension of the furlough scheme,” said assistant general secretary Steve Turner.“All these things are needed to get the country, which is now leading the world for infection rates, through the next wave of the virus.“Unfortunately, the mixed messages emanating from government give a strong impression that ministers are flying by the seat of their pants.”Downing Street was forced to step in after small business minister Paul Scully suggested that compliance with instructions from the NHS Covid app to self-isolate was optional.While it is a requirement by law to quarantine for 10 days if contacted by NHS Test and Trace officials, a “ping” from the app has no legal force.Mr Scully appeared to suggest that this was intended to allow workers to make “informed decisions” about whether or not to comply.“The app is there to give, to allow you to make informed decisions,” he told Times Radio. “And I think by backing out of mandating a lot of things, we’re encouraging people to really get the data in their own hands to be able to make decisions on what’s best for them, whether they’re an employer or an employee.”Meanwhile, another minister in the business department, Lord Grimstone of Boscobel, stressed in a letter to one large employer that the app was only an “advisory tool” and that people were not under any “legal duty”.Mr Scully also appeared to rule out a requirement for Covid passports, which will be used in nightclubs from September, as a condition of entry to pubs.“We’re not saying crowded pubs at all,” he told Sky News.“We’re not ruling anything out, but we’re not saying crowded pubs. We’re saying nightclubs and also larger ticketed events as well.”Within hours, No 10 had issued a statement stressing that it was “crucial” that individuals isolate when told to do so, either by NHS Test and Trace or by the NHS Covid app. This was “the most important action people can take to stop the spread of the virus”, said a spokesperson, adding: “Businesses should be supporting employees to isolate; they should not be encouraging them to break isolation.”And Mr Johnson’s official spokesperson said pubs had not been ruled out from inclusion in the Covid passport scheme, telling reporters: “I’m not seeking to draw any specific restrictions around settings we’re considering at the moment.“Nightclubs are simply where we have the most evidence, because they are by design settings where individuals who don’t normally mix are in close proximity, it’s late at night, [and] there’s alcohol involved. So those are the risk factors.” More

The government has been accused of “penny pinching” after it rejected the chance to expand sick pay during the Covid crisis, despite the growing army of workers forced to self-isolate at home.Millions of workers are expected to be “pinged” by the NHS Covid app and told to isolate this summer – leaving many of those forced to stay off work at risk of hardship.The government had promised to consider expanding the eligibility of statutory sick pay so more low-paid workers could get access – but announced on Tuesday that there would be no changes to the rules.“The government has abandoned millions of low-paid workers at the worst possible time,” said TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady.“This is yet another example of short-sighted penny pinching from the Treasury, which is undermining Britain’s public health effort.”Ms O’Grady added: “With Covid cases going through the roof, its refusal to make sick pay available for all is grossly irresponsible and will help drive infections still higher.”Leading unions and think tanks have urged the government to allow all workers in the UK access to statutory sick pay by removing the lower earnings limit.An estimated two million UK workers in part-time or insecure work in the gig economy do not earn enough to qualify for statutory sick pay – and 70 per cent of these workers are women.The opposition and unions also called for statutory sick pay to be hiked from £95 a week, arguing it was not enough to encourage workers to continue to follow self-isolation rules.Unison’s general secretary Christina McAnea said the £95-a-week sum was so low that many workers still can’t afford to stay home when they’re ill or have to isolate.”Statutory sick pay rates must be increased significantly – and be available to every worker in the UK,” she said. “That’s the way to reduce infection spread and get the virus on the back foot.”Alan Lockey, head of the Royal Society of Arts’ future of work programme, said he was disappointed that the government had spurned the chance to help those in the gig economy – including many key workers – who are still not eligible.“People will be amazed that millions of workers, including thousands of key workers, have been sent to work in a pandemic without being eligible for any statutory sick pay,” said Mr Lockey.He added: “Nearly every comparable country in the world has introduced an emergency regime to help protect people and reduce transmission, but yet again the government has declined to do likewise. We need a more generous regime that includes the most economically insecure workers and we needed it today.”In 2019, the government stated that it was “concerned” that employees on lower incomes were missing out on sick pay and said it would consider a recommendation to include those below the lower earnings limit.But on Tuesday, the government announced that “now is not the right time to introduce changes to the sick pay system”.A government spokesperson added: “Statutory sick pay is designed to balance support for an individual when they are unable to work because of sickness, with the costs to employers of providing this support.“As we learn to live with a new virus, it’s right that we take a broader look at the role of statutory sick pay.” More

Border officials have been told they no longer have to do Covid checks on people arriving in England from countries on the government’s amber and green list, according to leaked guidance.Border Force staff at airports are no longer required to verify whether arrivals from those countries have received a negative Covid test, or have booked themselves a further test in the coming days, according to guidance reported by The Guardian.The guidance sent to staff on 19 July also reportedly states that border officials do not have to check amber and green country arrivals’ passenger locator forms – used to trace people who may have come into contact with someone with Covid.The Home Office did not deny guidance had changed for border staff, but pointed out that airlines were still legally required to conduct a series of Covid checks.Airports have seen huge queues at arrival checkpoints in recent days, and holidaymakers have been warned of waits of up to six hours when returning to England from abroad.The Immigration Service Union has warned that the “sheer number” of passengers arriving from countries on the recently-expanded amber list, combined with a shortage of border staff, would slow down checks.One unnamed Border Force officer told The Guardian that the guidance had changed to help reduce the queues. “The only rationale for this change is to speed up queue times when travel is expected to increase.“At a time when the country is unlocking, this is the time when we should be using every tool available to mitigate the risks, not turn a literal blind eye.”A government spokesperson told The Independent: “Our utmost priority is protecting the health of the public and our enhanced borders regime is helping reduce the risk of new variants being transmitted.“All passenger locator forms are still being checked by carriers, as they are legally required to do, and to suggest otherwise is wrong. This legal requirement on carriers is underpinned by a robust compliance regime, which is overseen by regulators.”The spokesperson added: “Compliance with these rules is essential in order to protect the population from new variants of Covid-19, and so there will be tough fines for those who do not follow the rules.”It comes as the owner of some of the UK’s busiest airports has lost a High Court bid to force the government to reveal its reasons behind changes in the traffic light system of travel restrictions.Manchester Airports Group (MAG), which owns Manchester, Stansted and East Midlands airports brought the legal action against both the Department for Transport and Department of Health and Social Care – complaining of a “fundamental lack of transparency”. More

A Brexit row over Gibraltar dramatically escalated on Tuesday as the UK accused Brussels of failing to negotiate in the “real world” and moving to undermine British soverignty .At a meeting in the EU capital the bloc’s commissioners presented plans to remove checks on people and goods at the land border between Spain and Gibraltar.But the details of the plan caused anger in London as foreign secretary Dominic Raab accused the EU of backtracking on previous promises.The government is concerned that Spain is pushing to extends its influence over the Iberian territory, whose status is a historic bone of contention with Madrid.The UK is concerned that the EU negotiating mandate, which is yet to be published but has been leaked to the Spanish press, includes plans for Spanish officials to carry out border checks at ports and airports.The British government wants agents from the EU border agency Frontex to carry out the checks and is concerned that giving the responsibility for administration to Spain would look too much like a concession to Spanish sovereignty of the territory. “The UK, with Gibraltar, and Spain carefully agreed a pragmatic Framework Agreement, in full consultation with the EU Commission,” the foreign secretary said in a statement on Tuesday evening.”The commission’s proposed mandate, published today, directly conflicts with that Framework. It seeks to undermine the UK’s sovereignty over Gibraltar, and cannot form a basis for negotiations.”We have consistently showed pragmatism and flexibility in the search for arrangements that work for all sides, and we are disappointed that this has not been reciprocated. We urge the EU to think again.”Gibraltar’s government, which wants tight integration with the EU but is equally fiercely in favour of preserving British sovereignty, meanwhile said there was “no possibility” of EU plans for Spanish officials to play a role ever being agreed to.The territory was not included in the scope of the EU Brexit agreement after pressure from Spain during the first round of talks. Madrid only approved the main Brexit withdrawal agreement on the basis that separate talks could take place over the British enclave.The issue of the rock is politically sensitive in Spain, with most politicians at least paying lip service to Spain’s claim to the island. Gibraltar had a land border with Spain prior to Brexit but the territory’s government has since indicated that it wants to be part of the Schengen area – in part to make life easier for the thousands of people who commute across the border every day and who currently have to show their documents.Maros Sefcovic, the EU’s Brexit chief since the retirement of Michel Barnier, said in a statement: “By putting forward this draft mandate, we are honouring the political commitment we made to Spain to start the negotiations of a separate agreement between the EU and the UK on Gibraltar. “This is a detailed mandate, which aims to have a positive impact for those living and working on either side of the border between Spain and Gibraltar, while protecting the integrity of the Schengen Area and the Single Market.” Gibraltar’s government also echoed some UK concerns. In a statement released on Tuesday, a spokesperson for the administration said that “in many respects the [EU] mandate strays unhelpfully from the Framework Agreement agreed by the UK and Gibraltar with Spain on 31 December last year”.They added: “As a result, the mandate may, unfortunately, not form the basis for the negotiation of an agreement on a UK treaty with the EU. We will continue to work with the government of the United Kingdom as we explore all possibilities.”Additionally, we will also continue the work to be ready in the event that there may not be a negotiated outcome with the EU and that Gibraltar will not enjoy a treaty relationship with the EU going forward.”The territory’s chief minister Fabian Picardo said: “The draft EU mandate is a matter for them, of course. But I must say that on the basis of the current draft, there is no possibility of this forming the basis for an agreement. “We will work closely with the United Kingdom, especially foreign secretary Dominic Raab, to continue to seek the best possible outcomes for Gibraltar.” More

Stormont politicians have rejected a controversial UK government plan to for an effective amnesty in cases related to the Troubles.During an emergency sitting, members of the Northern Ireland Assembly (MLAs) criticised the proposals put forward by Brandon Lewis last week to introduce legislation to create a proposed statute of limitations.The government’s intention is to end all new prosecutions for crimes up to April 1998 — when the Good Friday Agreement was reached — and will apply to both military veterans as well as ex-paramilitaries.Victims’ families last week expressed outrage over the plans, while Sir Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, said it was “plain wrong” for the government to offer a “blanket amnesty” for crimes committed during the Troubles-era.In a recalled sitting of Stormont, the motion tabled by the SDLP deputy leader Nichola Mallon — expressing opposition to the proposals — passed on Wednesday without any dissenting voices during a two hour debate.While non-binding, the motion called for victims and survivors to have a “full, material and central role and input into the content and design of structures to address the legacy of the past”.Ms Mallon told MLAs that a prosecution amnesty would not be acceptable in any other modern democracy in the world and accused the UK government of attempting to sweep victims’ pain under the carpet.She said the proposals would let “perpetrators, state and paramilitary, walk free and instead condemn the victims and their families to a lifetime of pain and suffering through the denial of hope, truth and justice”.Ms Mallon added that the plans were a “unilateral move” by the UK government to deliver a “Tory party answer to a problem created by that same party and its backbench MPs”“Backbenchers who have created a bogus myth that an endless parade of veterans are being dragged through the courts here to answer for their past,” she said.Addressing the chamber during the debate, DUP MLA Mervyn Storey said victims “cannot and should not be ignored in this way”.“The secretary of state seems to have chosen a path which finds equivalence between the soldier and police officer, and those who planted the bomb or pulled the trigger,” he said. “This is morally reprehensible.”Speaking last week, Mr Lewis confirmed last week the government intended to introduce a statute of limitations which would end all new prosecutions related to the Troubles, with a new independent body to help families find out what happened to loved ones in killings and other legacy cases involving ex-paramilitaries and former members of the security services.“We know the prospect of the end to criminal prosecutions will be difficult for some to accept, and this is not a position we take lightly,” he told MPs.The Northern Ireland secretary insisted criminal investigations had proved damaging. “It’s clear the current system for dealing with the legacy of the Troubles is not working,” he said.“It’s now a difficult, in fact painful, truth that the focus on criminal investigations is increasingly unlikely to deliver successful criminal justice outcomes, but all the while it continues to divide communities and it fails to obtain answers for a majority of victims and families.” More