Markus Andrews

Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxGet our free View from Westminster emailKeir Starmer has condemned Margaret Thatcher for doing “terrible things”, just days after praising her for “setting loose Britain’s natural entrepreneurialism”.After the Labour leader faced a backlash from his MPs over his comments about the former prime minister, he told a dinner in Glasgow she did things he “profoundly disagrees with”.Sir Keir was asked by an audience member at the Scottish Labour gala if he was a fan of Mrs Thatcher, and said: “No, absolutely not. She did terrible things, particularly here in Scotland which everybody in this room, myself included, profoundly disagrees with.”The comments, reported by the Daily Record, come after Sir Keir said Mrs Thatcher had effected “meaningful change” in Britain.Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar has defended Sir Keir Starmer’s comments on Margaret Thatcher. (Andrew Milligan/PA)In a Sunday Telegraph article, he said: “Every moment of meaningful change in modern British politics begins with the realisation that politics must act in service of the British people, rather than dictating to them.“Margaret Thatcher sought to drag Britain out of its stupor by setting loose our natural entrepreneurialism. Tony Blair reimagined a stale, outdated Labour Party into one that could seize the optimism of the late Nineties.”The comments sparked fury among left-wingers, with Labour MP Beth Winter telling The Independent the Thatcher government, which ran from 1979 to 1990, “devastated communities with the deliberate destruction of the mining industry”.She added: “Policies like the grossly iniquitous poll tax and the great privatisation rip-off offs were the hallmarks of Thatcherism.”And Liverpool Riverside MP Kim Johnson said Mrs Thatcher is “not someone Labour supporters should look up to”.The comments also went down poorly in Scotland, with Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar saying Mrs Thatcher “decimated” the country.Sir Keir rowed back on the comments, telling the BBC the point of his article was to “distinguish political leaders … between those that had a plan and those that drifted essentially”.And at the Scottish Labour dinner on Thursday night, he said: “The point I was trying to make in a piece that we penned last week is that there are some political leaders who have a mission, a plan, that they implement.“And Attlee, of course, was one of them – the ‘new Jerusalem’. Thatcher, whether you liked her or you didn’t like her, you couldn’t say she didn’t have a plan or a mission.” More

Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxGet our free View from Westminster emailRishi Sunak is fighting to save his flagship Rwanda policy – and his premiership – after a desperate defence of his new deportation bill failed to stop a growing revolt by Tory MPs on both sides of the party.The beleaguered PM dodged questions about whether he could be forced to call a general election if he cannot get the bill through parliament, in the most significant political crisis he has faced at No 10.Hardliners on the Tory right said they could rebel in an “existential” showdown vote on Tuesday, while moderates in the One Nation group remain “nervous” about backing the bill.Mr Sunak was warned that he could even face a leadership vote soon if he “antagonised” more MPs into submitting no-confidence letters. Some MPs claimed almost two dozen letters have already been submitted to the Tories’ all-powerful 1922 Committee – which requires 53 of them to hold a vote on his future.The prime minister tried to face down right-wingers at a hastily convened press conference, telling them their demands to opt out of all human rights law would see his controversial Rwanda scheme collapse.But the Tory leader stopped stop of threatening to expel them if they defy him next week – rejecting the idea he will turn the bill into a “back me or sack me” confidence vote.Sunak declined to say whether he will call an election if his bill is defeatedAccused by the opposition of being a “lame duck” losing control of his “sinking ship”, a tetchy Mr Sunak was forced to deny his government had become a “joke” – and appeared to plead with Labour to back his under-threat legislative plan.Ducking questions on whether he would win support from Tory rebels, Mr Sunak said: “The real question when it comes to parliament… what are the Labour party going to do about this vote?”Mr Sunak also claimed there was only “an inch” between him and bitterly divided MPs – but hardliners on the right remain furious that he chose not to opt out of the European Convention on Human Rights.Dozens of right-wing MPs – including members of the 35-strong New Conservatives, the Common Sense Group and the European Research Group – have convened a “star chamber” to help decide before Tuesday if they should vote for the bill.They are unimpressed by Mr Sunak’s claim that legal challenges by individual asylum seekers threatened with a one-way ticket to Rwanda will be “vanishingly rare”.Sunak was rocked by the resignation of hardliner Robert JenrickOne senior figure on the Tory right told The Independent that they were angry the bill allows for “spurious legal claims” that would see the courts “clogged up”.And the leading MP warned Mr Sunak not to force their hand with a confidence vote. “It would be very foolish of him to make it a confidence vote because it would antagonise people. They might then put a [no-confidence] letter in.”Asked if the threshold of 53 no-confidence could be triggered, the MP said: “I think so. A badly watered-down bill will make people consider a letter. It’s existential for the prime minister to get this right.”One right-wing Tory rebel said they knew the names of 18 MPs who had already submitted no-confidence letters to The 1922 Committee, according to The Mirror.Cabinet minister Chris Heaton-Harris played down the chances of Mr Sunak facing a vote on his leadership as “very unlikely”. And Tory chair Richard Holden told reporters: “I think it’d be insanity to do that.”Tory veteran Sir Charles Walker – former 1922 committee chairman – said an election would have to be called if a “ridiculous” vote in Mr Sunak’s leadership was triggered. “If the threshold of 50 or so letters was crossed then the idea of another leadership [vote] is a nonsense – we have to go straight to a general election,” he told the News Agents podcast.Home secretary James Cleverly watching Sunak’s press conference Mr Sunak has to decide how much pressure to put on his MPs before Tuesday. Convention dictates that the PM would either resign or dissolve parliament and call an election if he loses such a vote made into a confidence issue in his government. He also faces a major threat from the One Nation group of Tory moderates, which boasts of around 100 MPs. Centrists are not happy about the bill’s move to disapply the Human Rights Act, and the attempt to stop any court challenging ministers’ insistence that Rwanda is safe.Senior moderates are understood to be undecided about how to vote on Tuesday. A source in the One Nation wing revealed that MPs were “very nervous” – and said the PM’s press conference claim that the courts could not stop ministers had only inflamed opinion.Moderate MP Tobias Ellwood said he would not support the Rwanda bill if there is “any prospect” of breaking international laws. “We uphold international law. We don’t break it,” he told Times Radio – admitting Rwanda was “ripping our party in half”.Mr Sunak said Robert Jenrick – a former Sunak ally who resigned on Wednesday – was “simply not right” to suggest the bill would fail, insisting its move to disapply the Human Rights Act “blocks every single reason that has ever been used to prevent flights”.Suella Braverman denied ‘spreading poison’ to bring Sunak down Sacked home secretary Suella Braverman piled more pressure on Thursday by saying “This bill will fail.” In a tense exchange with BBC Radio 4 host Nick Robinson, Ms Braverman denied trying to oust Mr Sunak by “spreading poison” in the Tory party.One senior Tory MP loyal to Mr Sunak told The Independent that many were “appalled” by Ms Braverman’s attacks and “disappointed” in Mr Jenrick’s move.“It’s a storm in a tea cup,” the MP said on the prospect of right-wingers voting against the bill – predicting they would not be willing to bring the PM down over it. “I’ll be very surprised if they vote against. Why wouldn’t they back it?”But George Osborne said the Tory civil wars had well and truly “reopened”. The former Tory chancellor told his Political Currency podcast: “[Mr Sunak] can’t now claim anymore to have stabilised things [after Boris Johnson and Liz Truss].”Former No 10 strategist Dominic Cummings said Mr Sunak’s position was now “pure farce”. Asked if Mr Cummings was right to claim Rwanda would send more asylum seekers to the UK than the other way around, a No 10 spokesperson said: “No, we don’t think that’s right.” More

Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxGet our free View from Westminster emailFormer Prime Minister Boris Johnson has faced two days of questioning at the Covid inquiry – and his answers have illicited more questions from our readers.Mr Johnson was heckled as he arrived at the hearing this morning, having already been booed by crowds of bereaved families on Wednesday.During his first day of testimony, Mr Johnson’s apology to the nation was interrupted by four people who staged a protest in the hearing room.In Wednesday’s hearing, Mr Johnson admitted the pandemic’s impact on the NHS had “bewildered” him. He also acknowledged the government’s policy appeared “incoherent” on the timing of actions in light of the graph in March 2020 suggesting the NHS could be overwhelmed.It came after an explosive two months at the inquiry, which heard Mr Johnson was “obsessed with older people accepting their fate” and dying from the virus; entrusted his top adviser Dominic Cummings with too much power; and wanted to “let the bodies pile high” to avoid imposing a second Covid lockdown.As we hear from the man in charge of the UK’s Covid response, I’ve been answering questions from readers about the former prime minister and the Covid inquiry.Here are nine questions from Independent readers – and my answers from the “Ask Me Anything” event.Q: What do you think the chances of Johnson making a proper return to politics are? And could the Covid inquiry damage any plans he might have for further public life?SS7890A: I don’t think Boris Johnson is likely to return to politics. Whatever your view of the government’s actual policies on coronavirus, his behaviour seemed erratic and un-reassuring to too many people. He retains some support among grassroots members of the Conservative Party, but probably not as much as he thinks, and the main obstacle to a return remains the parliamentary party. Tory MPs never supported him strongly – they turned to him in desperation in 2019 to get them out of a deadlocked parliament. I think the chances of their turning to him again in some future crisis are extremely low.Q: Who’s going to come off worse… Cummings, Hancock, Gove or Johnson?Adam679A: One of the reasons I think the inquiry is a bad idea is that I don’t think it should be about apportioning blame. The important thing is to learn lessons. And one of the worst responses to politics is to think that politicians with whom one disagrees should go to jail. That is pure “lock her up” Trumpism.Q: Realistically, did we have a better person who could be in charge than Boris? Only Jacob Rees-Mogg, but a good job was done. A lot of countries waited too long and then followed Great Britain.polarbearA: I think most recent prime ministers would have handled the problem better than Boris Johnson, because they would have taken it more seriously earlier and would have got to grips with the detail. As for current or recent ministers, I think Rishi Sunak would have been better, but he had only just moved up from the most junior cabinet position (chief secretary to the Treasury) at the start of the pandemic.Q: Could Boris or others be charged with misconduct in public office? If so, who can bring this charge forward?LoneFishA: Not reading a document, taking a day off and not attending a meeting are not serious enough in themselves in my view to warrant anything like you suggest. The breach of coronavirus regulations was dealt with by penalty notices (and I didn’t agree with the ones issued to Johnson and Sunak). Hancock’s breach of guidelines was dealt with by his resignation as a minister.Misconduct in public office is an antique charge that would need to be revived only if other sanctions were not available. It is usually wheeled out by people to mean, “I disagree with what this politician did very strongly indeed,” and is only one step down from, “They should go to jail.”I don’t think the government handled the pandemic particularly well, but neither do I think they did so particularly badly.Q: Will the enquiry report its findings before the next General Election?ParcelOfRogueA: I imagine that you have already made up your mind about its findings! It is a good question, though, because I am not sure what the timetable is for interim reports. The inquiry will go on for years, but the current module (“Core UK decision-making and political governance”) has nearly finished public hearings. I will get back to after this AMA if I can find out anything.Q: Did Boris Johnson send the WhatsApp messages to himself? Surely there must be other phones which sent and received the messages from Johnson’s phone? Or does deleting messages on one phone automatically delete them on other phones?HectorshouseA: I would have thought all WhatsApp messages are saved on servers, but I think this issue is a distraction, not least because I don’t think the inquiry should be happening at all, but also because we know what the issues are, and the idea that “the truth” is somehow concealed in secret deleted messages is always wrong.Q: How much is costing us tax players to fund Johnson’s legal advice during the inquiry?Blue63A: Quite a lot, but I don’t think the inquiry should be happening at all.Q: Would it not be fair to say the the parliamentry Conservatives were in thrall to US libertarianism when it came to the pandemic?Jim987A: I think that is a peculiar way to describe the views of elected representatives in the House of Commons! Some MPs who represented the people supported “zero covid”; others were opposed to lockdowns altogether; most were in between, and parliament rightly had a say in deciding the policy as it should in a democracy. If anything, it was a problem that MPs were unable to scrutinise legislation sufficiently – there were cases of laws being passed and then voted on in parliament, and of laws being passed within a few hours.Q: Shouldn’t we expect Sunak to want to remain PM for as long as possible? In other words, an election in winter 2024?Matthew RedgraveA: That is the default assumption in politics. Harold Wilson is the only recent clear example of a prime minister giving up office before they had to. Although Baldwin and Salisbury from longer ago also gave up voluntarily, probably because of illness in all cases. Tony Blair is an interesting case, in that he managed to leave before the mechanisms for ejecting him were actually triggered.I think Rishi Sunak will probably want to stay in office nearly as long as legally possible. He may go for the last possible date for a general election, in January 2025, although that would probably be too unpopular, so I agree with Matthew that October or November 2024 is more likely.Logically, with Sunak’s political problems getting worse month by month, he ought to go for an early election so that he can save as many seats as possible from the deluge. But prime ministers want to hold on, and they want to believe that things will eventually get better even as they continue to get worse.These questions and answers were part of an ‘Ask Me Anything’ hosted by John Rentoul at 11am GMT on Thursday 7 December Some of the questions and answers have been edited for this article. You can read the full discussion in the comments section of the original article.John also sends a weekly Commons Confidential newsletter exclusive to Independent Premium subscribers, taking you behind the curtain of Westminster. If this sounds like something you would be interested in, head here to find out more. More

Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxGet our free View from Westminster emailRishi Sunak is fighting to save his flagship Rwanda policy – and his premiership – after a desperate defence of his new deportation bill failed to stop a growing revolt by Tory MPs on both sides of the party.The beleaguered PM dodged questions about whether he could be forced to call a general election if he cannot get the bill through parliament, in the most significant political crisis he has faced at No 10.Hardliners on the Tory right said they could rebel in an “existential” showdown vote on Tuesday, while moderates in the One Nation group remain “nervous” about backing the bill.Mr Sunak was warned that he could even face a leadership vote soon if he “antagonised” more MPs into submitting no-confidence letters. Some MPs claimed almost two dozen letters have already been submitted to the Tories’ all-powerful 1922 Committee – which requires 53 of them to hold a vote on his future.The prime minister tried to face down right-wingers at a hastily convened press conference, telling them their demands to opt out of all human rights law would see his controversial Rwanda scheme collapse.But the Tory leader stopped stop of threatening to expel them if they defy him next week – rejecting the idea he will turn the bill into a “back me or sack me” confidence vote.Sunak declined to say whether he will call an election if his bill is defeatedAccused by the opposition of being a “lame duck” losing control of his “sinking ship”, a tetchy Mr Sunak was forced to deny his government had become a “joke” – and appeared to plead with Labour to back his under-threat legislative plan.Ducking questions on whether he would win support from Tory rebels, Mr Sunak said: “The real question when it comes to parliament… what are the Labour party going to do about this vote?”Mr Sunak also claimed there was only “an inch” between him and bitterly divided MPs – but hardliners on the right remain furious that he chose not to opt out of the European Convention on Human Rights.Dozens of right-wing MPs – including members of the 35-strong New Conservatives, the Common Sense Group and the European Research Group – have convened a “star chamber” to help decide before Tuesday if they should vote for the bill.They are unimpressed by Mr Sunak’s claim that legal challenges by individual asylum seekers threatened with a one-way ticket to Rwanda will be “vanishingly rare”.Sunak was rocked by the resignation of hardliner Robert JenrickOne senior figure on the Tory right told The Independent that they were angry the bill allows for “spurious legal claims” that would see the courts “clogged up”.And the leading MP warned Mr Sunak not to force their hand with a confidence vote. “It would be very foolish of him to make it a confidence vote because it would antagonise people. They might then put a [no-confidence] letter in.”Asked if the threshold of 53 no-confidence could be triggered, the MP said: “I think so. A badly watered-down bill will make people consider a letter. It’s existential for the prime minister to get this right.”One right-wing Tory rebel said they knew the names of 18 MPs who had already submitted no-confidence letters to The 1922 Committee, according to The Mirror.Cabinet minister Chris Heaton-Harris played down the chances of Mr Sunak facing a vote on his leadership as “very unlikely”. And Tory chair Richard Holden told reporters: “I think it’d be insanity to do that.”Tory veteran Sir Charles Walker – former 1922 committee chairman – said an election would have to be called if a “ridiculous” vote in Mr Sunak’s leadership was triggered. “If the threshold of 50 or so letters was crossed then the idea of another leadership [vote] is a nonsense – we have to go straight to a general election,” he told the News Agents podcast.Home secretary James Cleverly watching Sunak’s press conference Mr Sunak has to decide how much pressure to put on his MPs before Tuesday. Convention dictates that the PM would either resign or dissolve parliament and call an election if he loses such a vote made into a confidence issue in his government. He also faces a major threat from the One Nation group of Tory moderates, which boasts of around 100 MPs. Centrists are not happy about the bill’s move to disapply the Human Rights Act, and the attempt to stop any court challenging ministers’ insistence that Rwanda is safe.Senior moderates are understood to be undecided about how to vote on Tuesday. A source in the One Nation wing revealed that MPs were “very nervous” – and said the PM’s press conference claim that the courts could not stop ministers had only inflamed opinion.Moderate MP Tobias Ellwood said he would not support the Rwanda bill if there is “any prospect” of breaking international laws. “We uphold international law. We don’t break it,” he told Times Radio – admitting Rwanda was “ripping our party in half”.Mr Sunak said Robert Jenrick – a former Sunak ally who resigned on Wednesday – was “simply not right” to suggest the bill would fail, insisting its move to disapply the Human Rights Act “blocks every single reason that has ever been used to prevent flights”.Suella Braverman denied ‘spreading poison’ to bring Sunak down Sacked home secretary Suella Braverman piled more pressure on Thursday by saying “This bill will fail.” In a tense exchange with BBC Radio 4 host Nick Robinson, Ms Braverman denied trying to oust Mr Sunak by “spreading poison” in the Tory party.One senior Tory MP loyal to Mr Sunak told The Independent that many were “appalled” by Ms Braverman’s attacks and “disappointed” in Mr Jenrick’s move.“It’s a storm in a tea cup,” the MP said on the prospect of right-wingers voting against the bill – predicting they would not be willing to bring the PM down over it. “I’ll be very surprised if they vote against. Why wouldn’t they back it?”But George Osborne said the Tory civil wars had well and truly “reopened”. The former Tory chancellor told his Political Currency podcast: “[Mr Sunak] can’t now claim anymore to have stabilised things [after Boris Johnson and Liz Truss].”Former No 10 strategist Dominic Cummings said Mr Sunak’s position was now “pure farce”. Asked if Mr Cummings was right to claim Rwanda would send more asylum seekers to the UK than the other way around, a No 10 spokesperson said: “No, we don’t think that’s right.” More

Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxGet our free View from Westminster emailBoris Johnson fell silent for three minutes at the Covid inquiry on Thursday morning as he was confronted by all the times he talked about “letting it rip” through the population.The former prime minister has been in largely good spirits responding to questioning from Hugo Keith KC, the probe’s lead counsel.But Mr Johnson looked distinctly uneasy as he was shown five damning diary extracts by Sir Patrick Vallance.The extracts included Sir Patrick’s recollection of Mr Johnson saying the elderly have “had a good innings” and should be allowed to catch the virus. They also showed Mr Johnson saying “get Covid, live longer”, in reference to the average age at which people died from the virus.On a brutal morning for the former PM, here are the key takeaways from his second day at the Covid inquiry:Boris Johnson has backtracked on his witness statementMr Johnson, who quit as an MP before he could be booted out for lying to parliament, has backtracked on his witness statement to the official Covid inquiry.He was grilled by Mr Keith over the claim he knew the controversial Eat Out to Help Out scheme was discussed with top scientists Sir Patrick Vallance and Professor Chris Whitty before it was launched.Having claimed in his written submission to the probe that it was, when questioned he backtracked, saying instead that he “assumed” it must have been.Both Sir Chris and Sir Patrick have said they were blind-sided by the hospitality scheme.Boris Johnson called his own rules “stupid”Covid inquiry counsel Hugo Keith referred to a diary entry in Sir Patrick Vallance’s evening notes “where you (Mr Johnson) exclaim in frustration, but plainly perhaps not to be taken too seriously, ‘Who made these stupid rules?’”Boris Johnson replied: “Yeah.”Mr Keith asked about any debate or discussion around the workability of regulations and any confusion which arose around them.Mr Johnson said: “We did try to make the rules as simple as we could but the problem was the effort to get people to self-isolate, to avoid contact – because of the complexities of human life – became extremely complicated.”Boris Johnson believes Partygate has been misrepresentedMr Johnson mounted an incredible defence of his lockdown-breaching behaviour – and that of Whitehall officials – during the pandemic, saying the Partygate scandal has been mis-represented by the media.The former prime minister said the way repeated gatherings in Downing Street during the pandemic have been presented is a “travesty of the truth”.And Mr Johnson told the Covid inquiry: “The version of events that has entered the popular consciousness about what is supposed to have happened in Downing Street is a million miles from the reality of what actually happened in No10.”He added that some of the representations of what happened have been “absolutely absurd”.Boris Johnson called Partygate backlash “insane” and said: “Let’s smash on.”Mr Johnson admitted that he should have told people to behave better in Downing Street during the pandemic, but added “now we must smash on”. In a December 2021 WhatsApp, as the scandal was growing, Mr Johnson told cabinet secretary Simon Case that he was “really sorry” for the “grief” it was causing him. “This whole business is insane,” he said. Mr Case replied to the PM: “Thanks PM, it is a bit grim, but hopefully it will pass.” And the former prime minister wrote back: “In retrospect we all should have told people – above all [comms chief] Lee Cain – to think about their behaviour in No10 and how it would look.“But now we must smash on.” “Let it rip” was a phrase in “common parlance”, Boris Johnson claimedMr Johnson mounted an emotive defence of his repeated use of the phrase “let it rip” during the pandemic, arguing he was simply trying to “speak for everybody” who was not in the scientific meetings.The former PM claimed the phrase was used “plenty” in conversations with him and said “you would expect me to be talking about that”.He went on to say he “needed to have the counterarguments” to explain to the public why “letting it rip” would be a mistake.Tiers did not work, Boris Johnson admitsThe ex-PM said he was “very sad about it”, but that his tiered local lockdown system did not work. Mr Johnson said it was “worth a try”, but the local restrictions became “invidious” as local areas found themselves in varying degrees of lockdowns. And he was asked by Mr Keith about then health secretary Matt Hancock’s claim that he “knew” the system would not work. But Mr Johnson said he did not remember being told as much by Mr Hancock.Boris Johnson was “absolutely terrified” of OmicronMr Johnson said the Omicron Covid variant was “absolutely terrifying”.“It was very transmissible. And there seemed a real risk that it would do a huge huge amount of damage to people,” Mr Johnson told the Covid inquiry.Boris Johnson thinks he and Nicola Sturgeon “got on very well”The former PM insisted that he and the ex-Scottish first minister “got on very well and had a friendly relationship” – despite a claim from one of his top aides that they “generally didn’t like each other very much”.In his evidence, Mr Johnson’s old chief of staff Lord Lister said: “There was quite a lot of tension between the Prime Minister and the First Minister, they had no real personal relationship of any kind other than that they, I think, generally didn’t like each other very much.”But Mr Johnson told the Covid inquiry he was “sorry to hear Eddie said that”, and insisted he and Ms Sturgeon “got on very well and had a friendly relationship”. More