UK Politics

Victory for Boris Johnson at the next general election would be a “disaster” for the Conservative Party and Britain and would hasten the break-up of the United Kingdom, former Tory chairman Chris Patten has said.Lord Patten said that under Johnson, the party was no longer Conservative but English Nationalist and said he would like to see a coalition centre-ground government after the next election.He blasted the Johnson administration for “seediness and mendacity” and said that culture secretary Nadine Dorries’ assaults on the BBC made him want to “throw up”.And he told LBC radio that the prime minister was “giving in to the mob” over Northern Ireland with his threats to tear up the post-Brexit agreement he struck with the EU in 2019.Lord Patten, who chaired the Tories from 1990-92 and was chair of the BBC from 2011-14, said that Mr Johnson was leading a government that was both “populist and unpopular” and whose policies were driven by the priority of keeping the prime minister in office.“There are still some people, I think, who are Conservatives, but I don’t think it’s a Conservative government,” he told interviewer Andrew Marr.“I think it’s an English nationalist government and … it’s unfortunately both populist and unpopular, which is a terrible combination.“Every move is determined, as far as the Prime Minister is concerned, by whether it’s appealing to his right wing to keep him in office. That’s part of the reason for, I think, the general sense of seediness and mendacity about the government.”He issued a warning to the party of the dangers of keeping Johnson in post to fight the election expected in 2024.“For me, the Conservatives, unless they change very radically, winning the next election would be a disaster for them and for the rest of us,” said Lord Patten. “Because I don’t think we have a Conservative government at the moment. I think, as I’ve said, we have a English Nationalist government with all the consequences – and one that you can’t trust.”A second term for Johnson would “hasten the break-up of the Union”, making it more likely that Scotland and Northern Ireland would leave the UK, he said.“You want to break up the Union, you send Boris Johnson up to Scotland,” said Lord Patten.Instead, he said he would prefer to see “a coalition which hold the Union together” led by “a decent, competent, generous, spirited, sensible political force in the middle – which nobody is, at present, providing”. He accused Mr Johnson of “playing fast and loose” with the Good Friday Agreement by threatening to override the Northern Ireland Protocol which he negotiated and agreed with the EU less than three years ago.Lord Patten, who played an important role in the peace process as head of the Independent Commission on Policing in Northern Ireland, said that Mr Johnson’s confrontational stance on the protocol was driven by the desire to curry favour with the DUP and Tory right-wingers, rather than the national interest, and had sacrificed the UK’s hopes of winning the trust of Brussels.“To play to the hardcore in the DUP really is dangerous,” he said. “You’re actually giving into to the mob in a really significant and unattractive way.“If they trusted us more, the EU would be prepared to go even further, I think, in negotiating reasonable terms. I think they’re prepared to do that to a considerable extent anyway, whether or not they trust us, but the fact that they don’t trust us makes it all the more difficult.“Why should we expect them to trust this government when we don’t trust this government?”Lord Patten, who campaigned for Remain in the 2016 EU referendum, said he expected the UK “one day” to return to the single market.“It cannot make sense to lock yourself out of your closest and most significant market,” he said. “And that’s unfortunately, what we’ve done.”He was scathing about the government’s threats to the future of the BBC licence fee, saying that people around the world would think the UK had “lost our marbles” if it undermined the corporation’s ability to deliver trusted and balanced broadcasting in this way.“The words ‘Nadine Dorries’ and ‘culture’ should not appear in the same sentence,” said Lord Patten.“It’s an appalling idea that this minister should be threatening the BBC and that others should be going along with it, trying to box the BBC into giving special favours in the way the news is treated, to the government.“We should have nothing to do with it, and we should make a real fuss about it.“It is the sort of issue which would make even old-fashioned Tories like me want to throw up and see the end of this government – because it would be really bad for Britain and our identity and our integrity as democratic, as a democracy.” More

Transport secretary Grant Shapps dismissed the idea of ministers talking the unions over rail strikes – saying there was not even a “one in a million” chance he could have helped prevent disruption.The minister said there was “nothing we can do” to stop Britain’s biggest rail strike in 30 years, which kicked off on Tuesday morning when tens of thousands of staff walked out in a dispute over pay and jobs.Under fire for failing to intervene in talks, Mr Shapps insisted that ministerial engagement would have “made no difference” other than providing “a bit of theatre”.He told Sky News on Tuesday: “If I thought there was even a one in a million chance that my being in the room helped, then I’d be there,” before adding that his presence at talks “wouldn’t work out too well”.Mr Shapps said ministers had not been involved in rail talks “since the 1970s” when deals were agreed between the then-Labour PM and unions over “beer and sandwiches”.In a heated exchange with Sky News host Kay Burley, Mr Shapps accused her of “falling” for a Labour and union “stunt” on the idea he failed to engage in talks.“I understand you want us to go back to beer and sandwiches in the 1970s,” the minister told the presenter, before adding: “This is a stunt by Labour and the unions that’s you’re falling for.”Mr Shapps also said union leader and the rail companies were “the ones with the technical details and “the mandate” for negotiations, which failed to reach a last-minute compromise on Monday.The transport secretary vowed to “push on” with changes the law aimed at limiting rail union power by requiring a minimum level of service to be run and enable the use of agency workers. “We are going to ensure that the law is firmly on the passengers’ side,” he said.Asked whether the planned legislation would allow the hiring of strike-breaking agency staff, Mr Shapps told LBC: “Technically, it could, but I think it’s unlikely. In most cases, that would happen because a lot of the jobs are extremely technical … It is more about transferable skills than it is about the agency.”RMT general secretary Mick Lynch has accused Grant Shapps of “spouting nonsense” with plans to allow agency staff to replace striking workers.The union chief also warned that the dispute could continue for months, adding: “It is clear that the Tory government, after slashing £4 billion of funding from National Rail and Transport for London, has now actively prevented a settlement to this dispute.”The RMT pulled the plug on last-ditch talks with employers on Monday, rejecting a maximum pay rise of 3%. The union also blamed ministers for stopping Network Rail and train operating companies from negotiating freely on pay, jobs and conditions.But the Department for Transport dismissed the claim as “absolutely not true” – and insisted that a £2bn shortfall in resources for the national network that the RMT attributed to government cuts was down to Covid.Mr Shapps has accused RMT leader Mick Lynch of wanting to transform himself into one of the “1970s union barons”.He told LBC radio on Tuesday: “I can see what’s happening here, their leader says he is nostalgic for the days of union powers and he’s determined to turn himself back into one of those 1970s union barons.”Meanwhile, unions reacted with fury to reports Labour has banned its frontbenchers from picket lines, in a memo leaked to PoliticsHome.Sharon Graham, general secretary of Unite, said: “The Labour Party was founded by the trade unions and we expect Labour MPs to defend workers, by words and by actions.” More

Rail unions have accused the government of preventing the resolution of a dispute that will see millions of passengers’ journeys disrupted from Tuesday in the most significant strikes to hit the network since the 1980s.The RMT pulled the plug on last-ditch talks with employers on Monday, blaming ministers for stopping Network Rail and train operating companies from negotiating freely on pay, jobs and conditions.But Grant Shapps’ Department for Transport dismissed the claim as “absolutely not true”, insisting that a £2bn shortfall in resources for the national network that the RMT attributed to government cuts was in fact the result of reduced passenger numbers following Covid.Just 20 per cent of normal services are expected to run across the country on the strike days of Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday this week, with trains running primarily on main lines and for only 11 hours a day. Massive disruption is also expected on the days in between.Nightmare journeys are expected not only for commuters trying to get to work, but also music fans heading for the Glastonbury festival and school pupils taking GCSEs.Boris Johnson meanwhile is expected to argue ahead of a Cabinet meeting on Tuesday that unions are “harming the very people they claim to be helping” by going ahead with the biggest outbreak of industrial action on the railways for a generation.“I want to be clear – we are not loading higher fares on passengers to carry on paying for working practices that date back in some cases to the 19th century,” the prime minister said in a statement on Monday evening. The walkouts by members of the RMT and Unite also looked likely to kick off a “summer of discontent”, with unions representing workers ranging from teachers to barristers to nurses also threatening industrial action.The first cancelled services came on Monday evening, as the sleeper service from London to Fort William was called off.Unions are thought to be seeking pay rises of around 7 per cent, while employers’ offers are understood to be in the range of 2-3 per cent at a time when inflation is expected to reach 11 per cent in the coming months.The RMT said an offer received from train operators on Monday was “unacceptable” and there was no further offer from Network Rail following one which was rejected last Friday.General secretary Mick Lynch said: “The RMT national executive committee has now found both sets of proposals to be unacceptable and it is now confirmed that the strike action scheduled this week will go ahead.“It is clear that the Tory government, after slashing £4bn of funding from National Rail and Transport for London, has now actively prevented a settlement to this dispute.“The rail companies have now proposed pay rates that are massively under the relevant rates of inflation, coming on top of the pay freezes of the past few years.“At the behest of the government, companies are also seeking to implement thousands of job cuts and have failed to give any guarantee against compulsory redundancies.”There was anger over plans announced by business secretary Kwasi Kwarteng to repeal laws that prevent employers from hiring agency workers to fill gaps left by striking workers.The TUC warned that the move would breach international law, while representatives of employment agencies said they want the ban to stay, to save them from being pressured to send temporary staff into “hostile and potentially dangerous situations”.A source close to Mr Kwarteng acknowledged the change would make little difference to the rail dispute, as it would prove impossible to recruit agency workers to skilled and safety-critical roles such as train driver and signalman, but said it will help employers deal with further threatened strikes later in the summer.Mr Shapps told the Commons that ministers were working with the government’s civil contingencies secretariat to keep crucial supply chains open during the industrial action.But he warned: “There will be massive disruption and we are advising people not to travel unless absolutely necessary.”Insisting that hiking pay to match price rises would simply fuel inflation and undermine the value of workers’ wages for years to come, Mr Shapps said that the strikes were “not about pay, but about outdated unions opposing progress”.In a message to rail workers, he said: “Your union bosses have got you striking under false pretences and rather than protecting your jobs, they are endangering them and the railway’s future.”He cited an agreement dating back to 1919 that makes Sunday work voluntary for some rail workers, which he said had led to staff shortages during major football tournaments.And he said that union insistence on line inspections being carried out in person by track workers had prevented the introduction of quicker and more efficient camera checks, which he said would remove staff from dangerous situations where deaths have occurred.But Labour’s Louise Haigh accused the transport secretary of a “dereliction of duty”, telling MPs that he had “not lifted a finger” to prevent the strikes.Ms Haigh said Mr Shapps had “tied the hands of those at the table” by failing to provide train operating companies with a mandate to negotiate on pay.“These talks were a sham because ministers have set them up to fail,” said the shadow transport secretary. “They can’t be resolved unless he is at the table.”Conservative MP Jake Berry said: “The only way out of a dispute is via negotiation. I would call on all parties, including the government, to get around the tableBut Mr Shapps accused Labour of wanting to go back to the Seventies-style “beer and sandwiches at No 10” approach to negotiating with unions. He insisted that ministerial involvement in talks between unions and employers would be a “distraction”.Representing operating companies, the chair of the Rail Delivery Group, Steve Montgomery, said: “We are very disappointed that the RMT leadership has decided to reject our offer and press ahead with disruptive industrial action.“With passenger numbers still at around 80 per cent of pre-pandemic levels the industry remains committed to giving a fair deal on pay while taking no more than its fair share from taxpayers.“This can only be achieved by making improvements – like offering better services on a Sunday – that reflect the changing needs of passengers so we can attract more back.” More

Claims that Boris Johnson wanted to appoint his lover to a government job were heard ministers as far back as 2018, a diary entry suggests.A story published in the Times newspaper over the weekend claimed Carrie Johnson, then Carrie Symonds, was set to be made a special advisor at the foreign office on a six-figure salary. But despite publishing the story in its print edition the newspaper removed it from its subsequent digital edition and did not publish it on its website. The newspaper is yet to comment on the move.Downing Street has confirmed that it played a part in having the story pulled.A spokesperson for Carrie Johnson has categorically denied the claims, while a No 10 source has described it as a “grubby, discredited story”.But it is not the first time the allegations have appeared. The story appeared in a critical biography of Carrie Johnson by the Conservative donor and peer Lord Ashcroft.The claim was also mentioned in a diary kept by Alan Duncan, who was at the time a minister of state at the foreign office.In his published diaries he noted on Sunday 22nd April 2018: “Apparently Carrie Symonds, head of press in Conservative HQ, is due to become a SPAD in the FCO. It’s the first I’ve heard of it.”The original story published by the Times claimed that the idea fell apart when Mr Johnson’s closest advisers learned of the idea to hire Ms Symonds.At the time Mr Johnson was married to Marina Wheeler, a barrister.If it existed, the alleged plan never came to fruition and Mr Duncan, who has now retired, did not mention it again.Ms Johnson was previously known as Carrie Symonds before marrying the prime minister. She worked at Conservative head office. More

Parliament is set to vote on a Labour plan to grant MPs on a cross-party select committee new powers to hold Boris Johnson and his ministers to account following the exit of his ethics adviser.Lord Geidt quit last week as the independent adviser on ministers’ interests – saying the PM had put him in an “impossible and odious position”.Mr Johnson is considering not replacing his ethics watchdog, with No 10 saying there would be a review into how best to manage the “vitally important” function and admitting the position could be abolished.Labour’s proposal would hand new powers to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Select Committee (PACAC) to appoint its own ethics adviser on alleged ministerial code breaches if the role is unfilled.Keir Starmer’s party will force a vote on Tuesday on the motion, which would give the committee’s ethics adviser the ability to launch investigations if Lord Geidt is not replaced within two months.Angela Rayner, Labour’s deputy leader, said it would amount to putting No 10 in “special measures” to stop Mr Johnson “running roughshod over the rules, dodging accountability, and degrading standards in public life”.“The prime minister has driven both of his own hand-picked ethics advisers to resign in despair in just two years, leaving an ethical vacuum in Downing Street,” she said.Challenging Tory MPs to back the motion tomorrow, she said: “Labour’s proposal would ensure that a cross-party group of MPs is given powers to step in and monitor this rogue prime minister’s behaviour until a new, genuinely independent adviser is confirmed.”It comes as culture secretary Nadine Dorries said voters do not “give a fig” about the resignation of Boris Johnson’s independent ethics adviser, Lord Geidt.The Johnson ally – who also denied “fancying” the prime minister – mocked the departing peer, calling him “Lord Geddit”. Ms Dorries claimed that he had constantly complained about the amount of work he had to do.Lord Geidt said his resignation last week had been prompted by the PM’s willingness to breach international law.In a second letter to explain his shock decision, the official said details of a row over steel tariffs were a “distraction” from his real motivation to leave his position.He said was unwilling to endorse the government’s openness to breaking its international obligations, suggesting his anger at Mr Johnson’s attempt to override the Northern Ireland protocol.Lord Geidt became the second independent adviser to quit his post during Mr Johnson’s premiership.Sir Alex Allan quit in November 2020 when the PM kept home secretary Priti Patel, accused of bullying, in her post against his advice. More

Rail workers are going on strike this week over pay and redundancies, with planned stoppages on Tuesday, Friday, and Saturday expected to cause disruption throughout the week.As well as avoiding redundancies across the industry, the RMT says workers’ wages should keep up with inflation, which has soared to a record 40-year high of 9 per cent.If they are unsuccessful, the wages of workers on the railway would be set to fall in real terms.Many workers across the economy with less bargaining power face this prospect in the coming months, but as rail workers have managed to unionise, they are well-placed to try and keep the value of their wages.The question of how much railway workers earn is quite complicated, particularly in the context of this strike and those participating. As in any industry, different roles and different levels of seniority earn different salaries.This week’s action does not include drivers, who are represented by the Aslef union.Drivers are some of the most well-paid workers on the railway and earn more than most of their colleagues, reflecting their senior role.This fact means that figures quoted by the government in the past about how much rail workers earn are misleading.Grant Shapps, the transport secretary, claimed in parliament that rail workers earn an average of £44,000 a year.However this figure, which the Office for National Statistics puts more exactly at £43,747 includes workers like drivers who are not going on strike.It also includes people constructing trains, who are not directly employed by network rail or train operating companies but work for companies like Bombardier or Hitachi. This group also bring up the average, earning on average more than £44,000.The other categories in the ONS’s calculation are rail travel assistants like guards and station staff, who are paid an average of £33,310, and rail construction and maintenance operatives who are paid £34,998. These two groups constitute a large bulk of the workers going on strike.Unlike the government, the RMT puts the average salary at £33,000. The union’s figures exclude train drivers, who are not going on strike and are represented by a different union, Aslef.But the RMT also says 10,000 cleaners are represented by the union, alongside other lower-paid staff who are not classified as rail workers in the official statistics despite being included in the dispute. According to the BBC’s Reality Check service, “it seems likely that if you add a number of low-paid staff such as cleaners to the calculation then you could get the average down to about £33,000”, once train drivers are also excluded.Ultimately, however much rail workers earn and whichever figure is taken, they will be seeing a real-terms cut in their pay unless they can negotiate a new pay offer. Unlike most workers they are well-unionised and better placed to resist pay cuts. More

Recruitment firms have attacked Boris Johnson’s plan to tear up laws to prevent the use of strike-busting agency staff – warning it will break international commitments.The head of the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, which represents more than 3,000 agencies, also warned the idea would fail to avert the rail strikes and would only “prolong” the bitter dispute.Legislation is expected this week to repeal the ban – introduced in 1973 by Edward Heath’s Conservative government – as a ‘Summer of Discontent’ looms.The move was promised in the 2019 Conservative election manifesto and the cabinet is believed to have approved Kwasi Kwarteng, the business secretary, pressing ahead.But Neil Carberry, the Confederation’s chief executive, said: “The agency sector as a whole does not want to be involved in this. We are very opposed to this plan.”He said many leading firms had made a “global commitment not to replace striking workers” – and pointed to the backlash if they did what ministers want.“Look at what happened to a couple of agencies that got inadvertently drawn into the P&O case a few months ago and the damage that did to those agencies business,” he told BBC Radio 4.Mr Carberry said agencies did not, in any case, have spare staff willing to cross picket lines and face the anger of striking workers – and would be “worried” about their safety if they did.He also highlighted “cold fury” that there had been no consultation over the law to end the ban – which will come into force in July, The Independent understands.“We think this policy won’t work, we don’t think it will deliver the workers the government wants,” the chief executive warned, adding: “It is only going to prolong the dispute, it’s not going to resolve it.”Huw Merriman, the Conservative chair of the Commons transport committee, also dismissed the idea that strike-breaking could solve the rail dispute.“Many of those who will go on strike are in skilled areas. You just cannot replace without going on 12 months’ training for a signalman,” he pointed out.Mr Merriman questioned why the government is dragging its heels on a separate plan to require a “minimum service level” during strikes in key industries, such as rail.The idea was floated many months ago, by the transport secretary Grant Shapps – but is now not expected to come forward this year, because it requires primary legislation.The Trades Union Congress also attacked the plan for strike-busting staff, warning it would put them in “an appalling situation” and “poison industrial relations”.“Just a few months ago, Grant Shapps slammed P&O for replacing experienced workers with agency staff. But now he’s proposing to do the same on railways,” said Paul Nowak, the TUC’s deputy general secretary. More

The government is facing criticism after admitting it has still had zero meetings with unions on the eve of Britain’s biggest rail strike in a generation.Ministers have been accused of a “dereliction of duty” after deciding not to intervene in talks between unions and employers, despite calls for them to play a role.The Department for Transport confirmed on Monday afternoon ahead of the strike that ministers did not believe it was their responsibility to wade into the dispute.40,000 rail workers across 13 train operators and infrastructure manager Network Rail will walk out on Tuesday, Thursday and Friday, with knock-on disruption expected for the whole week.The strike covers roles like cleaners, guards and maintenance workers, but not train drivers who are represented by their own separate union.Workers want their pay rates to keep up with inflation, and are fighting redundancies. In a written parliamentary answer transport minister Wendy Morton said: “There have be no meetings between ministers and officials at the RMT union to discuss rail matters since 13 May 2022. “The Minister for Aviation, Maritime and Security met with industry stakeholders, including the RMT, to discuss the seafarer protection nine-point plan on 9 June.”The rail disputes are between individual employers and the trade unions and it would not be prudent for Government to intervene in this relationship. “We encourage meaningful discussions and for the trade unions to return to the negotiating table in order to end these rail strikes which impact businesses, users and the general public.”The DfT confirmed on Monday that the answer, issued on Thursday 16 June, was still current as of Monday ahead of the stoppage.Downing Street said on Monday that it “wouldn’t be helpful” for ministers to get involved. Prime Minister’s official spokesman said: “Talks are continuing today but the Government won’t be taking part in them.”The spokesman added that train operators believed it was not “the Government’s place to be at the table and it would not be helpful to the ongoing discussions to insert the Government into the negotiating process at this stage”.The Trade Union Congress has called on ministers to play a positive role in moving talks to a solution.TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady said: “The Government has the power to help end this dispute.”Mick Lynch, RMT Union General Secretary, told Sky News on Sunday: “We are looking for a pay rise which reflects the cost-of-living. “At the time of the Network Rail pay deal, which should have been done in December, it was 7.1 per cent, the retail price index. Let’s not forget that those members didn’t get a pay rise last year either.”Shadow transport secretary, Louise Haigh said: “Ministers have the power to settle this dispute, so it is a dereliction of duty that they are refusing to even hold talks.”“It is for the government to avoid these strikes and the disruption to the public. But it is becoming clearer by the day, ministers would rather provoke this dispute than lift a finger to resolve it.” More