UK Politics

Boris Johnson faces three more police fines for breaching lockdown at parties in Downing Street, according to reports.Police are set to punish the prime minister for attending a leaving party for his former director of communications, Lee Cain, according to the Daily Telegraph.The event on 13 November “is considered to be the most serious breach of the coronavirus regulations among the events that the prime minister attended,” an unnamed source close to the investigation told the newspaper.Insiders believe Mr Johnson is set to receive at least four fines in total, The Daily Mirror and The Guardian each reported.The reports will fuel growing speculation the prime minister’s position could come under threat when MPs return to Westminster from recess next week.The PM was hit by the reisignation of justice minister David Wolfson, with the outgoing cabinet member criticising both Mr Johnson’s “own conduct” and “the official response to what took place”.The minister quit a day after Mr Johnson was fined by police for attending a party for his birthday during lockdown.But insiders say the event for which the PM has been punished is seen as less serious than others yet to be fully investigated.Those include a May 2020 summer party, a gathering in November in Mr Johnson’s flat with his wife on the day of Dominic Cummings’ departure, and the leaving event Mr Cain.No attendee has yet received a fine for these events, The Guardian reported.“This is not the only fine Johnson is getting,” a source told the Mirror.It is also thought that alcohol was consumed at the event on 13 November, although it is not known whether Mr Johnson had a drink.It is, however, believed he remained at this gathering for some time. This would make it harder for Mr Johnson to argue that had a “reasonable excuse” for being there and that it was a work event.In total, Scotland Yard is investigating 12 events between May 2020 and April last year. Of these, Mr Johnson has been accused of being present at six.The prime minister is also facing parliamentary investigation into whether he misled the Commons, a move which Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker, supports.It is thought that Sir Lindsay is likely to grant a debate as soon as Wednesday next week, when MPs will vote on whether Mr Johnson’s conduct should be referred to the privileges committee to be investigated.The committee, made up of seven MPs, will then decide whether or not Mr Johnson was in contempt of parliament. More

Boris Johnson’s hopes of drawing a line under the Partygate affair with a public apology were dealt a massive blow today as a justice minister quit the government in protest at the prime minister’s failure to resign after being fined for breaking Covid laws.Lord Wolfson said that the “repeated rule-breaking and breaches of the criminal law” in Downing Street could not be allowed to be treated with “constitutional impunity”.The eminent commercial barrister and QC – granted a peerage by Mr Johnson in 2020 when he was appointed to the government – was the first minister to quit over the Partygate scandal, saying that it would not be consistent with his duty towards the rule of law to remain in the prime minister’s administration.Labour said his departure raised questions over the position of justice secretary Dominic Raab, whose position as lord chancellor gives him a special responsibility to uphold the law.Mr Johnson is also braced for further fines, with reports suggesting he faces three more fixed penalty notices over other parties in Downing Street.Police are set to punish the PM for attending a leaving party for his former director of communications, Lee Cain, according to the Daily Telegraph.The event on 13 November “is considered to be the most serious breach of the coronavirus regulations among the events that the prime minister attended,” an unnamed source close to the investigation told the newspaper.Meanwhile, discontent on Tory backbenches over the £50 fines imposed on Mr Johnson and chancellor Rishi Sunak for attending a lockdown-breaching birthday party in No 10 burst into the open, as two MPs called on the PM to resign.Amber Valley MP Nigel Mills said Mr Johnson’s position was “untenable” after he became the first sitting UK prime minister to be found by police to have broken the law.“I don’t think the PM can survive or should survive breaking the rules he put in place,” said Mr Mills. “He’s been fined, I don’t think his position is tenable.”Voters were “rightly angry” over the 12 parties and gatherings in No 10 and Whitehall currently under investigation by police, he said. “When they were observing the very strictest of the rules, people who were making the rules didn’t have the decency to observe them.”Mr Mills said he would “very shortly” be sending a letter of no confidence in Mr Johnson’s leadership to the chair of the Tory backbench 1922 Committee, Sir Graham Brady, who must call a vote if 54 MPs demand one.Meanwhile, the Halifax Courier reported that Calder Valley MP Craig Whittaker had told constituents in a question session on Facebook that both Johnson and Sunak should go.“Through this whole process it hasn’t been particularly clear that the prime minister broke any rules until of course he’s been issued with a fixed penalty notice this week,” said Mr Whittaker. “My expectation is that he and the chancellor should do the right thing and resign.”Mr Whittaker said he would not be sending a letter to Sir Graham. But former minister Sir Gary Streeter, who has already demanded a confidence vote, told The Independent his position was “unchanged” following Mr Johnson’s apology.And another ex-minister, Caroline Nokes, said in a letter to a constituent: “I have already been very clear that I believe the PM’s conduct fell far short of what my constituents have every right to expect. I do not need to write a letter of no confidence to the chair of the 1922 Committee, mine was in a very long time ago.”In a letter to a constituent sent by North Wiltshire MP James Gray in January and seen by The Independent, the veteran backbencher said that if allegations against Mr Johnson and senior colleagues were proven “our support for them will, without doubt, disappear”.He today declined to say whether he stood by the message, saying only that he had “no comment at all” to make.Rumbles of discontent within Tory ranks were reflected in a deeply critical editorial in The Spectator magazine, often seen as a bible for the party faithful and formerly edited by the prime minister.The article warned that Mr Johnson cannot survive as PM simply by appealing to his position as a “war leader” during the crisis in Ukraine, as several cabinet ministers suggested in messages of support on Tuesday. A resignation by Mr Sunak would be fatal to his position and he cannot simply “bat away” calls for him to quit over Partygate.Instead, it said his future depends on his ability to address the cost of living crisis facing the country. And in a scathing judgment, it said: “So far, he appears to have few ideas. This is the real threat to his position: that he has a massive majority but not much idea of what to do with it and that whatever action he is taking pushes Britain to a high-tax, high-debt, high-spending future that many people voted Tory to avoid. “If he is forced out, it will be for this reason. “ In a letter announcing his resignation, Lord Wolfson said he had come to the conclusion that the “scale, context and nature” of lockdown breaches at No 10 meant that it would be “inconsistent with the rule of law for that conduct to pass with constitutional impunity, especially when many in society complied with the rules at great personal cost, and others were fined or prosecuted for similar, and sometimes apparently more trivial, offences”.But he added that it was the official response to the police findings – which yesterday saw both Mr Johnson and chancellor Rishi Sunak apologise but resist calls for their resignation – that forced him to leave the government.“It is not just a question of what happened in Downing Street, or your own conduct,” said the Tory peer. “It is also, and perhaps more so, the official response to what took place.” He added: “I have concluded that, consistently with both my ministerial and professional obligations to support and uphold the rule of law, I have no option other than to tender my resignation”.Although his ministerial rank is junior, the resignation of such a high-flying commercial silk has added significance because of the suggestion that the prime minister’s determination to cling onto power is regarded as constitutionally improper amid the senior echelons of the legal system.He told Johnson: “Justice may often be a matter of courts and procedure, but the rule of law is something else – a constitutional principle which at its root means that everyone in a state, and indeed the state itself, is subject to the law,”Labour shadow justice secretary Steve Reed said that Lord Wolfson’s resignation raised questions over the position of Mr Raab.“Congratulations to justice minister Lord Wolfson for taking a principled stand,” said Mr Reed. “But what does this mean for lord chancellor Dominic Raab, who’s constitutionally charged with upholding the law but is instead condoning law-breaking?” More

Actor Dan Stevens shocked viewers by responding to a question about his latest work by launching a savage attack on Boris Johnson, branding the prime minister a “criminal” who shold resign after he was fined for breaking his own Covid laws. The Downton Abbey star appeared on the BBC’s The One Show to discuss Gaslit, a new US drama series – about the Watergate scandal – which he stars in opposite Hollywood giants Julia Roberts and Sean Penn.Focusing on some of the lesser-told stories that brought Richard Nixon’s criminality to light, the limited series, produced by Universal, predominantly centres on Nixon’s infamously loyal attorney general John Mitchell and his wife, Martha, who became a whistleblower. Opening the interview this evening, presenter Alex Jones quickly surmised the programme’s plot before introducing “our lovely Dan here”.Asking him to explain how Gaslit varied from the many dramatisations of Watergate, Ms Jones said: “The series you’re doing, what’s the take on it?”“Well, what you’ve got is a criminal for a leader, who is wrapped up in a messy war, embroiled in a stupid scandal and surrounded by ambitious idiots, and really should resign,” Mr Stevens, 39, said.He then paused and pretended to look confused before continuing: “No, I’m sorry that’s the intro to Boris Johnson. I’ve just said the intro to Boris Johnson, I’m so sorry.”Both Ms Jones and her co-presenter Jermaine Jenas looked speechless when Mr Stevens made the remark, with Mr Jenas having to turn away from the camera to let out a chuckle.Gasps could also be heard in the BBC studio but Mr Stevens swiftly composed himself and got back to promoting his new series. “No, Gaslit takes an interesting approach to Watergate, you know, it foregrounds a lot of characters that are often swept aside,” he said. “In particular, the character Martha Mitchell, who was married to the attorney general [and is] played by the wonderful Julia Roberts.”The off-script moment sent ripples through social media, with thousands of Twitter users instantly responding to Mr Stevens’ remarks. “A round of applause for Dan Stevens,” fellow actor Nicholas Pegg said.“Sometimes, heroes appear where you least expect to find them!” Irish journalist Andrew Quinn, posted, adding: Dan Stevens, you absolute legend!”Another Twitter user told her followers: “This is the best thing you will watch all week.”,Meanwhile, others spared a moment for those behind-the-scenes. “You just know that the producers briefed him to ‘keep it light’ before going on too,” John Cullen said on Twitter. Mr Stevens’ comments came a day after Mr Johnson, along with his wife, Carrie, and the chancellor Rishi Sunak were all fined by the Metropolitan Police over a surprise birthday event held for the PM in No 10’s Cabinet Room during lockdown. All have apologised and paid their fixed penalty notices but the prime minister and Mr Sunak have faced calls to resign. More

Former Tory minister Edwina Currie has been criticised for a “callous” tweet to a grieving man as she sought to defend Boris Johnson over breaking his own Covid laws.The post came after the ex-MP replied to a post by the television presenter Rylan Clark during a busy Wednesday morning in which Ms Currie defended the prime minister on both social media and ITV’s Good Morning Britain.Mr Johnson, along with his wife, Carrie, and the chancellor Rishi Sunak were all fined by the Metropolitan Police on Tuesday over a surprise birthday event held for the PM in No 10’s Cabinet Room during lockdown. All have apologised and paid their fixed penalty notices but the prime minister and Mr Sunak have faced calls to resign.“He’s officially broke the law,” Mr Clark wrote. “That’s it ain’t it?”Ms Currie replied: “No, it isn’t. Shouldn’t have happened, but it’s done now. In case you hadn’t noticed, this all happened two years ago. Putin is laughing at us. Get real.”Benjamin Cohen, the founder and chief executive of LGBT+ news website Pink News, then responded to Ms Currie’s apparent attempt to wash over the latest development in the No 10 lockdown parties’ scandal, reminding her of the pain Covid bereaved families faced during the pandemic.“Two years ago, I had to say goodbye to my grandad over FaceTime and wasn’t allowed to hug my mum at his funeral,” Mr Cohen wrote. “This isn’t something that we are likely to ever forget or forgive.”Ms Currie snapped back: “But it won’t bring them back either, Ben.” She ended the message with an emoji of a crying face.The blunt message generated more than 2,000 responses by Wednesday afternoon, with many calling Ms Currie out for being “horrible” or “out of touch” with the public. “What a horrific response to this bereaved man,” a woman named Chrissie Thomas said.Meanwhile, another woman, Elfie, replied: “There’s a great big swinging brick where Edwina’s heart should be.”“Eggwina has never been one for reading the mood of the nation. Jeez!” one account, named RatioWatch, tweeted. The popular nickname used to refer to Ms Currie was coined in 1988 when she resigned from her post as a junior health minister, under Margaret Thatcher, over the salmonella-in-eggs controversy.Another critic of Ms Currie’s, the London School of Economics’ Prof Louise Locock, said of the tweet to Mr Cohen: “That is a shockingly callous thing to say.”Speaking to Good Morning Britain earlier, around the same time she took to Twitter, Ms Currie made it clear she “really doesn’t care” about the fines being issued to senior government figures who broke their own coronavirus laws.“What matters for me and what matters for millions of people in this country is the results we get from our politicians, and the results we get from Boris are pretty good,” she said when asked by presenter Ranvir Singh to clarify whether she believed Mr Johnson had broken Covid rules or the ministerial code.Ms Singh and her co-presenter Richard Madeley went on to say Ms Currie’s “frank” remarks were a worrying sign of “where we are today on our political climate”. More

A government fund designed to replace EU grants lost due to Brexit has been blasted as “catastrophic” amid claims that it will cut support for disadvantaged areas by more than 40 per cent over the coming three years.The Conservative manifesto for the 2019 general election promised to at least match the money provided to less wealthy areas through EU structural support.But details of the Shared Prosperity Fund released today by levelling up secretary Michael Gove show that it will hand out £2.6bn over three years, but will not reach the £1.5bn annual total provided by Brussels until 2024-5.Mr Gove said that the fund will start at £400m this year and only gradually rise to the previous EU level because needy regions will still be receiving funds from Brussels until the end of 2024.But the Northern Powerhouse Partnership – chaired by former Tory chancellor George Osborne – said that this was unfair, as the EU money related to projects which were already under way and would not have been deducted from funds for the next two years if the UK were still in the EU.Welsh first minister Mark Drakeford said that the nation stands to lose out by £1bn over three years, while having less say over how the money is spent. He said: “This is not levelling up, it’s levelling down.”And NPP director Henri Murison said the shortfall amounted to a 43 per cent cut over three years, while authorities will lose the long-term security provided by the seven-year allocations offered by the EU.“We were promised that no nation would be worse off post Brexit but, when you take out the smoke and mirrors, the data doesn’t lie,” he said.“These funds helped young people find work, supported small businesses and backed vital medical research – cutting it will have catastrophic consequences for our economy.”Announcing how money from the fund will be shared out over the next three years, Mr Gove said it would “help to unleash the creativity and talent of communities that have for too long been overlooked and undervalued”.“We have taken back control of our money from the EU and we are empowering those who know their communities best to deliver on their priorities,” he said.But the NPP said that the post-Brexit fund was worth an average £873m annually over the next three years, compared with £1.5bn a year from the EU between 2014 and 2020, and was being delivered in a way which “encourages short termism”.This would mean, for example, the Tees Valley receiving £13m less and Greater Manchester £26m less, allowing for inflation, they said.“Today is not a recipe for success,” said the Partnership. “It’s a serious blow for levelling up.”Mr Drakeford said: “Despite repeated promises, the UK government’s announcement today leaves Wales with less say over less money.“We’ll lose over £1bn that could have been used to grow the economy and support our most disadvantaged communities. This is not levelling up, it’s levelling down.”Labour’s shadow levelling up secretary Lisa Nandy said the announcement amounted to “another broken promise” from the government.“We don’t have full figures as the government haven’t published them, but the direction of travel is obvious – and frustratingly familiar,” she said. “Big promises to ‘level up’ don’t mean much when you’re cutting money from our most disadvantaged communities.”Meanwhile, the Institute for Fiscal Studies think tank said that government had missed an opportunity to get rid of “arbitrary” features in the EU scheme which created “cliff-edge” disparities in funding, with far higher levels of support going to Cornwall and west Wales than other areas which are only marginally wealthier, like South Yorkshire, Lincolnshire, or Durham.“The UK government has ‘taken back control’ only to stick to an arbitrary, poorly designed, out-of-date funding allocation mechanism,” said the IFS’s David Phillips and Ben Zaranko.Mr Gove said the fund could be used to regenerate rundown high streets, fight antisocial behaviour and crime, or help more people into decent jobs.Local authorities will be required to submit an investment plan setting out how they intend to use it, which will then have to be agreed with the government to unlock funds.For England’s 38 local enterprise partnership areas, as well as for Scotland and Wales, the government said the fund will match EU funding in real terms and then within each area an index of need will be used to allocate funds to each local authority. Northern Ireland will receive a single allocation and will draw up a single investment plan for all of the country.“Bureaucracy will be slashed, and there will be far more discretion over what money is spent on,” the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities said.“EU requirements for match funding, which impacted on poorer places, will be abolished. Instead of regional agencies, funding decisions will be made by elected leaders in local government, with input from local Members of Parliament and local businesses and voluntary groups.” More

The first independent investigation into allegations of Russian violations of humanitarian law in Ukraine has found evidence of multiple war crimes. A preliminary report by the Organisation for Security and Cooperation (OSCE) in Europe found that the bombardment of a children’s hospital and theatre in the besieged port city of Mariupol amounted to war crimes, as did the forcible removal of thousands of Ukrainians to Russia.And investigators said there were “credible reports” of civilians – including journalists – being detained by Russian troops and subjected to ill treatment which amounted to torture.While the 99-page OSCE report is not legally binding, Western officials said it was the first step in an investigative process which could lead to charges at the International Criminal Court (ICC).It was “inevitable” that further inquiries will be launched to look at atrocities uncovered as Russian forces withdrew from Kyiv suburbs like Bucha and Irpin and the missile strike on Kramatorsk railway station, which emerged too late to be included in this report, said one official.The UK’s ambassador to the OSCE, Neil Bush, welcomed the report, which he said had confirmed British concerns about “clear patterns of international humanitarian law (IHL) violations by the Russian forces in their conduct of hostilities”.“We must, as an international community, hold accountable those responsible for the atrocities that have been committed in Ukraine, including military commanders and other individuals in the Putin regime,” said Mr Bush.“Soldiers and commanders who issue or follow illegal orders need to understand that their actions will be documented, and they will be held to account. Justice will be served.”The OSCE report was commissioned by 45 of the organisation’s 57 member states, including the UK, against Russian opposition. It covered the period from 24 February until 1 April.It found that the 9 March bombing of Mariupol’s children’s hospital and maternity unit was “a clear violation of IHL and those responsible for it have committed a war crime”. The 16 March air strike which killed around 300 people sheltering in the city’s theatre was “most likely… an egregious violation of IHL” and those who ordered or executed it committed a war crime.The report said that Russian forces had engaged in a “widespread and systematic pattern of damage to Ukrainian healthcare facilities by indiscriminate bombardment and in some cases intentional targeting”.It dismissed Russian claims that healthcare facilities were only hit by error, saying: “While it may be that one hospital was used by the defender for military purposes or destroyed by mistake, it is hardly possible that this is the case when 50 hospitals are destroyed.”“Numerous” attacks on hospitals and ambulances implied violations of the obligation under the laws of war to respect and protect wounded and sick people and medical personnel, said the report.The report also referenced cases of extra judicial killings, including local government head Yuriy Prylypko in the village of Gostomel, in the Kyiv region, and volunteers, Ruslan Karpenko and Ivan Zorya, who were “shot dead by Russian soldiers while delivering food and medicine to local residents”.It cited “credible allegations” of civilians being used as human shields, as well as gender-based violence including rape, sexual violence or sexual harassment by Russian troops.The report said that isolated violations had occurred on the Ukrainian side, but that abuses committed by the Russians were “by far larger in scale and nature”. Ukrainian authorities had given commitments that any allegations of abuses by their forces would be investigated and perpetrators brought to justice. More