UK Politics

A hoax video call with defence secretary, Ben Wallace, has surfaced after Britain blamed Vladimir Putin’s Russia for several hoaxes targeting government ministers in the hope of securing sensitive or embarrassing information.Mr Wallace suggested the invasion of Ukraine “must be going so badly for the Kremlin” as it resorted to releasing “video fakes” as the footage was published on Monday evening.Home secretary, Priti Patel, has also acknowledged having spoken to imposters posing as the Ukrainian prime minister, while an unsuccessful attempt was also made to target culture secretary, Nadine Dorries.An “official teaser” of the call with Mr Wallace appeared on a YouTube account claiming it was a “video-prank” with “Vovan and Lexus”, a pair previously attributed to a hoax aimed at the Duke of Sussex.Mr Wallace is shown speaking from Poland as the caller, purporting to be Denys Shmyhal, says they want to continue a “nuclear programme” to protect itself from Russia.A Ministry of Defence source said the video was “garbage”, adding: “It’s a doctored clip.“What you don’t hear is the defence secretary also saying that the UK can’t have anything to do with alleged Ukrainian nuclear ambitions, because the UK is committed to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.”Mr Wallace did not appear to say anything particularly embarrassing or alarming in the video, but it did tout a “full interview” within “a few days”.It was understood discussions were under way with YouTube to get the video removed.Mr Wallace said at the time of the incident last week he believed Russia was to blame and Downing Street has now publicly pointed the finger at the Kremlin.The prime minister’s official spokesperson said: “The Russian state was responsible for the hoax telephone calls made to UK ministers last week.“This is standard practice for Russian information operations and disinformation is a tactic straight from the Kremlin playbook to try to distract from their illegal activities in Ukraine and the human rights abuses being committed there.“We are seeing a string of distraction stories and outright lies from the Kremlin, reflecting Putin’s desperation as he seeks to hide the scale of the conflict and Russia’s failings on the battlefield.”Senior government sources fear the Russians may attempt to doctor footage obtained in the calls in an attempt to embarrass the UK.Mr Wallace publicly acknowledged he had been targeted shortly after his call on Thursday in an attempt to get ahead of any attempt by Moscow to circulate footage from it.He also launched a cross-Whitehall investigation to understand how he ended up on the video call.Meanwhile on Monday, Boris Johnson hinted at more military support to Ukraine following a call Joe Biden and other allies ahead of a summit meeting of Nato leaders on Thursday.The prime minister discussed his “horror” at the Russian president’s use of “increasingly brutal tactics” in Ukraine, including siege warfare and targeting civilians.Downing Street said the leaders – also including France’s Emmanuel Macron, Germany’s Olaf Scholz and Italy’s Mario Draghi – affirmed their commitment to “equipping the democratically elected government in Kyiv with the tools it needs to defend itself”.With the US president set to attend the Nato summit in Brussels, No 10 said Mr Johnson looked forward to discussing “how to increase military support to Ukraine to qualitatively improve their defensive capability”. More

A minister has been criticised for a “distinct lack of urgency” after repeatedly saying the Government must wait for the outcome of a police watchdog report into the strip search of a Black schoolgirl.Kit Malthouse condemned the “distressing” incident involving Child Q, saying she “could have been any one of our relatives”.However, Mr Malthouse insisted the Government waits for a report into the incident by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) which will provide the “full picture” before taking any further action.In response to an Urgent Question in the Commons by Labour MP Bell Ribeiro-Addy, the policing and crime minister told MPs that the officers involved in the strip search “have a right to due process”.He also suggested Child Q’s strip search left doubt as to whether the police has a specific problem or a systemic problem relating to its policies and practices. This is despite a safeguarding review into the matter producing a series of recommendations for the Government and police to act upon.“It is the role of the independent police watchdog – the Independent Office for Police Conduct – to investigate serious matters involving the police and the IOPC has said it has been investigating the actions of the Metropolitan police in this particular case,” he said. “We must let the IOPC conclude its work we would, of course, expect any findings to be acted upon swiftly but it’s vital that we don’t prejudge the IOPC’s investigations or prejudice due process – so it would be wrong for me to make any comment on the case in question at this time.”Labour MP for Eltham, Clive Efford, criticised Mr Malthouse for having a “wait and see attitude”, and said: “I feel like we’ve woken the minister from an afternoon nap to come in and make this statement”.He added: “There’s a complete lack of urgency in his approach. It is quite clear that there are areas now where the Government can act; why isn’t the minister coming to this house to explain to us just exactly what he’s going to do, rather than this wait and see attitude.”Child Q was strip searched by female Metropolitan Police officers at her school in 2020 without another adult present and in the knowledge that she was menstruating, a review conducted by City & Hackney Safeguarding Children Partnership (CHSCP) concluded last week.The 15-year-old had been wrongly suspected of carrying cannabis. Following the “traumatic” search, family members described her as changing from a “happy-go-lucky girl to a timid recluse that hardly speaks”, who now self-harms and needs therapy.The IOPC launched its investigation following a complaint in May 2021, and said it has completed its inquiries and is finalising its report.The case has sparked outrage from politicians and the public, with London mayor Sadiq Khan sharing his “dismay and disgust”, and equalities minister Kemi Badenoch calling it an “appalling incident”.Sarah Jones, shadow policing minister, said: “I think everyone will agree that this strip search shouldn’t have happened”.“But what is so shocking that the existing guidance and training was so insufficient, so broad perhaps, so vague, that it didn’t prevent the strip search of a child who supposedly smelt of cannabis from happening in this way,” she added, calling upon the minister to work on and issue new guidance.Over 9,000 children have been strip-searched in London over the past five years and Black people are three times more likely to be subjected to these “intrusive powers”.Labour MP Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) said “strip searching of children is not a one-off” and called on the minister to publish data on the numbers of strip searches that have happened “by borough command unit and by ethnicity”.Mr Malthouse did not address the call to publish data.Only one Conservative MP turned up to the discussion, Jackie Doyle-Price MP, who asked what action the minister will take to ensure there’s change in Metropolitan Police. More

Metropolitan Police officers have begun interviewing key witnesses in the Partygate scandal which rocked Boris Johnson’s premiership – seven weeks on from start of the investigation.Scotland Yard announced on Monday that over 100 questionnaires have been sent out to Downing Street and Whitehall staff asking them about alleged Covid lockdown gatherings.“In addition to the detailed review of all available material, including returned questionnaires, detectives from the Operation Hillman investigation team have started interviewing key witnesses,” said a Met Police spokesperson.The Independent understands that Mr Johnson, who returned his questionnaire to investigators last month, has not been called for an interview. The Met Police revealed that no fines had been handed out so far, with no referrals to the Acro Criminal Records Office for the issuing of Fixed Penalty Notices made at this stage.“However, every questionnaire response is being assessed alongside all available evidence, and should this reach the evidential threshold, then referrals will be made,” the spokesperson said.Police said last month that more than 50 questionnaires had been sent out. But investigators have identified “further individuals” on the basis of responses, and warned that more staff may be contacted and asked to explain their actions as new details come to light.A special Scotland Yard team is investigating 12 government gatherings as part of Operation Hillman, including as many as six which Mr Johnson is reported to have attended.No 10 confirmed that Mr Johnson had returned his document to investigating officers during the third week of February, having received it the previous week.The prime minister was urged to “come clean” on whether he would resign if he is found to have breached his own lockdown rules.Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey said: “Johnson must come clean: is he being interviewed by the police, and will he resign if found to have broken the law? No more fluff, just the facts for all those who suffered during lockdown while he partied.”Scotland Yard did not reveal why it was taking so long to work through the Partygate probe. The force said each witnesses should have completed and returned their questionnaires within seven days of receiving it.“This investigation involves a significant amount of investigative material; the serving of over 100 questionnaires and the need to individually assess every response,” said a spokesperson. “We are progressing the investigation as quickly as possible.”It comes as one of the country’s top polling experts said the British public are willing to overlook Mr Johnson’s recent scandals and back him again at the upcoming local elections.Lord Hayward said the prime minister had “a hold” on the electorate – saying Mr Johnson had the ability to defy terrible personal approval ratings at the May elections.Asked if many voters would vote for a Tory party led by Mr Johnson, even if they don’t like Mr Johnson personally, the Tory peer said: “Yes. He has a hold on people … like no other British politician in my lifetime.”Lord Hayward added: “Things Boris has done or said impacts less on people’s willingness to support him than other politicians.”Cabinet minister Jacob Rees-Mogg recently waved away concerns over parties in No 10 during lockdown as “fluff” and “fundamentally trivial”.Scottish Tory leader Douglas Ross and backbench MP Andrew Bridgen are among the ex-rebels to have withdrawn letters of no confidence in the prime minister due to the seriousness of the Ukraine crisis.Asked if his U-turn made him look a “lightweight”, Mr Ross said “I don’t care … [Partygate] really does seem so small in comparison to a country defending itself against atrocious actions from the Russians and Vladimir Putin.” More

Foreign Office chiefs have been accused of a cover-up to disguise that Boris Johnson did order the notorious rescue of dogs and cats from Afghanistan, after a second whistleblower came forward.In a stormy evidence session, the top civil servants failed to back up the prime minister’s claim that he was not involved in the decision – instead saying they did not know.But MPs cast doubt on why Philip Barton, the Foreign Office’s top civil servant, and Nigel Casey, the special representative for Afghanistan, had not established who gave the order to give priority to Pen Farthing’s Nowzad animal charity.Tom Tugendhat, the Tory chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee called it “a little bit odd”, telling the pair: “It makes me wonder whether you deliberately didn’t want to know.”Labour’s Chris Bryant went further, alleging the Foreign Office believed Mr Johnson had given the order, as leaked emails – sent as Kabul fell to the Taliban last August – suggested.“You don’t really want to say that today because, if you are to say that, you are basically saying that the prime minister and the defence secretary are liars,” Mr Bryant said.Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, has also denied being behind the rescue of the 94 dogs and 68 cats, while insisting the claim that the prime minister ordered him to act is “nonsense”.But Sir Philip said he was “not prepared to speculate” on who gave the authorisation – while Mr Casey told the committee: “I would love to know who made the decision.”Earlier, Josie Stewart, who worked in the Foreign Office for seven years, became the second whistleblower to public to say it was “widespread knowledge” that Mr Johnson gave the order.The direction was referred to in multiple messages sent around the crisis centre set up to try to help the tens of thousands of desperate Afghans trying to flee, she said.It was hugely controversial because the animals were taken out even as many Afghans – including some who helped the British government during the occupation – were left behind.In further evidence of the prime minister’s involvement, his aide, Trudy Harrison, contacted a private charter company to try to secure a plane to help with the evacuation.But Sir Philip said it was only an “assumption” that Mr Johnson had given the authorisation, because it had come through the National Security Adviser, Stephen Lovegrove.Mr Lovegrove reports to the Cabinet Office, which works hand in glove with No 10, which made the assumption “understandable”, the committee was told.Mr Casey conceded that the evacuation of the dogs and cats was “the only time” that his team had required outside authorisation about part of the evacuation.And he acknowledged he may have deleted crucial emails about the controversy, arguing his inbox was “exploding” at the time and he had to prioritise.“It’s quite possible that I weeded out other emails which were copied to me, not for action but for action by other people, in an attempt to make sure that I could focus on those emails,” Mr Casey said. More

John McDonnell has urged the government to adopt a “radical recovery programme” to protect the public from the rising cost of living.The former shadow chancellor said incomes needed to be boosted and prices and rents controlled in response to inflation hitting a 40-year high.The left-winger, who is now a backbencher, called for an immediate increase in benefits and pensions of 8 per cent to protect the lowest-paid – as well as inflation-proofed payrises for workers.And he called for a “programme of price controls” including a profit cap on energy companies, lower transport fares, and a rent freeze.The Labour MP said the government should also start investing in insulating 27 million homes to create “hundreds of thousands of jobs, reduce bills and save lives”.In an article for the LabourList website Mr McDonnell said that “after 40 years of neoliberal dominance, most people do not have the economic resilience to cope with the cost of living hit they are now experiencing”.He added: “In every other period of history when inflation combines with wage cuts, and people struggle to pay for the basics in life, confronting a real cost-of-living crisis, that’s when people get angry. “It’s when they see the system is failing them. It’s when they demand change and are increasingly open to radical change.”All those who want radical change, and that should include the Labour Party, must not underestimate the potential of this moment. This is no time for half-hearted measures. We need a Radical Recovery Programme”.Mr McDonnell’s call goes further than the policies of Labour’s current frontbencher under Keir Starmer.Sir Keir has called for a cut in VAT on home energy bills, which his team says would reduce the increase in energy bill prices by £200.The opposition says it would give a further £400 in targeted support to the worst off. Energy bills are expected to rise by an average of £700 in April.The government has meanwhile said it will give households £200 discount on energy bills, but said it will claw back this money by increasing bills in the future. More

The British public are willing to overlook Boris Johnson’s recent scandals and back him again at the upcoming local elections, one of the country’s top polling experts has said.Lord Hayward said the prime minister had “a hold” on the electorate “like no other British politician in my lifetime” – saying Mr Johnson had the ability to defy terrible personal approval ratings at the May elections.The Tory peer said Mr Johnson’s net favourability rating had plummeted over the partygate scandal which engulfed No 10 over the winter – as voters shared their anger at him with him polling companies.But he pointed out that the Conservatives’ poll ratings have not been knocked quite so badly by comparison – and that the Tory leader does not fare so badly when voters are asked the question, ‘Who would make best prime minister?’. Lord Hayward said: “There is something about Boris, where it [disapproval] is built into the price. Things Boris has done or said impacts less on people’s willingness to support him than other politicians.”Noting the slight upturn in Mr Johnson’s polling numbers since the Ukraine crisis moved partygate off the headlines, the elections guru added: “Some polling companies have assumed that recent events have broken Boris’s hold on the electorate.“The slight change in his favourability and the slight uptick in Conservative ratings possibly shows that isn’t the case.”Mr Johnson’s net favourability remains extremely low at –21, according to the latest Savanta ComRes poll numbers, while Sir Keir Starmer has an equivalent rating of –2.However, when it comes to the question of would make the ‘best PM’, Starmer is only narrowly in the lead on 35 per cent, compared to Mr Johnson on 34 per cent. Savanta ComRes gives Labour a five-point lead over the Tories.Asked if many voters would vote for a Tory party led by Mr Johnson, even if they don’t like Mr Johnson personally, Lord Hayward said: “Yes. He has a hold on people … like no other British politician in my lifetime.”He added: “For the opposition it’s a nightmare. Keir Starmer has to ask, given how unpopular Boris has been, why Labour hasn’t been able to make more headway.”But Lord Hayward did warn that Mr Johnson would have to recover some of his personal standing – or more potential Tory voters could begin to ask themselves whether they would rather see Sir Keir at No 10.The expert said: “People look at who is the best PM when deciding how to vote. You cannot afford to have ongoing bad favourability ratings without them ultimately impacting on the question of ‘who is the best PM?’He added: “You can’t go on forever with that state of affairs [in net favourability] without it impacting on the question of ‘who is the best PM?’”Lord Hayward suggested London should prove strong territory for Labour at the elections held on 5 May.But he said Starmer’s party would have to show they can do well in so-called red wall areas in the north of England and Midlands where they lost further ground to the at the 2021 local elections.He also Tory success would judged on how far the party could contain losses in London and stem much of the tide back to Labour in red wall regions.It comes as Metropolitan Police revealed the force had begun interviewing key witnesses over the partygate scandal – seven weeks on from start of the investigation.Scotland Yard said on Monday that over 100 questionnaires have been sent out to No 10 and Whitehall staff asking them about alleged Covid lockdown gatherings, and revealed that no fines had been issued yet.Investigators said further individuals had been identified and asked to provide explanations as a result of some of the responses received so far. More

Boris Johnson directly approved the evacuation of cats and dogs with Pen Farthing’s animal charity from Afghanistan, according to a second government whistleblower.Josie Stewart – a senior official at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) – said it was “widespread knowledge” that the decision to help the Nowzad charity “came from the prime minister”.Mr Johnson has denied direct involvement in the evacuation of animals. But Ms Stewart backed up claims made by whistleblower Raphael Marshall saying emails in her inbox referenced “the PM’s decision on Nowzad”.Ms Stewart also accused Sir Philip Barton, the Foreign Office’s permanent undersecretary, and Nigel Casey, the PM’s special representative for Afghanistan, of having “intentionally lied” to MPs on the foreign affairs select committee.The whistleblower said she “cannot fathom” why they would do so but that “they must have done so”, adding: “I have tried to imagine but cannot conceive of any way this could have been an honest mistake.”The Foreign Office immediately rejected the whistleblower’s claims. “At all times officials have responded to the committee’s questions in good faith, on the basis of the evidence available to us at the time,” said a FCDO spokesperson.The spokesperson also said the prime minister “has made clear he had no role in authorising individual evacuations from Afghanistan during Operation Pitting, including Nowzad staff and animals”.But Labour’s shadow foreign secretary David Lammy said the revelations were “further confirmation that the prime minister put the lives of animals ahead of humans on a personal whim and then lied about doing so”.The Labour frontbencher called the PM a “serial liar” and added: “He is unfit to be prime minister.”Ms Stewart, who said she previously leaked information such was her concern about the handling of the Afghan crisis, said she accepted that speaking out would likely mean losing her job.She said: “I feel a strong sense of moral injury for having been part of something so badly managed and so focused on managing reputational risk and political fallout rather than the actual crisis and associated human tragedy.”Ms Stewart said the messages about the animal evacuation decision were coming from the PM on Microsoft Teams, and “heard it discussed in the crisis centre including by senior civil servants”.She also said she was copied on numerous emails “which clearly suggested this” which no-one, including Mr Casey, challenged.In January MPs on the foreign affairs select committee published an email from a senior official referring to “the PM’s decision” on Nowzad, copied to Mr Casey.Sir Philip apologised for “inadvertently inaccurate answers”, stating that Mr Casey had been busy that day and did not remember the email.The BBC later published further emails showing that Mr Casey wrote an email about asking “Number 10” for input on the case.Ms Stewart told MPs: “Nigel Casey explicitly testified that he had searched his emails and found nothing of relevance, yet when I searched my emails for “PM” and “Nowzad” I found more than one email referencing “the PM’s decision on Nowzad” and with Nigel Casey in copy.”The whistleblower added: “I cannot fathom why either Philip Barton or Nigel Casey would have intentionally lied to the Committee, but I believe that they must have done so both in the letter dated 17 January and in the oral testimony given on 25 January.Ms Stewart said she did not believe there was any deliberate decision “to prioritise animals over people” but that “the decision to approve Nowzad’s Afghan staff under LOTR (leave outside the rules) was not in line with policy”.The whistleblower said “there was no reason to believe these people should be prioritised under the agreed criteria”.She said although letters from Sir Philip and Foreign Office minister Lord Ahmad were “factually accurate” when they said “Nowzad staff were included by officials in the potential cohorts to be considered for evacuation if space became available under LOTR”, she said this was “misleading”.She told the committee: “From what I heard and saw, Nowzad staff were included as a late addition only in response to this ‘PM decision’. This occurred against the previous judgment of officials.”Ms Stewart added: “I do not find it credible that Philip Barton, or those who drafted his letter dated January 17 2022, would not have been aware of this.”Afghan interpreter’s family ‘likely to be killed’ as a result of Pen Farthing animal evacuation, Tory MP saysIn her written evidence, released on Monday, Ms Stewart also dismissed government claims that civil servants often portrayed decisions as coming from the PM if they did not.Foreign Office minister Lord Goldsmith had claimed in the Lords that: “It’s not uncommon in Whitehall (…) for decisions to be interpreted or portrayed as coming directly from one department or another or even the prime minister, even when that isn’t the case.”She said: “I have never in my career seen any such thing. Governance would fall apart entirely if this were the case.”The Independent has contacted the FCDO and Downing Street for a response. More