UK Politics

Boris Johnson has warned against attempts to “retrospectively change our history” after four protesters were cleared of tearing down a statue of slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol.The prime minister said on Thursday he would not comment on the verdict – but went on to attack efforts to “change our history or to bowdlerise it or edit it”.Mr Johnson compared attempts to revise British history to making changes to an online encyclopedia. “It’s like some person trying to edit their Wikipedia entry – it’s wrong,” he told reporters.The PM said: “My feeling is that we have a complex historical legacy all around us, and it reflects our history in all its diversity, for good or ill. What you can’t do is go around seeking retrospectively to change our history or to bowdlerise it or edit it in retrospect.”Mr Johnson added: “And I think if people democratically want to remove a statue or whatever, that’s fine. But I think that, in general, we should preserve our cultural, artistic, historical legacy – that’s my view.”Rhian Graham, 30, Milo Ponsford, 26, Sage Willoughby, 22, and Jake Skuse, 33, were prosecuted for pulling the statue down during a Black Lives Matter protest last June. Dubbed “the Colston Four”, they were acquitted by a jury at Bristol Crown Court on Wednesday.The verdict prompted a debate about the jury system after the defendants opted to stand trial and did not deny involvement in the incident – instead claiming the presence of the statue was a hate crime and it was therefore not an offence to remove it.Former minister Robert Jenrick, the Tory MP for Newark, said on Twitter: “We undermine the rule of law, which underpins our democracy, if we accept vandalism and criminal damage are acceptable forms of political protest.”Transport secretary Grant Shapps on Thursday morning echoed similar views, telling LBC Radio: “We can’t have mob rule as the way forward.”The minister added: “We are introducing via the police crime sentencing bill, new measures which would potentially plug a gap and make it absolutely clear.”Former justice secretary Robert Buckland said he thought the jury’s decision in the case of was perverse. The Tory MP told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “Frankly I do. I think anybody watching those scenes cannot fail to be disturbed at the very least and appalled by what happened.”Mr Buckland added: “I don’t think we want to see our crown courts becoming political playgrounds – they’re not places for politics, they’re places for the law to be applied and for the evidence to be assessed.” But Commons leader Jacob Rees-Mogg described the jury system as one of the UK’s “greatest monuments” after criticism from Tory MPs that the verdict set a precedent for future “defacement” of public monuments.Jen Reid, a Black Lives Matter campaigner from Bristol, said she was “full of joy” after the verdict, telling Sky News the court case “should never have happened – I think it was a waste of the taxpayers money”.Legal commentator David Allen Green responded: “Jury verdicts do not ‘undermine the rule of law’. Jury verdicts are part of the rule of law. An acquittal is as much an aspect of due process as a conviction.” More

Boris Johnson is expected to blame a new mobile phone number for his failure to reveal WhatsApp messages crucial to the investigation into his lavish Downing Street flat refurbishment.The prime minister is also expected to apologise to Christopher Geidt – his adviser who was “misled” when he cleared Mr Johnson of wrongdoing – in letters to be released later today.Lord Geidt is poised to issue a stinging rebuke and demand an overhaul of the No 10 operation, to avoid a repeat of the episode, after reopening his probe last month.However, he is not expected to conclude the ministerial code was broken – although Mr Johnson still faces the threat of a further inquiry by the parliamentary commissioner for standards.The controversy over the £112,000 refit was reignited when an Electoral Commission report revealed Mr Johnson personally asked for more funds for the redecorations, in 2020.Yet – three months later – he told Lord Geidt that he nothing about the way the work was being funded, leading to the adviser’s inquiry clearing him.A government insider told the Financial Times: “The prime minister has told Geidt that he did not see the WhatsApp messages because he changed his phone number.”Mr Johnson was forced to change his mobile number in April last year after his longstanding number was found to have been in the public domain for 15 years.It is unclear why the messages were then made available to the Electoral Commission inquiry – and No 10 declined to answer questions, ahead of the publication of letters between the prime minister and Lord Geidt.Interviewed at a vaccination centre, Mr Johnson was asked if he expected people to believe he had forgotten to disclose key evidence because it was no longer stored on his phone, replying: “I followed the ministerial guidance at all times – and yes.” The adviser’s report, in May last year, found the prime minister had acted “unwisely” in failing to ask proper questions about the redecorations, but cleared him of wrongdoing.But, in December, the Commission revealed messages were sent by Mr Johnson to Tory donor Lord Brownlow, who helped fund the works, asking him to “authorise” further payments.Furthermore, a year earlier, “Lord Brownlow confirmed to the prime minister that he had approved further works”, the watchdog stated.No 10 denied Mr Johnson lied to Lord Geidt – arguing he had known only that Lord Brownlow was handling the funding, not that he was the source of the money.He had contacted him, in November 2020, because he was the administrator of a blind trust to fund the works – despite the Commission report stating “the trust had not been formed”.The watchdog ruled the Conservative party broke electoral law in the way it attempted to fund the refurbishment. For months, ministers refused to admit the party, and then a major donor, originally funded it.The verdict – and a £17,800 fine – brought allegations of sleaze against the prime minister back centre-stage, as he is dogged by claims of misleading the public over 2020 No 10 Christmas parties. More

The culture secretary has endorsed calls by Tory MPs for the BBC to be made to play God Save the Queen at the end of daily programming. During an exchange in the Commons, Conservative MP Andrew Rosindell said that singing the national anthem was “something that provides a great sense of unity and pride in our nation”.”Will the minister take steps to encourage public broadcasters to play the national anthem, and ensure that the BBC restore it at the end of the day’s programming before it switches to News 24?” He asked.Nadine Dorries, the culture secretary who is responsible for the broadcaster, interjected, calling out that Mr Rosindell had asked a “fantastic question”. Ms Dorries has said aspects of the BBC could be put under review, including the future of the license fee.Her deputy, minister Nigel Huddleston, responded to Mr Rosindell’s question for the government, stating: “We fully support the singing of the national anthem. “The Her Majesty the Queen, and other expressions of patriotism, including the flying of the Union Jack. The more that we hear here, the national anthem song frankly, the better.”BBC One previously played the national anthem at the close of programming, but since 1997 it has broadcast on a 24 hour basis – with the old practice ceasing at the same time. Terrestrial BBC channels switch to showing the rolling news coverage in the early hours of the morning – usually around 1am on weekdays and 2am weekends. BBC News 24 is the old name for the BBC News channel, last used by the Corporation 14 years ago. More

Chancellor Rishi Sunak has vowed to press ahead with a planned National Insurance rise, despite opposition to the tax hike from his senior cabinet colleague Jacob Rees-Mogg.The Commons leader is understood to have spoken out against the rise at a cabinet meeting on Wednesday, arguing that it could not be justified amid the mounting cost of living crisis.But Mr Sunak said on Thursday that ditching the 1.25 per cent tax rise – planned to help meet the cost of social care reforms and growing NHS backlog – would be irresponsible.“I have enormous respect for all of my colleagues,” he told reporters when asked about Mr Rees-Mogg’s apparent revolt. “It’s always easy to duck difficult decisions, but I don’t think that’s the responsible thing to do.The chancellor added: “I think people’s priorities are for us to invest in the NHS, to invest in social care. We need to make sure that those investments are funded sustainably, that’s what we’re doing.”A cabinet insider told the Financial Times that Mr Rees-Mogg felt “finding the savings would be more frugal and responsible” than raising taxes.Boris Johnson’s spokesman insisted on Thursday there were no plans to backtrack on the NI increase scheduled for April, and transport secretary Grant Shapps said the decision has already been made collectively as there is a “very good case” for the move to support health and social care.The hike in national insurance will come after inflation hit 5.1 per cent, more than double the UK’s 2 per cent target. Households are set to suffer another blow in April as the energy price cap is expected to be raised.Mr Sunak was also challenged on whether the government would bring forward new measures to help hard-pressed families worried about fuel bills.The government is reportedly considering extending the warm homes discount – which is currently gives a £140 discount to around two million people eligible people – to more people.“Of course I understand people’s anxiety and concerns about energy bills, in particular, that’s why we’ve put in place a series of ways to help people with energy bills,” Mr Sunak said. “There is support there for people.”Hinting that discount payments could be extended, Mr Sunak said: “We’re always listening and making sure the policies we’ve got will support people in the way we want it to.”Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey said the government should “more than double that [warm homes discount] to at least £300, but increase the eligibility to seven and a half million people, so many, many more people.”Labour has called on the government to cut VAT on energy bills, with deputy leader Angela Rayner telling the Commons on Wednesday that “even the Tory backbenchers have finally accepted Labour’s call to cut VAT” on energy bills.Some 20 Tory MPs and peers signed a letter in the Sunday Telegraph asking them to help consumers facing “fuel poverty” as gas and electricity payments continue to rocket.The head of the Resolution Foundation think tank said that families would face a £1,200 hit by April “from soaring energy bills and tax rises”. Chief executive Torsten Bell said: “So large is this overnight cost-of-living catastrophe that it’s hard to see how the Government avoids stepping in.” More

Michael Gove’s ex-wife Sarah Vine has said she wanted to “stop” him from ever becoming prime minister.The 54-year-old newspaper columnist – granted a divorce on Thursday – said she wanted to prevent the senior Conservative minister from winning the top job at No 10.“My ulterior motive throughout my entire life was to stop my husband being prime minister because I can’t think of anything worse,” she told Tatler.Ms Vine also told the magazine that Mr Gove’s “only mistress” was his political career. “The mistress wins in the end. It’s all about making sure she is happy.”She added: “In my case, despite all the rumours, his only mistress was politics. That’s what he is in love with. He is genuinely in love with politics.”The Daily Mail columnist also revealed that Mr Gove’s key role alongside Boris Johnson in leading the Vote Leave campaign was a key factor in their split.“My whole life fell away,” she said on the Brexit referendum. “I didn’t speak to many close friends. And that was another huge strain on the marriage. Marriage can take strain, but it cannot take that much.”Her comments came as a family court judge drew the marriage of the communities secretary and his wife to a close on Thursday.Judge Lynn Roberts granted Ms Vine a divorce decree on the grounds that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. Neither Ms Vine nor Mr Gove were at the hearing at the Central Family Court in London.A spokesperson for Mr Gove and Ms Vine announced in July 2021 that they couple were to split after almost 20 years of marriage.The columnist also said she empathised with Mr Johnson’s wife Carrie. “I do, because no matter what she does she’ll be criticised,” she said, before adding: “Oh yes, she knows what she’s doing, she’s got an agenda. She’s very much of that generation.” More

A Conservative MP has hit out at the courts after anti-racism protesters who toppled the statue of a slave trader were found to have committed no crime.Robert Jenrick, who acted unlawfully as a minister, said the decision to acquit four people of criminal damage would “undermine the rule of law”.As communities secretary Robert Jenrick was found to have broken the law by approving a £1 billion luxury development for a Tory donor. He left government last year, sacked in a reshuffle.The statue of Edward Colston was pulled down during a 2020 Black Lives Matter protest in Bristol. All four defendants admitted their involvement but denied their actions amounted to criminal damage because the statue itself was a hate crime – a claim which the jury upheld.Colston was involved in the enslavement over over 80,000 African people, of whom almost 10,000 were children – with an estimated 19,000 dying on ships bound for the Americas.But despite the court ruling that no criminal damage had taken place, Tory Mr Jenrick said on Wednesday night: “We undermine the rule of law, which underpins our democracy, if we accept vandalism and criminal damage are acceptable forms of political protest. They aren’t. Regardless of the intentions.”His claim echoes the failed arguments of the prosecution, which argued that it was “irrelevant” who Colston was, and the case was one of straightforward criminal damage.Transport secretary Grant Shapps on Thursday morning echoed similar views, telling LBC Radio: “We can’t have mob rule as the way forward.”Mr Shapps added: “We must live in a society where people can’t go around destroying public property and be able to walk away from it.”We are introducing via the police crime sentencing bill, new measures which would potentially plug a gap and make it absolutely clear.”The local police force accepted the verdict, with chief Superintendent Liz Hughes of Avon and Somerset Police, stating: “Having been presented with the evidence, a jury has now determined their actions were not criminal and we respect its decision.”Mr Jenrick served as communities secretary between 2019 and 2021. In May 2020 he accepted that he had acted unlawfully by approving a £1 billion luxury development at Westferry, proposed by Tory Donor Richard Desmond.The then cabinet minister had overruled the government’s planning inspector – and later admitted that he did so on an accelerated timescale so that Mr Desmond could avoid paying a £45m tax bill. Mr Desmond had privately lobbied Mr Jenrick over the issue.While the Tory MP has admitted that the decision was unlawful, he claims there was no “actual bias” in his approving the scheme. More

Boris Johnson is reportedly considering new measures to alleviate the pressure on rising energy bills, after the prime minister was warned families faced a cost-of-living “iceberg”.According to Sky News, ministers have concluded that “something needs to be done” before the 1 April hike in household bills, which coincides with a contentious increase in national insurance tax.It was also reported that Mr Johnson will take personal charge of meetings on the energy crisis next week before a decision is taken on any support ahead of 7 February.In April the price cap, which limits the amount that suppliers can charge, will rise. It is currently at an already record-beating £1,277.Despite previously floating the option of a blanket removal of VAT from domestic fuels bills during the 2016 Brexit referendum, the measure is unlikely to form part of extra government support, after the prime minister labelled it a “blunt instrument” on Tuesday.He added such a move would result in a cut in fuels bills “for a lot of people who perhaps don’t need the support in quite the direct way that we need to give it”, but told a No 10 press conference: “I’m not ruling out further measures.”According to the BBC, extending the winter homes discount, which offers those eligible a one-off £140 payment, to increase the number of people who can claim, is “under discussion with other options”.Tackled on the issue of rising energy costs for consumers on Wednesday, however, the prime minister’s official spokesperson suggested that there were not any imminent changes planned.“I’m not aware of any further changes at the moment, but obviously we keep it under review, we are listening to those most affected,” they added.It comes after concern over a hike in energy bills, which has caused unease in Conservative ranks, was raised at prime minister’s questions on Wednesday, with deputy Labour leader Angela Rayner warning that families were facing a cost-of-living “iceberg”.Speaking on the BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on Thursday, the Liberal Democrat leader, Sir Ed Davey, also said the government had been “slow to act” to help people who will struggle with rising bills, as he called for a “Robin Hood tax” on oil and gas super-profits.He also told the Today programme: “The warm home discount, which currently is £140 to two million people, I think we should more than double that to at least £300, but increase the eligibility to seven and a half million people, so many, many more people.“These are people on universal credit, people on disability benefits, people on pension credit. I want to make sure that working-age families with children get real help with their bills”.He added: “We’ve got to pay for it. But one of the other effects of the big rising global gas prices, as well as hitting people with their heating bills, is it’s resulted in record profits for the oil and gas sector.“And I think it’s reasonable to ask firms in the oil and gas sector for a one-off contribution to assist the most vulnerable in society, the less well-off and indeed, actually, energy-intensive industries. I really think the Government has been very slow to act. We’re seeing record profits.” More

Germany has found itself facing a series of challenges in its relations with Russia and China since taking office last month that are testing the new government’s foreign policy mettle.Among them are Moscow’s military buildup near Ukraine and the diplomatic fallout from a court verdict finding that the Russian government was behind the 2019 killing of a Chechen dissident in Berlin China’s pressure on a fellow European Union member has also prompted Germany to take sides against one of its biggest trading partners.The issues came to the fore during a flying visit that German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock made Wednesday to Washington, intended to highlight the common stance between her government and the United States on Russia. She arrived back in Germany on Thursday.But amid the show of unity, differences have emerged, too, with its close trans-Atlantic ally and within the German government itself.During last year’s election to succeed long-time German leader Angela Merkel, Baerbock campaigned on a foreign policy program that advocated a firmer line toward Moscow and Beijing on security and human rights issues. Her rival Olaf Scholz who became Germany’s chancellor after his Social Democratic Party won the vote, took a noticeably softer stance on Russia.Baerbock’s party, the Greens, has also been skeptical of Nord Stream 2, a recently completed pipeline to bring more natural gas from Russia to Germany that isn’t yet in use.The Greens’ position is driven partly by environmental concerns about continued reliance on fossil fuels. But of all major German parties it is also closest to the stance of the United States, which has warned that the pipeline risks increasing Europe’s dependence on Russian gas.That skepticism isn’t shared by Scholz, however, whose center-left Social Democrats have lobbied strongly for the pipeline. With the Social Democrats the biggest party in the coalition government, it looks unlikely that Berlin will block gas from flowing through the pipeline unless Russia launches a military strike against Ukraine.Eyebrows were also raised this week when the German government announced that Scholz’s foreign policy adviser would meet his French and Russian counterparts to discuss the Ukraine situation. Some observers claim Scholz is keen to cut Baerbock’s foreign ministry out of direct talks with Moscow — a suggestion German diplomats have strenuously rejected.Baerbock drew the Kremlin’s ire last month, when she expelled two Russian embassy officials after a Berlin court ruled that Moscow was behind the daylight slaying of an ethnic Chechen man in the German capital two years earlier. Russia responded by expelling two German diplomats from Moscow.Baerbock, who had never held government office before becoming Germany’s top diplomat, vowed during the election campaign to pursue a foreign policy led by interests and values.This, and her pledge to make the defense of democracy a topic of Germany’s presidency of the Group of Seven leading economies this year, puts Baerbock on an awkward footing with China.On Wednesday, the 41-year-old’s remarks during a news conference in Washington with U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken reinforced those policy views, and likely drew gasps from German businesses back home who rely on exports to China.Asked whether Berlin backs U.S. criticism of China’s human rights record, Baerbock said Germany supports proposals “that products resulting from forced labor, resulting from grave human rights violations, that these products cannot enter the European market.”“And the same holds true when it comes to solidarity for Lithuania,” she said, referring to a spat between the small EU nation and Beijing. Lithuania’s decision to let Taiwan open an office in the country infuriated China, which considers the island part of its territory.The United States has long advocated for a stronger stance against its rival China, but during Merkel’s 16 years in office Germany often sought to balance its corporate interests against human rights concerns. Baerbock drew a clearer line this week.“We as Europeans stand in solidarity at Lithuania’s side,” she said. More