UK Politics

Boris Johnson personally asked for more funds for his flat refurbishment – despite claiming, three months later, that he knew nothing about any payments, an investigation has found.The astonishing revelation – in a report fining the Tories for breaking electoral law – triggered a Labour allegation that the prime minister has “lied to the British public” over the controversy.It will also heap pressure on Mr Johnson’s ethics adviser to reopen his inquiry into the redecorations, after it concluded there had been no breach of the ministerial code.In May, Christopher Geidt reported there was “no evidence” that Mr Johnson had been told by Tory donor Lord Brownlow that he had paid the bill for the refurbishment.The conclusion was based on the prime minister’s testimony that “he knew nothing about such payments until immediately prior to media reports in February 2021”.But a fresh report by the Electoral Commission says that – in November 2020 – he “messaged Lord Brownlow via WhatsApp” to ask him to “authorise” further redecorations.Furthermore, in early December, “Lord Brownlow confirmed to the prime minister that he had approved further works”, the watchdog states.When, on 12 February, the donor paid up a further £13,295.40, the donor “sent a detailed update on the proposed trust to the prime minister”.Angela Rayner, Labour’s deputy leader, seized on the clear contradiction, alleging: “The prime minister must now explain why he lied to the British public, saying he didn’t know who was behind No 11 flat refurb – all the while he was Whatsapping the donor asking for more money.“Boris Johnson has taken the British public for fools. He’s not only broken the law but made a mockery of the standards we expect from our prime ministers.”The Commission report brings allegations of sleaze back centre-stage, as Mr Johnson is dogged by allegations of misleading the public over last year’s No 10 Christmas parties.For months, he and other ministers refused to confirm that the Tory party, and then a major donor, originally funded the lavish redecorations.Dominic Cummings alleged the “plans to have donors secretly pay for the renovation were unethical, foolish, possibly illegal and almost certainly broke the rules on proper disclosure of political donations”.There is now the growing likelihood of a potentially hugely-damaging investigation by the parliamentary commissioner for standards into the flat controversy.The Geidt report said, in May, that Mr Johnson “settled the full amount himself on 8 March 2021” – having only learned of the way the works were being funded the month before – a claim now undermined.The Commission report also leaves questions unanswered about how Mr Johnson – who has protested about his diminished earnings in No 10 – paid the bill, which totalled £112,549.12.“Any payments between the prime minister and the supplier are outside the scope of our investigation,” it states.But Mr Johnson’s spokesman, asked if the prime minister had lied to Lord Geidt, replied: “No” – arguing he had known he was handling the funding, but not that he was the source of the money.He had got in touch with Lord Brownlow, in November 2020, because he was the administrator of the blind trust funding the works, despite the Commission report stating “the trust had not been formed” at that time.“As set out in Lord Geidt’s report, the prime minister was not aware of the details of the underlying donor until immediately prior to media reports in February 2021, when he immediately sought the necessary advice about his interests, and as a consequence settled the full amount himself,” the spokesman said.“Lord Brownlow was appointed by the PM as chair of the trust on 23 June and Lord Geidt’s report notes that Lord Brownlow behaved in a confidential manner, consistent with his own experience of blind trusts.”Mr Cummings seized on the report as proof that “obviously PM lied to Geidt” and accusing the adviser of “Old school Yes Minister tactics”.Ian Blackford, the SNP leader at Westminister, said: “Not only did [Johnson] breach electoral law – he lied about it too.Alleging the prime minister and the truth “are strangers”, he said: “He simply cannot be allowed to remain as prime minister. He either resigns or he needs to be removed.”The Conservative party suggested it will challenge the Commission’s findings on what it called “a technical breach of reporting requirements”.“We are considering whether to appeal this decision and will make a decision within 28 working days,” it said. More

The British government confirmed Thursday that an inquiry into an alleged lockdown-breaching Christmas party at the offices of Conservative Prime Minister Boris Johnson nearly a year ago will also look at two prior gatherings involving government officials.In a statement to lawmakers, Cabinet Office minister Michael Ellis laid out the terms of reference for the inquiry Johnson ordered Wednesday following a week of allegations that officials flouted coronavirus rules that they imposed on everyone else.The primary charge relates to a Dec. 18, 2020 event at the prime minister’s 10 Downing St. offices, where officials are said to have enjoyed wine, food, games and a festive gift exchange at a time when pandemic regulations banned most social gatherings. A leaked video showed senior staff members joking about the alleged party, prompting the resignation of one of Johnson’s advisers on Wednesday and piling pressure on the prime minister, who had for days said he had been advised that no rules were broken.Ellis said the investigation, which will be led by the U.K. top civil servant, Simon Case will also look into a gathering allegedly held at Downing Street on Nov 27, 2020, and another at the Department for Education on Dec. 10. “The primary purpose of the Cabinet secretary’s investigation will be to establish swiftly a general understanding of the nature of the gatherings, including attendance, the setting and the purpose, and with reference to adherence to the guidance in place at the time,” Ellis said. “If required, the investigation will establish whether individual disciplinary action is warranted,” he added.Ellis said the findings may be referred to the police.The alleged flouting of rules at the heart of government has raised concerns that the general public may ignore tighter restrictions set to take effect in coming days to curb the spread of the omicron variant of the coronavirus.On Wednesday, Johnson urged people in England to again work from home when possible and to wear face masks in more indoor settings. He also backed the introduction of vaccine passes for crowded venues, such as nightclubs, and large gatherings, including big sports events.___Follow AP’s pandemic coverage at https://apnews.com/hub/coronavirus-pandemic More

Boris Johnson’s controversial flat refurbishment last year led the Conservative Party to break electoral laws by using funds gifted by a wealthy party donor to cover its cost without the money being properly declared, the Electoral Commission has ruled. The redecoration of the apartment above 11 Downing Street caused a storm back in April when it emerged that the job had reportedly cost as much as £200,000, despite the prime minister only receiving an annual allowance of £30,000 from taxpayers to spend on his home.Now following weeks of “Tory sleaze” allegations involving first ex-Northern Ireland secretary Owen Paterson and then former attorney general Sir Geoffrey Cox and leader of the House of Commons Jacob Rees-Mogg – and with Mr Johnson again under fire over a Westminster Christmas party said to have taken place on 18 December 2020 while the rest of the country was under heavy social restrictions because of the coronavirus pandemic – the issue returns to the limelight.Outling the commission’s conclusions and issuing a £17,800 fine, its director of regulation, Louise Edwards, said: “Our investigation into the Conservative Party found that the laws around the reporting and recording of donations were not followed.”The ruling makes clear that the Tories were negligent in failing to “fully report a donation of £67,801.72 from Huntswood Associates Limited in October 2020”.Its report says the gift included £52,801.72 connected to the costs of refurbishment to 11 Downing Street but it was “not reported as required” in the party’s donation report for the final quarter of 2020.The reference made by the party to that amount in financial record relating to the refurbishment was “not accurate”, the commission wrote, because it had been recorded as a “blind trust loan”.“We know that voters have concerns about the transparency of funding of political parties,” Ms Edwards remarked. “Reporting requirements are in place so that the public can see where money is coming from, inaccurate reporting risks undermining trust in the system.”Mr Johnson and his then-fiancee and now wife Carrie Johnson, who has just given birth to the couple’s second child, enlisted the services of interior designer Lulu Lytle, co-founder of Soane Britain, for the latest makeover of the property. Ms Lytle’s portfolio has been described as “glamorous” and “decadent” by Tatler.According to reports, the flat refurbishment was spearheaded by Ms Johnson and was carried out during lockdown last year, with Ms Lytle spotted at the property in October 2020. Downing Street and Cabinet ministers initially insisted that the prime minister had paid for the work himself until awkward questions began to be asked.Prior to Mr Johnson, the flat was occupied by his predecessor Theresa May, whose taste in decor was witheringly described by Ms Johnson as a “John Lewis furniture nightmare”.According to The Evening Standard, Ms May and her husband Philip barely made any major changes to the flat when they moved into it, opting instead to decorate only with functional furniture, including a red three-seater sofa, a John Lewis chrome table lamp that cost £100 and a £195 glass coffee table from Habitat.While former No 10 aide Gavin Barwell told Times Radio in April that the flat was “perfectly nice” when the new tenants moved in, Ms Johnson reportedly wanted to get rid of “glum” ambience.The flooring in the hall was stripped and polished and the living room was painted a deep green, according to reports. It is likely that Ms Lytle’s expertise and work on redecoration absorbed much of the money spent.Some of her clients include high-end interior designers, decorators and architects, as well as A-listers like Rolling Stone Sir Mick Jagger. She is also known to have at least one royal connection: Prince Charles toured her famous rattan workshop in Leicestershire last February.Further details about the makeover emerged in May, including the embarassing revelation that the £840-per-roll gold wallpaper chosen by Ms Johnson kept falling down and had had to be rehanged.The specific problem with the wallpaper, thought to be either Soane’s Old Gold or Yellow Gold design, was reportedly that it was heavier than the cheaper, lighter, mass-produced kind more commonly available in DIY stores.The wallpaper is described on Soane’s website as being “made in British mills and workshops, employing traditional methods such as block screen printing” in order to “capture the atmosphere of hand-crafted products”.An insider told The Daily Mail at the time that the lavish new furnishings also included a new sofa upholstered in a ruby and emerald material known as Damascus Stripe, which its designer explains is “based on a 19th century Syrian original pattern woven from cotton and silk”.Its new curtains were meanwhile said to be Soane’s Tendril Vine pattern, also in emerald, a choice the newspaper attributed to Ms Johnson’s passion for environmentalism. More

An investigation into a Christmas party held in Downing Street in December will be widened to examine reports of a separate gathering hosted in No 10 in November and a festive event at the Department for Education.It comes after Boris Johnson announced the probe in response to a leaked video showing government officials joking about a festive party in No 10 in December last year during severe Covid restrictions.Updating MPs, Michael Ellis, a Cabinet Office minister, said the cabinet secretary Simon Case will be tasked with establishing “swiftly a general understanding of the nature of the gatherings, including attendance, the setting and the purpose”.“If required, the investigation will establish whether individual disciplinary action is warranted,” he insisted, adding that all ministers, special advisers and civil servants will be expected to cooperate.He added: “I can confirm to the House that the Cabinet Secretary’s investigation will establish the facts surrounding the following: allegations made of a gathering at 10 Downing Street on November 27 2020; a gathering at the Department for Education on December 10 2020; and allegations made of a gathering at 10 Downing Street on December 18 2020.However, there was no reference to an allegation made by Dominic Cummings, the prime minister’s former senior adviser, of a separate party held in the Downing Street flat on 13 December.Posting on social media on Wednesday, the former No 10 adviser Mr Cummings said: “Will the CABSEC [cabinet secretary] also be asked to investigate the *flat* party on Fri 13 Nov, the other flat parties, & the flat’s ‘bubble’ policy…”.The date identified by Mr Cummings was also the same day he left Downing Street with immediate effect after losing a power struggle and just eight days after the prime minister imposed England’s second national lockdown in response to surging Covid rates.Elsewhere, Mr Ellis confirmed that if any evidence emerges of behaviour that is a potential criminal offence, “the matter will be referred to the police and the Cabinet Office’s work may be paused.He said: “I must emphasise that the matters relating to adherence to the law are properly for the police to investigate and the Cabinet Office will liaise with the police as appropriate”Speaking about the investigation, Labour shadow Cabinet Office minister, Fleur Anderson, said: “I don’t think we need to call them alleged parties, they are the parties”.She added: “I welcome the prime minister’s announcement that he’s asked the Cabinet Secretary to conduct this investigation.“I have asked for this urgent question as there are further urgent questions to be asked about the investigation, and I don’t think we need to call them alleged parties, they are the parties, held in the government department or by government ministers elsewhere. Are there more parties that we need to hear about?” More

Boris Johnson is facing the prospect of a major backbench rebellion over his decision to implement the government’s “plan B” strategy with the introduction of Covid passports for large venues and guidance for the public to work from home.Within hours of the prime minister’s announcement, several Conservative MPs had already made clear they would not vote for the proposals when the measures are debated next Tuesday — just days before the parliamentary Christmas recess.It comes amid weeks of Tory unease over the government’s handling of sleaze allegations, social care reforms, rail infrastructure, and the prime minister’s response to reports of multiple parties in Downing Street as the country faced severe restrictions last year.While the government’s “plan B” proposals — unveiled last night — are likely to pass the Commons with support from the opposition parties, the Tory former minister Steve Baker said it was “vital the maximum number of Conservative MPs vote against plan B”.The key point of contention is the prime minister’s decision to press ahead with Covid passports for large venues such as nightclubs and unseated indoor events with more than 500 people, which critics have labelled “discriminatory”.Mark Harper, the chair of the Covid Recovery Group of Conservative MPs, said vaccine passports were “pointless and damaging”, adding: “The events of the past few weeks – from the Paterson case to the Christmas party video — have seriously damaged the credibility of those at the very top.“Why should people listen to the prime minister’s instructions to follow the rules when people inside Number 10 Downing Street don’t do so?”In a sign of the anger on the Tory benches, MP Marcus Fysh described plans to bring in Covid certificates as “really draconian” and an “utter disgrace”, telling BBC Radio 4’s Today programme they were a “massive imposition on our liberties”.Dehenna Davison — one of the 2019 so-called “Red Wall” intake of Tory MPs — said: “I have long opposed vaccine passports, and so will vote against their introduction next week.“To me, the evidence we have been presented with does not justify further restrictions on liberties. ‘Just in case’ simply doesn’t cut it.”Ben Bradley, the Conservative MP for Mansfield, posted on social media: “I said I would not vote for vaccine passports, which I believe are ineffective & discriminatory… I don’t believe the evidence supports plan B and I will not vote for it”.Mr Bradley’s colleague, Brendan Clarke-Smith, the MP for Bassetlaw, shared the post, insisting: “I fully agree with this. I do not and will not support these proposals”.The MP for East Devon, Simon Jupp, described vaccine passports as “divisive” and “discriminatory”, warning: “Plan B will cost jobs in many sectors, including hospitality. Working from home won’t help our social or economic recovery. I won’t for for these measures.”And the Tory MP Gary Sambrook told the Birmingham Mail he would not vote for the new restrictions, saying: “There is no sufficient data or evidence to suggest these new measures are necessary or will work”.Speaking on Sky News, Sajid Javid, the health secretary, defended the sudden shift in the government’s approach to tackling the virus and while he acknowledged the decisions will have a “real impact on our liberties”, he insisted that taking action now was the only way to avoid having to impose tougher measures later.With a doubling rate of two-and-a-half to three days for the omicron varian, Mr Javid warned: “It would mean, at that rate, by the end of this month we could hit about one million infections in the community throughout the UK.“We’ve always been clear that should the data change and should it move in the wrong direction and it looked like the NHS might come under unsustainable pressure – remember what that would mean, we wouldn’t be able to get the emergency care not just for Covid but for a car accident, or anything like that – we would act and implement Plan B.“I don’t enjoy doing that, no-one does – it is a very difficult thing for many people, asking them to work from home or wearing face masks and things, it is a real impact on our liberties. But I hope that people will understand that by taking decisive action now, we can potentially avoid action later.” More

Cabinet minister Sajid Javid has dismissed the prospect of mandatory vaccination for the public as ethically wrong and impractical, saying: “I’ve got no interest”.The health secretary’s comments come just hours after Boris Johnson introduced new restrictions in an attempt to control the spread of the omicron variant, urging the public to work from home and introducing Covid passports.Despite the prime minister insistence that he did not “want us to have a society where we force people to get vaccinated”, he appeared to hint at a “national conversation” over the draconian measure of mandatory jabs that some European are already planning for.He told the No 10 press conference: “I think that there is going to come a point, if we can show that the vaccines are capable of holding Omicron – and that is the key thing we need to test – I do think we need to have a national conversation about ways in which we deal with this pandemic.“I don’t think we can keep going indefinitely with non-pharmaceutical interventions, I mean restrictions on people’s way of life, just because a substantial proportion of the population still sadly has not got vaccinated.”However, asked whether the government was considering mandatory vaccination, the health secretary told Sky News on Thursday morning: “No — I’ve got no interest in mandatory vaccination.“Apart from the high risk settings of the NHS and social care which we’ve already set out we will legislate for,” Mr Javid said.“Other than that, if you’re talking about universal mandatory vaccination, I think ethically its wrong, but also at a very practical level it just wouldn’t work. Getting vaccinated has to be a positive decision”.Mr Javid’s appearance on Thursday also followed his decision on the previous day to pull out of morning media interviews as the government faced intense pressure over a leaked recording of No 10 officials laughing about a Christmas party held at Downing Street.“I didn’t appear because I saw that video – it upset me, it upset a lot of people across the country, it upset the prime minister,” the cabinet minister insisted.Asked whether he “refused” to go onto the airwaves following the emergence of the footage, Mr Javid added: “No, it wasn’t about refusing – I spoke to my colleagues in No 10 and we actually agreed it is best to take some time to respond to the video in the way that the prime minister has now, by ordering an investigation by the cabinet secretary (Simon Case).“And so the idea was to give some space to react but I’m pleased the prime minister has asked for an investigation, and I can see also why so many people would have been upset by that video.” More

The Conservative Party has admitted that a party took place at its Westminster headquarters during coronavirus restrictions last December.Tory staff danced and drank wine late into the night at a “raucous” party held in the basement of the office, The Times reported.During the event on 14 December, London was under Tier 2 Covid restrictions – which meant that indoor socialising between households was banned. Matt Hancock had given a press conference just hours earlier saying the capital would soon move into Tier 3. The newspaper also reported that senior advisers and officials working in Downing Street also held a Christmas quiz.The details emerged as Labour urged police to open an investigation into allegations staff broke coronavirus rules at a party in No 10 on 18 December, saying it was “implausible” for Scotland Yard to suggest there is insufficient evidence to investigate.Following the report in The Times, a Tory spokesperson admitted that an “unauthorised” party was held at Conservative Party HQ during the campaign of London mayoral candidate Shaun Bailey and that disciplinary action was taken. The spokesperson said: “Senior CCHQ (Conservative Campaign Headquarters) staff became aware of an unauthorised social gathering in the basement of Matthew Parker Street organised by the Bailey campaign on the evening of December 14.“Formal disciplinary action was taken against the four CCHQ staff who were seconded to the Bailey campaign.”Meanwhile, Downing Street did not comment on a separate report that Dan Rosenfield, then Boris Johnson’s incoming chief of staff, took part in the separate alleged party on 18 December. Allegra Stratton, a former press secretary for the prime minister, became the first casualty of the affair on Wednesday after a leaked video showed her laughing after being asked about the Downing Street party. She and her colleague Ed Oldfield joked during a mock press conference at 9 Downing Street that it was just “cheese and wine”.Ms Stratton stepped down in a tearful video in which she said she would regret her remarks for the “rest of my days”. Now Mr Johnson is expected to face more questions over the Conservatives and government throwing parties at a time when the nation was under Covid social distancing rules.The Department for Education only yesterday admitted it held a Christmas “gathering” last December while under Tier 2 rules. It said the party took place in its office building, at a time when social mixing between households was banned and the number of people in one indoor space was limited to six by law.Meanwhile, the Metropolitan Police acknowledged it had received “a significant amount of correspondence” relating to the alleged breaches in No 10 in the run-up to Christmas last year but said they do not “provide evidence of a breach” of Covid rules.“Based on the absence of evidence and in line with our policy not to investigate retrospective breaches of such regulations, the Met will not commence an investigation at this time,” it added.But the force did leave open the possibility of further inquiries by saying it would consider “any evidence” that emerges in the case inquiry. More