World

Adam Boulton: Long Johnson is still plaguing the Tories – Sunak needs to take decisive action

Published

1 year ago

January 28, 2023

admin

Those worried about the health of British politics have diagnosed a new disease at Westminster.

Chris Patten, a grandee from the Conservative establishment, spotted what he called “Long Boris” last summer.

Weeks after Boris Johnson announced his resignation as prime minister, Lord Patten, a former party chairman and former BBC chairman, lamented the persistent “corrupting and debilitating impact of Johnson’s premiership on British politics and government.”

As with ‘SARS-Covid-19’ there was some debate as to how the condition should be named in general conversation.

Eventually, “Long Johnson” was settled on rather than the more familiar “Long Boris”.

The commentator Paul Waugh listed some of the symptoms of Long Johnson he saw in the bloodstream of the Conservative party: “A debilitating condition that led it to lose its sense of taste, decency and direction.”

Long Johnson hit fever pitch with the Conservative party’s short-lived collective decision to select Johnson’s preferred candidate, Liz Truss, as the next prime minister. That quickly burnt itself out.

Westminster Accounts: Search for your MP

On taking office Rishi Sunak tried to shake off Long Johnson by promising that his government would be one of “integrity, professionalism and accountability” at all times. It is not proving so easy for the new prime minister to escape unwanted legacies from his predecessor-but-one.

Questions of probity over two men who were promoted by Johnson, Nadhim Zahawi and Richard Sharp, have combined to create the biggest political crisis of Sunak’s short premiership.

According to Raphael Behr, political columnist on The Guardian, the “Zahawi episode is a symptom of Long Johnson, the chronic, recurrent, debilitation of government by a pathogen that still circulates in the ruling party long after the original infection has been treated”.

The embarrassments Sunak is grappling with are debilitating hangovers from the Johnson era, so is the fumbling way the prime minister is dealing with them.

Nadhim Zahawi had the reputation at Westminster of a comparatively competent and personable minister, one of those credited with the successful roll-out of the vaccine programme. But as often with politicians who become conspicuously wealthy there was much gossip about his finances.

His wealth was generated as a co-founder of the polling company YouGov before he became an MP.

Scrutiny of Zahawi’s finances sharpened when he became Chancellor of the Exchequer, the politician responsible for the nation’s finances and tax system. In seeking the truth, journalists received what they considered to be aggressive threats of libel from lawyers acting for Zahawi, designed to suppress allegations, some of which have been confirmed as accurate.

It is now known that while he was Chancellor, Zahawi quietly negotiated a tax settlement totalling some £5m, including a penalty of more than £1m, with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) for which he was the minister responsible.

Zahawi says his mistake was “careless but not deliberate”. Jim Harra, the head of HMRC, told MPs this week: “There are no penalties for innocent errors in your tax affairs.”

There is no pressing reason why Boris Johnson should have made Zahawi chancellor. Nor does the haste with which the appointment was made suggest that the prime minister or his officials, led by the Cabinet Secretary, had sufficient time for due diligence looking into his suitability for this most sensitive financial post. Yet their green light then effectively gave him a free pass to prominent ministerial ranks under both Truss and Sunak.

By late last year scrutiny by an honours committee elsewhere in Whitehall reportedly held up a proposed knighthood for Zahawi.

In the past, when serving prime ministers have announced their intention to resign, other ministers have stayed in post until the successor is chosen. He or she then assembles their own cabinet team. This has been so even when threatened ministerial resignations force out a prime minister, as happened to both Tony Blair and Boris Johnson.

Once he announced he was going, Johnson could have said that he was not accepting resignations and that all minsters would stay on in the interim. That is not the way Boris Johnson behaved. He used his dying powers of patronage to settle scores and to try to influence the outcome of the leadership election.

He fired Michael Gove and then he troubled the ailing Queen to appoint an entirely new temporary cabinet for the few weeks of the leadership contest. Johnson promoted Zahawi to the Treasury, thus crucially depriving Rishi Sunak of the status of high office during the leadership battle, while Truss luxuriated in the great office of state of foreign secretary.

Earlier, after Sunak emerged as the person most likely to replace Johnson, he became the subject of damaging leaks about his US Green Card and his wife’s non-dom status. The Metropolitan Police coincidentally tarnished the teetotal Sunak’s reputation, and blunted the impact on Johnson, by issuing them both with fixed penalty notices for breaking COVID regulations at the “ambushed with a cake” Johnson birthday party in the cabinet room.

Sunak experienced the hard way the phenomenon, now hitting Zahawi and Sharp, that friendship with Johnson often has adverse consequences.

Richard Sharp insists that he was appointed the chairman of the BBC on merit after a rigorous selection process. There is no reason to doubt his perspective. When I knew him at university, more than 40 years ago, he was an exceptionally decent and considerate person. He went on to build a highly successful career in finance alongside generous voluntary contributions to public service and charity.

Men with known political affiliations such as Michael Grade, Gavyn Davies and Marmaduke Hussey have been appointed to the BBC chair by other prime ministers. But Boris Johnson made the final decision over Sharp, after he and his allies had previously broken with precedent by conjuring up culture wars and pre-endorsing friends and allies such as Paul Dacre and Charles Moore for top posts in the media, normally viewed as apolitical – unsuccessfully it turned out.

Johnson used his patronage to appoint Peter Cruddas to the House of Lords, someone who had helped him out with his personal finances. Richard Sharp says he “simply connected” people, who then facilitated an undeclared personal £800,000 overdraft guarantee for the prime minister.

Richard Sharp and cabinet secretary Simon Case may genuinely have decided this was immaterial to Sharp’s BBC application but is that the way Boris Johnson sees things? Several enquiries into Sharp’s appointment are now under way. Johnson’s benefactor Sam Blyth is an old friend of Sharp.

The inquiries will doubtless ascertain whether Boris Johnson knew of this obliging distant cousin’s existence before Sharp introduced him to the cabinet secretary.

Long Johnson is also evident in the way the government is handling these potential scandals.

Quick resignations and moving on are things of the past. Following a pattern which became familiar during the Johnson era, Sunak has presided over, and sometimes joined in, denials that have turned out to be inaccurate, playing for time by calling for further inquiries after awkward facts are established.

Sir Keir Starmer had a two-pronged attack at PMQs: “We all know why the prime minister was reluctant to ask his party chair questions about family finances and tax avoidance, but his failure to sack him, when the whole country can see what is going on, shows how hopelessly weak he is.”

Sizeable minorities in parliament and perhaps even more in the Tory membership are not loyal to Sunak and hanker for a return of Johnson. This limits Sunak’s ability to lead firmly.

With his oblique reference to the great wealth of Sunak’s family, the leader of the opposition went further, implying that the prime minister is really just one of them – sharing similar values, or the absence of them, to Johnson and Zahawi and the same acquisitiveness.

Only urgent decisive action by Sunak can demonstrate that he has beaten the plague of Long Johnson.

World

Vladimir Putin thanks soldiers ‘fighting for motherland’ as he is inaugurated for fifth time

Published

8 hours ago

May 7, 2024

admin

Vladimir Putin thanks soldiers 'fighting for motherland' as he is inaugurated for fifth time

Vladimir Putin has thanked soldiers “fighting for our motherland” in Ukraine – as he was sworn in as Russian president for a fifth time.

At a ceremony in the gilded Grand Kremlin Palace, Mr Putin placed his hand on the Russian constitution and vowed to defend it as a crowd of hand-picked dignitaries looked on.

An artillery salute marked the end of the official presidential inauguration, and as he left the palace to the sound of the Russian national anthem, a round of applause erupted from those in the audience.

Ukraine-Russia war latest: Putin claims he could work with West

Tuesday’s inauguration marks the start of another six years at the top for Mr Putin, 71.

He is already the Kremlin’s longest-serving leader since Joseph Stalin, having been in power for nearly two-and-a-half decades – 20 years as president, four as prime minister.

By the end of this term, only Catherine the Great will be ahead of him – she ruled Russia way back in the 18th century.

His new term does not expire until 2030, when he will be constitutionally eligible to run again.

When he succeeded Boris Yeltsin in 1999, Russia was emerging from economic collapse.

Under his leadership, most notably since the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, the country has become a pariah state that threatens global security, reliant on regimes like China, Iran and North Korea for support.

Russia’s enormous advantage in resources has gradually turned the tide in Ukraine in Moscow’s favour, but both sides have been suffering heavy casualties.

Following his widely-anticipated re-election in March, Mr Putin suggested a confrontation between NATO and Russia was possible, and he declared he wanted to carve out a buffer zone in Ukraine to protect his country from cross-border attacks.

With major changes at home and abroad over the past two years, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the circumstances do not make it more important to give the public the right to speak out.

“It needs tougher measures to ensure the victory, to ensure that we reach our goals,” he told Sky News, when asked if Russians should not have more say during a war.

He insisted that is a democratic stance in “the same circumstances Western media exists in Europe and the US” and denied Mr Putin has made the country a dictatorship.

“This is not the case absolutely, absolutely, it’s just propaganda, it’s rough propaganda, nothing else,” he added.

“So, we are living in our country, in our own environment and it’s purely democratic. We choose our power. We elect our power. We elect our president.”

As the country’s economy remains on a war footing, analysts say that, with another term in office secured, the Kremlin could take the unpopular steps of raising taxes to fund the war and pressure more men to join the military.

The repression that has characterised Mr Putin’s time in office continued when his greatest political foe, opposition leader Alexei Navalny, died in an Arctic penal colony in February.

Mr Peskov told Sky News opposition remains in the country, but added “of course the conditions are much more tough around here because we are in war conditions”.

Other prominent critics have either been imprisoned or have fled the country, and even some of his opponents abroad fear for their security.

Defiant and determined – Russia’s leader is in it for the long haul

The speech was vintage Vladimir – talking up Russia’s greatness, blaming the West for Moscow’s isolation and doubling down on his current path.

If there was any hope of him mellowing in this next term of office, President Putin dispelled that right at the beginning, referring to the security of the Russian people as a matter “above all”.

Translation – we’re in the confrontation with the West for the long haul.

But whose fault is it? Not ours, he said. All part of the Kremlin’s narrative to portray Russia as the victim.

What might concern western officials, is the tone of the speech, especially the last line: “We will realise everything we have planned, together we will win.”

With things going his way at home and on the battlefield, the Russian president appears increasingly confident, and increasingly defiant.

Laws have been promising long prison terms for anyone who discredits the military.

The Kremlin also targets independent media, rights groups, LGBTQ+ activists and others who do not adhere to what Mr Putin has emphasised as Russia’s “traditional family values”.

Sky News’ international affairs editor Dominic Waghorn said Mr Putin “has taken a country that was emerging from communism and economic collapse towards reform and reintegration into the international community, and he’s turned it in a pariah state threatening global security while he and his kleptocracy have stolen billions”.

He added: “In his inauguration speech, Putin said Russia stands united [but] an estimated 900,000 Russians have voted with their feet and left the country since his invasion of Ukraine.”

World

Rishi Sunak criticises ‘authoritarian and assertive’ China after MoD hack

Published

8 hours ago

May 7, 2024

admin

Rishi Sunak criticises 'authoritarian and assertive' China after MoD hack

Rishi Sunak has said Beijing is “acting in a way that is more authoritarian and assertive abroad” after Sky News revealed China hacked the Ministry of Defence

The prime minister made his first comments about the massive data breach on Tuesday lunchtime after Sky News revealed on Monday evening that China is responsible for hacking the armed forces’ third-party payroll system.

He refused to name China but said a “malign actor has compromised the armed forces payment network”.

“I set out a very robust policy towards China, which means that we need to take the powers which we have done to protect ourselves against the risk that China and other countries pose to us,” he added.

“They are a country with fundamentally different values to ours that are acting in a way that is more authoritarian and assertive abroad.”

Mr Sunak said he wanted to reassure people the MoD has already removed the network, taken it offline and is “making sure the people affected are supported in the right way”.

Names and bank details of current army, Royal Navy and RAF personnel and some veterans were exposed by the hack.

China said the accusations were “completely fabricated and malicious slanders”.

A spokesman for the Chinese embassy in London denied the country had anything to do with an MoD hack and said it had made “relevant responses” to accusations on the 25 and 27 March.

He accused the UK of politicising cyber security and claimed there was no factual evidence of China hacking the MoD.

‘China has no need to meddle in internal affairs of UK’

The spokesman said: “I will hereby reiterate that the so-called cyber attacks by China against the UK are completely fabricated and malicious slanders.

“We strongly oppose such accusations. China has always firmly fought all forms of cyber attacks according to law. China does not encourage, support or condone cyber attacks.

“At the same time, we oppose the politicisation of cyber security issues and the baseless denigration of other countries without factual evidence.

“China has neither the interest nor the need to meddle in the internal affairs of the UK.”

The attack was focused on a contractor system that is not connected to the main MoD computer systems. It has now been taken down and a review launched.

All salaries will be paid this month and the MoD hopes serving personnel will not be concerned about their safety, with staff to be provided with advice and support.

Defence Secretary Grant Shapps is due to make a statement on the issue to the Commons this afternoon.

Tobias Ellwood, a Conservative MP and former soldier, told Sky News China “was probably looking at the financially vulnerable with a view that they may be coerced in exchange for cash”.

China is winning the war

Tory MP Sir Iain Duncan Smith, who has been sanctioned by China, told Sky News: “China is behind this.

“And the reluctance, I think, comes from this panic that somehow if we upset China, China will kill the business.”

Labour’s shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves said the hack was “deeply concerning” and the government “has got questions to answer”.

Luke de Pulford, executive director of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, said Beijing has carried out many cyber attacks on Britain but the UK has only retaliated once in the form of sanctioning the companies carrying out the attack rather than the Chinese government.

He added that FBI director Christopher Wray “put it pretty starkly” when he said Beijing’s cyber espionage programme is so vast it is bigger than all its major competitors combined.

Not China’s first cyber attack on UK

The hack could raise questions about whether other countries with challenging relationships with China will want to share sensitive intelligence with the UK.

The attack comes less than two months after “state-affiliated actors”, alleged to be working on behalf of China, were blamed by the government for two “malicious” cyber attack campaigns in the UK.

World

Israel-Hamas war: Embattled Netanyahu’s choice – Accept ceasefire deal or gamble on Rafah incursion

Published

8 hours ago

May 7, 2024

admin

Israel-Hamas war: Embattled Netanyahu's choice - Accept ceasefire deal or gamble on Rafah incursion

There are many in Israel who don’t believe Benjamin Netanyahu wants a new hostage deal, and they’re not just the families of those still being held in Gaza.

Such is the scepticism with which Israel’s prime minister is now regarded, a growing number of Israelis are starting to think their embattled leader wants to string out the fighting as long as possible as a means to remain in office.

Having spent much of Monday blaming Hamas for collapsing ceasefire talks, the group’s dramatic acceptance of a ceasefire proposal last night certainly threw the Israeli government.

War latest: 20 militants killed as Israel takes partial control of crossing

Whether or not Hamas has agreed to the same Israeli proposal that Antony Blinken described as “generous” only a few days ago however, is unclear.

The Israeli government’s initial response, late last night, was to claim it was a different proposal and something Israel had not agreed to.

There are parties to these negotiations who will know if that is true or not: The CIA Director Bill Burns has spent much time in the Middle East over recent months and has been criss-crossing between Cairo, Doha and Tel Aviv over the past few days.

He will be fully across each word of any proposal and how the language has shifted; he will know who is acting in good faith, and if either side isn’t.

The fact the Israeli war cabinet has agreed to send a negotiating team to Cairo today, something they didn’t do last week, shows they are taking this seriously, but the parallel move to send IDF troops into Rafah complicates matters.

There are two opposing schools of thought here; one says that Netanyahu’s decision to keep fighting and attack Rafah shows he doesn’t want to halt the war, knowing that a ceasefire could very likely spell the end of his government if its right-wing allies resign in protest.

The other view is that Netanyahu has upped the military pressure on Hamas to achieve a hostage deal, just at the moment negotiations are reaching a decisive point.

To suggest Netanyahu is deliberately blocking a new deal “is like Hitler indicting Churchill” a source close to the prime minister texted me on Monday night.

When I asked if Hamas was “playing the PM”, I got laughter emojis back.

But an invasion of Rafah would be a final roll of the dice.

Sure, it remains the final unexplored bastion of Hamas in Gaza, but is it really the location of [Hamas leaders] Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed Deif and the remaining hostages and would a full-scale operation in Rafah finally achieve Israel’s outstanding objectives?

It’s a gamble, and if it doesn’t succeed, Netanyahu will be left with few places to turn.

This might be the best deal Netanyahu is going to get then, and he is now under pressure to decide.

If the US, Qatar, Egypt and Hamas all agree it’s a good deal, how can Bibi reject it without being seen as the one preventing the hostages from returning home?