A politician who thrives on drama and attention, Boris Johnson’s bombshell resignation on Friday night was true to form: once again the former prime minister left Westminster reeling, while also throwing in grenades against enemies that will ensure he remains in the spotlight for some time yet.
It was undoubtedly a shock. Even one of his closest allies told me a few minutes after his excoriating resignation letter landed that they had no idea this was coming. It was also vintage Johnson, as the former prime minister unleashed a full frontal attack on the protagonists he believed caused his demise – Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and the “kangaroo court” privileges committee who Mr Johnson insisted was always going to find him guilty regardless of the evidence.
As with his resignation from Number 10, there was not a scrap of contrition or regard for the democratic process that had got him to this place (remember there was a Commons vote to kick off the inquiry and there is also a Tory majority on that committee).
Instead there was fury, defiance and the threat of revenge laced through his remarks. He ended his statement saying he was “very sad to be leaving parliament – at least for now”.
Cue frenzied speculation about whether he might find another seat to come back in before the next general election. Whatever he does now, what is clear is that he’ll be hurling rocks from the sidelines at a prime minister he’s determined to destroy.
But surveying the scene of Mr Johnson’s bombshell the morning after, the timing of the detonation makes perfect sense.
We knew two things about the former prime minister: he was very focused on getting his resignation honours lists through, and he’d said himself at the privilege committee hearings that he wouldn’t accept the findings if members didn’t find in his favour.
Having received a copy of their report a few days ago, he’d clearly decided to quit rather than suffer the humiliation of being sanctioned and potentially suspended as an MP through a Commons vote. So when his honours list was secured and published, it was time for Mr Johnson to go.
Advertisement
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:04
Tory MP pays tribute to Johnson
We don’t yet know the findings of the committee – due to meet on Monday to decide whether to now expedite the publication of its report – but we do know from Mr Johnson’s furious response that it’s likely MPs determined he had wilfully or recklessly misled the House, and were preparing to recommend a suspension of more than 10 sitting days from the Commons.
We currently only have Mr Johnson’s versions of events, as the former prime minister looked to set the narrative on a report that is almost certainly going to be very damning indeed. We know the privileges committee has received more evidence regarding Mr Johnson, since the initial partygate hearings earlier this year.
Last month, Boris Johnson was referred to police over further potential lockdown breaches by the Cabinet Office, which had been reviewing documents as part of the COVID inquiry. His ministerial diary revealed visits by family and friends to the prime ministerial country retreat Chequers during the pandemic. The information handed to the police was also handed to the privileges committee as part of its investigation. While Mr Johnson’s spokesperson immediately dismissed claims of breaches as a “politically motivated stitch-up”, another figure told me that the evidence is damning and has Mr Johnson “bang to rights”.
“There was an expectation that MPs would try to avoid the highest sanction, that they have gone there means it must be pretty bad,” says one Whitehall figure, who believes that the privileges committee has been unanimous in its verdict against him (we won’t know that for sure until the report is out).
The big question on my mind now is whether Mr Johnson will – or can – stage a comeback, and to what extent he’ll be able to disrupt his political nemesis Mr Sunak from outside the tent.
When it comes to the former question, the former prime minister has clearly decided not to box himself in and there is a big chunk of the activist base, as well as the parliamentary base, that are Mr Johnson backers.
But it’s equally true that this close to an election, Conservative MPs don’t want to stoke division – with a nod to the old adage that divided parties don’t win elections.
His most loyal backers on Friday night rode out on Twitter and TV screens to denounce the privileges committee, rather than amplify further Mr Johnson’s pointed criticisms about Mr Sunak and his government.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:57
Rayner: ‘Good riddance’ to Johnson
For its part, the Number 10 team were relieved when Mr Johnson failed to lead a huge rebellion and don’t believe he had anything near the potency he once had. “We’re in a period where Rishi is doing well restoring trust after a period of distress,” is how one figure close to the PM put it to me. “I don’t think the mood in the party is pitch forks.”
That’s not to say Number 10 isn’t worried by an unleashed and furious Mr Johnson determined to settle scores, but, as another person put it: “He is one man, the party is more than that and we sometimes lose sight of that in the Johnson circus.”
Image: Prime minister Sunak with President Biden
But the criticisms Mr Johnson has levelled at Mr Sunak – justified or not – are potent. There’s the criticism of Mr Sunak’s handling of Brexit and failure to get a UK-US free trade deal, to his call for lower taxes and bemoaning the lack of political momentum going into an election.
Those in government might remark in exasperation that the relationship between Mr Johnson and President Biden meant a free trade deal is something he’d never had been able to do, but that doesn’t matter much – what matters is that these dog whistles rally a base in the party frustrated by the new regime. He already has in the new grassroots Conservative Democratic Organisation, a movement which he could lead.
What he’ll do next, we don’t know. But the signs are that he intends, with his allies, to be a political menace. A third by-election was triggered on Saturday after another key Johnson backer Nigel Adams announced he too was quitting Westminster with immediate effect. That on top of the two by-elections caused by Mr Johnson and that of his closest political ally Nadine Dorries are the last thing his successor needs. Lose them, and it all feeds into the narrative that Mr Sunak is a busted flush.
There are obvious questions as to whether Mr Johnson will try to stand in Ms Dorries’ mid-Beds seat, where the Conservatives are defending a 24,000 majority, or return to another safe seat before the next election (there were plenty of rumours before all of this that Mr Johnson was on the look out for a safer seat than Uxbridge and South Ruislip).
He could equally return to writing a newspaper column or editorship. What’s clear from his resignation statement is that he still intends to hold the spotlight whether Mr Sunak likes it or not.
Image: Johnson swearing in ahead of hearing at Privileges Committee March, 2023.
Those around him tell me Mr Johnson shouldn’t be written off and feels deeply aggrieved by what he sees as a campaign within Number 10 and the cabinet office to defenestrate him, with briefings against him in the run-up to the publication of the privileges committee report and then vote in Commons. His camp believe fervently that Mr Sunak is trying to drive them from parliament and the party: they are defiant and this, if you like, is the beginning of a fight back. I’m told more resignations are likely.
For the current regime, Mr Johnson’s attack gives voice to those supporters angry that – in the words of one – Mr Sunak is unpicking the 2019 manifesto despite having neither a mandate from he public or party members. For many Conservatives, it is Mr Johnson who has the box office appeal and ability to connect with voters in a way that Mr Sunak does not. Those loyal to him are ready to rally – should he mount an attempt to return to parliament.
There are detractors who say Mr Johnson is done, that the partygate scandal has damaged his standing with the public and the party beyond repair.
A snap poll out today by YouGov found that nearly three in four Britons believe Mr Johnson committed further breaches of COVID rules than those he’s already been investigated and fined for.
In some ways, the easier thing for Mr Johnson to do was make this resignation the concluding chapter of his political life. But instead he’s chosen to leave the door open to a sequel.
A politician who above all hates to lose, the question is, after all that’s passed, whether he still has the appetite – and ability – to try once more to win. Never rule him out.
The ringleader of a Romanian grooming gang was offered £1,500 by the Home Office to be deported while he was in prison awaiting trial for 10 rapes, a Sky News investigation has found.
But Sky News can exclusively reveal that in summer 2024, while in custody at HMP Perth awaiting trial for serial sex offences, officials handed him a “voluntary return” form under a government scheme paying foreign nationals to leave Britain.
The department later decided not to remove him because of the upcoming court proceedings.
Immigration status renewed during trial
In another twist, just months later – as he stood in a High Court dock facing 10 rape charges – Sky News has discovered Cumpanasoiu’s immigration status, which was due to expire, was automatically renewed under the EU settlement scheme.
Cumpanasoiu was later handed a 24-year extended sentence, with 20 years in jail and four on licence, for sexual and trafficking offences.
Image: Cumpanasoiu winking to the camera during a video filmed near a brothel in Dundee. Pic: Crown Office
Prosecutors described him as a “winking, smirking pimp” who once filmed a victim climbing a tree to escape his anger when she “failed” to make enough money in Dundee brothels.
Following days of questions from Sky News, officials have confirmed his settled status has now been revoked.
The inside story
Sky sources say Home Office workers personally met Cumpanasoiu at Perth prison while he was on remand in August 2024.
Sources say he “expressed a desire to return home” and was handed documents to sign agreeing to a cash-assisted return, but the plan was later blocked.
But in another twist, on 2 December 2024, halfway through the grooming gang trial, his EU settled status was renewed.
A source close to proceedings told Sky News the revelations “smack of incompetence”.
The Home Office does not dispute this version of events.
Image: Romanian grooming gang clockwise from top left: Remus Stan, Alexandra Bugonea, Mircea Marian Cumpanasoiu, Cristian Urlateanu and Catalin Dobre. Pics: Police Scotland
Rape Crisis Scotland said the case raises concerns.
A spokesperson for the charity said: “This was a horrific case, which involved numerous vulnerable survivors who showed tremendous strength and courage by coming forward to seek justice for what had happened to them.
“The severity of this case has, quite rightly, resulted in significant prison sentences for the perpetrators. However, it is not clear why the Home Office tried to intervene before a trial had begun, and any verdict had been reached.
“Survivors must have faith in the criminal justice process and its ability to hold perpetrators accountable for their crimes.
“This incident raises questions about what the Home Office’s intentions were, and why it was able to insert itself into active criminal proceedings in the first place.”
The EU Settlement Scheme was set up after Brexit to allow citizens from the EU, and their family members, to continue living and working in the UK.
People with “settled status” can stay in the UK indefinitely.
Those with “pre-settled status”, such as Cumpanasoiu, must reapply after five years.
Since September 2023, the Home Office has introduced automatic extensions of pre-settled status which means renewals happen electronically unless officials intervene.
There are questions now about whether this automation can lead to offenders such as Cumpanasoiu being overlooked.
Home Office ‘had power to intervene’
Jen Ang, a human rights lawyer and leading expert on migrants’ rights, told Sky News the vast majority of those processed under the EU system are law-abiding citizens.
But Ms Ang, a professor at the University of Glasgow, reveals authorities did have the power to intervene in this case.
Image: Professor Jen Ang
She said: “In this case the Home Office did have the power and the right to stop the automatic renewal. At any point where it is possible that someone is about to become unsuitable for settled status, the Home Office could have intervened.
“The optics of this in the context of such a high-profile and horrific crime are not great.”
‘The public are entitled to be concerned’
Thomas Leonard Ross KC, a leading Scottish defence lawyer, described the decision-making as “flawed”.
He said: “I mean automatically renewing pre-settled status in 99.9% of occasions can be done without any risk to the public. But clearly this particular individual has been assessed to be an extremely dangerous person.
“The public are perfectly entitled to be concerned. A decision of this type made automatically without any assessment as to the risk that he might pose is clearly a flawed decision.”
A Home Office spokesman said: “This man will serve his sentence for the abhorrent crimes he committed and will be considered for deportation at the earliest opportunity.
“A deportation order will automatically trigger the revocation of an individual’s right to be in the UK, including pre-settled status.”
The novel has survived the industrial revolution, radio, television, and the internet. Now it’s facing artificial intelligence – and novelists are worried.
Half (51%) fear that they will be replaced by AI entirely, according to a new survey, even though for the most part they don’t use the technology themselves.
More immediately, 85% say they think their future income will be negatively impacted by AI, and 39% claim their finances have already taken a hit.
Tracy Chevalier, the bestselling author of Girl With A Pearl Earring and The Glassmaker, shares that concern.
“I worry that a book industry driven mainly by profit will be tempted to use AI more and more to generate books,” she said in response to the survey.
“If it is cheaper to produce novels using AI (no advance or royalties to pay to authors, quicker production, retainment of copyright), publishers will almost inevitably choose to publish them.
“And if they are priced cheaper than ‘human made’ books, readers are likely to buy them, the way we buy machine-made jumpers rather than the more expensive hand-knitted ones.”
Image: Chevalier, author of the book Girl With A Pearl Earring, with the painting of the same name. Pic: AP
Why authors are so worried
The University of Cambridge’s Minderoo Centre for Technology and Democracy asked 258 published novelists and 74 industry insiders how AI is viewed and used in the world of British fiction.
Alongside existential fears about the wholesale replacement of the novel, many authors reported a loss of income from AI, which they attributed to “competition from AI-generated books and the loss of jobs which provide supplementary streams of income, such as copywriting”.
Some respondents reported finding “rip-off AI-generated imitations” of their own books, as well books “written under their name which they haven’t produced”.
Last year, the Authors Guild warned that “the growing access to AI is driving a new surge of low-quality sham ‘books’ on Amazon”, which has limited the number of publications per day on its Kindle self-publishing platform to combat the influx of AI-generated books.
The median income for a novelist is currently £7,000 and many make ends meet by doing related work, such as audiobook narration, copywriting or ghost-writing.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:12
Could the AI bubble burst?
These tasks, authors feared, were already being supplanted by AI, although little evidence was provided for this claim, which was not possible to verify independently.
Copyright was also a big concern, with 59% of novelists reporting that they knew their work had been used to train AI models.
Of these, 99% said they did not give permission and 100% said they were not remunerated for this use.
Earlier this year, AI firm Anthropic agreed to pay authors $1.5bn (£1.2bn) to settle a lawsuit which claimed the company stole their work.
The judge in the US court case ruled that Anthropic had downloaded more than seven million digital copies of books it “knew had been pirated” and ordered the firm to pay authors compensation.
However, the judge sided with Anthropic over the question of copyright, saying that the AI model was doing something akin to when a human reads a book to inspire new work, rather than simply copying.
Most novelists – 67% – never used it for creative work, although a few said they found it very useful for speeding up drafting or editing.
One case study featured in the report is Lizbeth Crawford, a novelist in multiple genres, including fantasy and romance. She describes working with AI as a writing partner, using it to spot plot holes and trim adjectives.
“Lizbeth used to write about one novel per year, but now she can do three per year, and her target is five,” notes the author of the report, Dr Clementine Collett.
Is there a role for government?
Despite this, the report’s foreword urges the government to slow down the spread of AI by strengthening copyright law to protect authors and other creatives.
The government has proposed making an exception to UK copyright law for “text and data mining”, which might make authors and other copyright holders opt out to stop their work being used to train AI models.
“That approach prioritises access to data for the world’s technology companies at the cost to the UK’s own creative industries,” writes Professor Gina Neff, executive director of the Minderoo Centre for Technology and Democracy.
“It is both bad economics and a betrayal of the very cultural assets of British soft power.”
A government spokesperson said: “Throughout this process we have, and always will, put the interests of the UK’s citizens and businesses first.
“We’ve always been clear on the need to work with both the creative industries and AI sector to drive AI innovation and ensure robust protections for creators.
“We are bringing together both British and global companies, alongside voices beyond the AI and creative sectors, to ensure we can capture the broadest possible range of expert views as we consider next steps.”
The letter sent by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform said members wanted to talk to him because of the widely reported allegations that have been made against him, which he denies, and because of his relationship with Epstein and what he may have seen.
The committee is looking into Epstein’s crimes and his wider sex trafficking network. Andrew was given until today, 20 November, to respond.
Legally he isn’t obliged to talk to them, and to be honest it’s hard to imagine why he would.
The only time he has spoken at length about the allegations against him and his relationship with Epstein was that Newsnight interview in 2019, and we all know how much of a disaster that was.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:35
Releasing the Epstein files: How we got here
Yes, this could be an opportunity for him to publicly apologise for keeping up his links with Epstein, which he has never done before, or show some sympathy towards Epstein’s victims, even as he vehemently denies the allegations against him.
But while there is the moral argument that he should tell the committee everything he knows, it could also raise more uncomfortable questions for him, and that could feel like too much of a risk for Andrew and the wider Royal Family.
However, even saying no won’t draw all this to a close. There are other outstanding loose ends.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
13:31
The new Epstein files: The key takeaways
There could also still be a debate in parliament about the Andrew problem.
The Liberal Democrats have said they want to use their opposition debating time to bring the issue to the floor of the House of Commons, while other MPs on the Public Accounts Committee have signalled their intention to look into Andrew’s finances and housing arrangements.
And then there are the wider Epstein files over in America, and what information they may hold.
From developments this week, it seems we are edging ever closer to seeing those released.
All of this may mean Andrew in other ways is forced to say more than he wants to, even without opening up to the Congress committee.