Asked to explain her understanding of what had happened, she said the House of Lords appointment commission (Holac) had told No 10 she would need to announce her departure as an MP in order to enter the Lords.
She said she was aware of this rule, but that she had been urged “via back channels” not to prompt a by-election so held off. A plan was devised by the Cabinet Secretary whereby she would stay on the list until a general election, but “we found out that suddenly that wasn’t allowed”, Ms Dorries claimed.
Detailing the chain of events on Friday, the former minister said she only learned that her name was not on the list half an hour before it was published.
The Chief Whip spoke to her in the morning to say “everything’s fine” before contacting her hours later to reveal she was not included, she said.
On the reason behind her shock resignation, she said: “It was the sheer audacity of the Chief Whip thinking that at my age having worked in Parliament for 21 years, serving 18 years on the back benches, having been a minister during Covid… having been a secretary of state, that he can dangle out to me some kind of stick and carrot, like ‘be a good girl and we’ll make sure something’s sorted for you in the future’, which is basically what he was saying to me. That for me, and that moment, was what made me change my mind.
“I think you come to a point in life when you have to stop, when you can’t just be pushed around, when you can’t allow people to bully you, as I’ve just been bullied by No 10. You can’t allow that to happen, you have to stand up for yourself, and that’s what I did.”
“To honour these peerages it was not necessary to overrule Holac – but simply to ask them to renew their vetting, which was a mere formality,” Mr Johnson said.
One Downing Street source said the Cabinet Office had made it clear to Mr Johnson that there is no re-vetting process, while the Prime Minister’s official spokesman said it is “entirely untrue to say that anyone from No 10 attempted to remove or change” to Holac-approved list.
Boris Johnson pressed Rishi Sunak to grant father’s honour
Boris Johnson pressed for his father Stanley to be honoured for his services to the Conservative Party and the environment during talks with Rishi Sunak.
In an escalating war of words, the former prime minister accused Sunak yesterday of “talking rubbish” as he denied asking him to bend the rules for his resignation honours list.
The Times can disclose that Johnson pressed for Sunak to help his father secure a knighthood after he was cut from the list amid claims that No 10 was uncomfortable with the proposal.
Johnson is also said to have claimed that his father deserved to be honoured in his own right for his services as a Tory MEP and his campaigning on the environment.
No 10 was said to harbour significant concerns about the reputational risk of giving Stanley Johnson a knighthood. One government source said: “It just would have looked terrible.”
Sunak is said to have told Johnson at the end of the June 2 meeting: “I’m not going to make any promises to you. I don’t want to you to leave this room thinking I have made a promise to you because I don’t want to fall out with you down the line over it.”
Johnson’s nomination of his father had prompted accusations that he was using the honours system to reward family members. In 2020 he nominated his brother Jo, a former minister, for a peerage. He is now Lord Johnson of Marylebone.
There was also criticism in light of allegations made in 2021 that Stanley Johnson, 82, had smacked Caroline Nokes, now a Conservative MP and chairwoman of the women and equalities committee, “about as hard as he could” on her bottom at the Conservative Party conference in Blackpool in 2003. Johnson Sr denied the allegation and said: “I have no recollection of Caroline Nokes at all.” A spokesman for Johnson declined to comment. No 10 has denied any involvement in the removal of Stanley Johnson from Johnson’s list.
Sunak claimed yesterday that during the same meeting Johnson had asked him to overrule the House of Lords Appointments Commission (Holac), which vets peerages, and elevate three Tory MPs to the upper chamber.
“Boris Johnson asked me to do something that I wasn’t prepared to do, because I didn’t think it was right,” Sunak said. “That was either to overrule the Holac committee or to make promises to people. Now, I wasn’t prepared to do that and I didn’t think it was right — and if people don’t like that, then tough.When I got this job, I said I was going to do things differently because I wanted to change politics, and that’s what I’m doing.”
Johnson responded that all Sunak needed to do was ask Holac to “renew their vetting”. He said: “Rishi Sunak is talking rubbish. To honour these peerages it was not necessary to overrule Holac but simply to ask them to renew their vetting, which was a mere formality.”
Johnson claims that he came to a “gentleman’s agreement” with Sunak that he would call off hostilities in return for his resignation honours list being waved through. He says Sunak assured him the list he submitted, including the nominations for peerages, would be honoured. The MPs would be “revetted” by Holac and get their peerages at a later date. After the meeting Johnson told MPs on the list they would be getting peerages.
The former prime minister believes he has been betrayed. He and his allies have taken to calling it the “swindler’s list”, with Johnson accusing Sunak of “sophistry”. No 10 has rejected Johnson’s version of events.
The Cabinet Office issued a statement last night saying that Johnson’s request to Sunak for MPs to be revetted would have been “unprecedented”. A spokesman said: “Holac did not support the nominations of the MPs put forward by the former prime minister.
“It is unprecedented for a sitting prime minister to invite Holac to reconsider the vetting of individual nominees on a former prime minister’s resignation list. It is not therefore a formality.”
Last night Nadine Dorries said she learnt she had not made the list half an hour before it was published. She told TalkTV: “I spoke to the chief whip in the morning and he said, ‘No, everything’s fine’. He got back to me 30 minutes before the list was published and said, ‘Actually, you’re not on the list’.”
Meet the very young new peers Ross Kempsell Eccentric as inhabitants of the House of Lords may be, none is thought to have spent their early career dressed in a chicken suit (Jack Malvern writes).
This gap is about to be filled by Ross Kempsell, 31, a former journalist whose chutzpah and loyalty inspired Boris Johnson to nominate him to be one of the youngest life peers since such peerages were introduced in 1958.
This is quite funny and was published in early July last year.
Fri 8 Jul 2022 18.04 BST The Convict’s resignation honours list – a sneak peek Boris Johnson is preparing to decorate those without whom none of the last three years would have been possible
Boris Johnson ponders an MBE for Jacob Rees-Mogg: ‘He’ll want more than that but he’s desperate enough to take anything.’
With nothing else to do with his time, Boris Johnson has spent the last 24 hours working on his hotly anticipated resignation honours list. We managed to obtain an exclusive preview.
Stanley Johnson A hereditary peerage in recognition of his work for violence against women and for his extraordinary versatility. He is an example to all of us of the importance of having no principles whatsoever. He taught me everything I know. And it just so happens that when he dies, I will end up with the title. Fancy that.
Wilfred and Romy Johnson Lady Carrie, as she will one day become, has just pointed out to me that neither Wilf nor Romy have to be awarded any trinkets and will not inherit a title. So in the meantime I confer on them the Honourable Order of the Drinks Trolley, which will entitle them to keep the £3,500 Nureyev trolley that belongs to the Downing Street flat.
Any other Johnsons It’s possible that some of you may have the self-worth to turn down an honour from me but, assuming that you don’t, there’s plenty for all of you. Am not sure I can necessarily swing any more peerages, but a knighthood or a dame is no problem. And if you could all bung me a few grand, that would be a big help. I’m going to be a bit hard up for a while and have nowhere to live. Please PayPal whatever you can to Bozza@gmail.com.
Paul Dacre The best of the best. The man who embodies the very highest principles of a democratic free press. Polite at all times. Thank you for always answering the phone when I was in trouble and going the extra mile to provide helpful stories in the Daily Mail. For you, nothing less than a peerage is a good enough. From now on you shall be known as Lord **** of Fuckshire.
Durham police Like the Met, only special measures is good enough for you. You had one job! For heaven’s sake, there were 13 consecutive days of Daily Mail front page stories telling you that Keir Starmer was guilty of having a Covid party, and yet you still blindly carried on looking at the evidence and cleared him. Whatever happened to policing without fear or favour?
Nadine Dorries The most loyal and stupidest of colleagues. Supporting me even through the really tough times – mainly because she knew no one else but me would ever consider her for a cabinet post. For her the Order of Merit for her services to wrecking the BBC, Channel 4 and literature. Her books are unique. Thankfully.
Jacob Rees-Mogg I’ve never quite seen the appeal of the Moggster. He’s some kind of homunculus in an oversized suit who has never really managed to grow up. But he’ll do anything I say. So he gets an MBE for just breathing. He’ll want more than that but he’s desperate enough to take anything.
Lord Brownlow The walking chequebook no prime minister could do without. He was, quite simply, amazing. I would buy whatever I fancied, send him the bill and he would just pay it. No questions asked. And he has promised me he offers a discreet service for ex-prime ministers. So for him, a second peerage. Lord Lord Brownlow.
Lulu Lytle To be honest, I think Lulu has no taste whatsoever. The wallpaper was absolutely hideous and didn’t even stay stuck to the walls. No wonder Dilyn **** on it. But Carrie thinks Lulu is a genius, and anything for a quiet life. And to be fair she kept her mouth shut about some of the parties. So she gets an OBE on the proviso she offers us a 75% discount on doing up our next house. Wherever it may be.
Martin Reynolds Good old Party Marty. He may have been useless as a top civil servant in No 10 but he sure could organise some great parties for us all in Downing Street when we were all under the cosh with Covid. The fun we had. I’ll never forget the bodies piled up in the flower beds. So he gets a K and becomes ambassador to Saudi Arabia. Love to see how he gets on in a dry country!
Alexander Lebedev If his son can get a peerage, then Alex must be in line for one. ****, he’s certainly earned it by not blabbing about that party in Italy. Christ, I must have been **** for the whole weekend because I remember next to nothing. Hope I didn’t leak anything to the KGB. Arise Lord Lebedev of Lubyanka.
Chris Evans There has to be a bauble for the editor of the Daily Telegraph. After all, I’ll be needing my regular £350k a year gig for knocking off one badly written column a week. Or maybe we could round that up to an even £500k now. After all, inflation is above 10% now. Just wait till I find out who has been prime minister all this time. What’s that you said, Chris? Absolutely old boy. Knight companion of the garter it is.
Conor Burns Some things, once seen, cannot be unseen. But you have done valiantly to contain your PTSD … And for your silence, you get a K.
Simon Case I can’t tell you how convenient it is to have a cabinet secretary who is so terminally dopey. Someone who notices almost nothing and does even less. He doesn’t even react when he knows I’m lying. Superb. So if you’re still awake, Simon, there’s a knighthood waiting for you on your desk.
Evgeny Lebedev Yes, yes, I haven’t forgotten you. Will a CBE do you this time? Usual terms. A million quid in used euros. Or a “Prince Charles”, as we call it now.
The owner of Luxury Treehouses Ltd I’ve no idea of your name, but there’s an OBE in it for you if you can find your way into giving me a free £150k treehouse. I promise to promote it by being photographed in it while I’m writing my memoirs. Much like that fool David Cameron and the shepherd hut.
Chris Pincher You’ve had a rough time of it recently, old boy. Anyone of us could have caught out groping when we were pi ssed. So hopefully a K makes up for things a bit.
Michael Gove It’s a stunning achievement to have been sacked by three different prime ministers for disloyalty. Not even I managed that. So I’m creating the Ancient Order of the Turncoat just for you. I look forward to you being fired a fourth time by whoever replaces me.
Matt Hancock I know how desperately you and Gina want to be Sir Matt and Lady Hancock. Which is why I’m not going to give it to you! Your neediness is just far too enjoyable. Dream on.
I find it clear that both Nadine Dorries and Boris (for once) are telling the truth.
Dorries clearly trusted Boris/Rishi would resolve this. Whereas Rishi was lying. Boris never got his head round the detail. As per usual. And trusted someone-Sunak-who led him to believe there would not be a problem. An honest man would have said-reduce the MP peerages to knighthoods/damehoods. Or they need to resign now. Which was never said-by Sunak or Holac.
I thought Rishi Sunak promised a new era of honesty as leader. Not to lie in a way that even Boris might struggle to say with a straight face.
Turning briefly to Stanley Johnson. Disgraceful that Boris should put his name forward. But there is a distinct lack of clarity as to what he may have been put forward for. If it was a Peerage, can quite see why Holac would block that. But recent press coverage says it was a Knighthood. Which would be none of Holac's business-if Sunak decided to block it (and I could see why) then he needs to be honest and own up.
I find it clear that both Nadine Dorries and Boris (for once) are telling the truth.
I find it incredible that you would say that, particularly when you consider his previous convictions. Dorries is pretty unspecific in her account. There would seem to be no need for this as she has resigned as an MP. So why would she not be able to call a spade a spade. She is clear on the fact that she was aware of the rule, something you disputed earlier. She goes on to say that she received information via "back channels". It would be more convincing if she had named the supposed back channels. Then a cunning plan was devised by the Cabinet Secretary. So cunning that "we found out suddenly that this wasnt allowed". "Suddenly", when? Unfortunately this is the result of many cunning plans. In her account Sunak doesnt get a mention once, yet astonishingly she claims he is to blame.
She was aware of the rule. The rule is that sitting MPs have to make a public statement confirming that they intend to resign within 6 months of the list being published. Boris published his list shortly before resigned. His meeting with Sunak was therefore just about 6 months too late. After Boris resigned we had another PM, before Sunak. So are we saying that the responsibility for the smooth running of an Honours List does not lie with the PM that made the list, or the one after, but it is the job of the next but one. Boris knew the rule. When he compiled the list, he knew there would be a problem. So why didnt he contact HOLAC while he was still PM, to ask for advice, as he would be entitled to do as the sitting PM. Why on earth would he think it should be down to the next, but one PM.
Dorries clearly trusted Boris/Rishi would resolve this. Whereas Rishi was lying. Boris never got his head round the detail. As per usual. And trusted someone-Sunak-who led him to believe there would not be a problem. An honest man would have said-reduce the MP peerages to knighthoods/damehoods. Or they need to resign now. Which was never said-by Sunak or Holac.
As I said earlier the meeting between Boris, and Sunak was around 6 months too late. Boris was aware that he had pulled a stroke. The purpose of the meeting with Sunak was for Boris to try to dig himself out of the hole that he had put himself in, and to get Sunaks help to bend the rules.. Nobody should be surprised, this is typical Boris, and Sunak was having none of it. I do think that Sunak contacted HOLAC, to see if he could help. I dont see why they would have sent him a note informing him there was no facility for re-vetting otherwise.
Sunak promised to send his complete list to HOLAC, which he clearly did. Both Sunak and HOLAC have confirmed this. HOLAC have confirmed that they removed 8 names from the list. Sunak was previously blamed for editing the list.
I thought Rishi Sunak promised a new era of honesty as leader. Not to lie in a way that even Boris might struggle to say with a straight face.
I dont think he has lied, unlike Boris, and probably Dorries. He promised to send off the full list, which he did. He also promised not to edit it once it was returned, which he didnt. Boris asked Sunak to make a promise that they would receive them in the future, or delay the vetting, which was not possible. The Boris plan was for them to remain sitting until the general election, and then get their Peerages. Sunak refused to make the promise. This is yet another Boris disaster, where it is everyone elses fault.
Boris obviously told them that he was nominating the sitting MPs for Peerages. Both he and they knew they would have to resign, within 6 months. What happened next. I could have a guess, based on form he already has in the book, I can see him saying, dont worry about that, leave it to me, I will sort it out. But he couldnt. I feel sorry for those concerned, but surely they know Boris well enough not to trust him.
Turning briefly to Stanley Johnson. Disgraceful that Boris should put his name forward. But there is a distinct lack of clarity as to what he may have been put forward for. If it was a Peerage, can quite see why Holac would block that. But recent press coverage says it was a Knighthood. Which would be none of Holac's business-if Sunak decided to block it (and I could see why) then he needs to be honest and own up.
HOLAC blocked 8. There were the 3 sitting MPs. Two Tory Donors. Havent a clue about the other 3. Stanley Johnson shouldnt have been near the list.
This whole mess is a repeat of the Privileges Committee nonsense, except that this time Sunak is to blame.
You tend to see things in black and white. So-for example-you believe Johnson tells lies all the time and Rishi does not.
This is simply not true. Boris undoubtedly tells lies-when he thinks he has something to gain from it. But so do lots of politicians-including Rishi Sunak. Boris would have played this totally differently if he was lying.
You refer to Boris' "previous convictions". What previous convictions? He has none. The closest he came to this was accepting a Civil Fixed Penalty Notice. At exactly the same time as Rishi Sunak. For the identical offences.
Let's look at who misled Parliament. The short answer is both of them:-
“So will the chancellor categorically deny in the House that he or any of his officials or spads (special advisers) attended any of the Downing Street Christmas parties on November 27 or December 18 last year?”
Sunak replied: “No, I did not attend any parties.”
We now have a sitting PM presiding over punishment for his co-conspirator. Yet seeking the moral high ground. Having told the exact same lies.
He knew fine well Boris never looks at the fine detail. Hence the "sophistry"-false arguments designed to con people.
Which is exactly what Rishi Sunak is doing right now to us all.
Have found that rules usually are, and there is a reason for that.
So-for example-you believe Johnson tells lies all the time and Rishi does not.
Absolutely not true.
This is simply not true. Boris undoubtedly tells lies-when he thinks he has something to gain from it. But so do lots of politicians-including Rishi Sunak. Boris would have played this totally differently if he was lying.
I dont think Boris restricts himself at all in what he lies about.
You refer to Boris' "previous convictions". What previous convictions? He has none. The closest he came to this was accepting a Civil Fixed Penalty Notice. At exactly the same time as Rishi Sunak. For the identical offences.
I was referring to the number of times that he was caught bang to rights lying.
Let's look at who misled Parliament. The short answer is both of them:-
“So will the chancellor categorically deny in the House that he or any of his officials or spads (special advisers) attended any of the Downing Street Christmas parties on November 27 or December 18 last year?”
Sunak replied: “No, I did not attend any parties.”
We now have a sitting PM presiding over punishment for his co-conspirator. Yet seeking the moral high ground. Having told the exact same lies.
He knew fine well Boris never looks at the fine detail. Hence the "sophistry"-false arguments designed to con people.
Which is exactly what Rishi Sunak is doing right now to us all.
I thought we were debating the Honours list fiasco?
You tend to see things in black and white. So-for example-you believe Johnson tells lies all the time and Rishi does not.
This is simply not true. Boris undoubtedly tells lies-when he thinks he has something to gain from it. But so do lots of politicians-including Rishi Sunak. Boris would have played this totally differently if he was lying.
You refer to Boris' "previous convictions". What previous convictions? He has none. The closest he came to this was accepting a Civil Fixed Penalty Notice. At exactly the same time as Rishi Sunak. For the identical offences.
Let's look at who misled Parliament. The short answer is both of them:-
“So will the chancellor categorically deny in the House that he or any of his officials or spads (special advisers) attended any of the Downing Street Christmas parties on November 27 or December 18 last year?”
Sunak replied: “No, I did not attend any parties.”
We now have a sitting PM presiding over punishment for his co-conspirator. Yet seeking the moral high ground. Having told the exact same lies.
He knew fine well Boris never looks at the fine detail. Hence the "sophistry"-false arguments designed to con people.
Which is exactly what Rishi Sunak is doing right now to us all.
Incidentally, I think the comparison that you make between the two of them is completely unfair. If memory serves Sunak was walking through an office, didnt stay very long, didnt drink any alcohol, and may be excused for not thinking he was attending a party. I appreciate that he was fined. Boris on the other hand, said there werent any parties, no rules were broken, etc etc. He lied to the House of Commons, ignored his advisers who told him would be lying, and still perseveres with his lies today. And its not all over yet. The police are looking at his diaries, and there may have been further breaches of the rules at Chequers. Lets see if you wish to try and continue the Sunak/Boris comparison after the Privileges Committee report is published.
You tend to see things in black and white. So-for example-you believe Johnson tells lies all the time and Rishi does not.
This is simply not true. Boris undoubtedly tells lies-when he thinks he has something to gain from it. But so do lots of politicians-including Rishi Sunak. Boris would have played this totally differently if he was lying.
You refer to Boris' "previous convictions". What previous convictions? He has none. The closest he came to this was accepting a Civil Fixed Penalty Notice. At exactly the same time as Rishi Sunak. For the identical offences.
Let's look at who misled Parliament. The short answer is both of them:-
“So will the chancellor categorically deny in the House that he or any of his officials or spads (special advisers) attended any of the Downing Street Christmas parties on November 27 or December 18 last year?”
Sunak replied: “No, I did not attend any parties.”
We now have a sitting PM presiding over punishment for his co-conspirator. Yet seeking the moral high ground. Having told the exact same lies.
He knew fine well Boris never looks at the fine detail. Hence the "sophistry"-false arguments designed to con people.
Which is exactly what Rishi Sunak is doing right now to us all.
Voices: Boris’s big lockdown lie: A shameless, callous deception even the greased piglet couldn’t wriggle out of
No doubt, even allowing for some childish petulance, Boris Johnson thought himself jolly smart by skipping the House of Commons before the privileges committee published its report.
The likely sanction of suspension from the Commons has been rendered redundant, and the debate on the report will be missing his contributions. He has avoided a ritual humiliation in the chamber at the hands of those who he considers dolts and fools and, on his own side, those who owe their ministerial jobs and cushy parliamentary lives to his campaigning genius.
On his way out of the mother of parliaments, which he’s always held in contempt (in the colloquial sense of the word), he’s rubbished the privileges committee. Just for good measure, he’s also dragged the House of Lords Appointments Commission into a confusing row about honours, and also lobbed a few rocks at the entire Sunak administration along the way.
A huge cloud of chaff of colourful Johnsonian verbiage, in other words, has been thrown up about kangaroo courts, Nadine Dorries, tax and Brexit, all to distract from the central fact that is about to become his political epitaph: he lied to parliament. He also knew what he was doing: He’s a clown, but he’s not stupid.
Johnson’s big lockdown party lie is the one that he could not, in the end, fully escape from. It is the first time in his life that the truth has caught up with him properly. The lie – and the proof of the lie – is right there in the privileges committee report, awaiting release (though there have been leaks). It has destroyed his career, despite all the talk of comebacks. No wonder he’s angry.
We’ve become so inured to the idea of Johnson as a professional liar, and the Partygate saga has dragged on for so long, that we forget too easily the true magnitude of this moment. We’ve actually known about it ever since that training video of a mock press conference featuring his one-time aide Allegra Stratton emerged. She, with gallows humour, simply couldn’t justify the way they’d been breaking lockdown rules as a “work meetings”.
After that, Johnson sought time and again to close the story down, even as the evidence mounted, with more and more implausible denials. The Sue Gray Report, now much maligned, was merely a simple and accurate chronology of what had happened and when, with some mild rebukes about the culture in Johnson’s operation, and sensible recommendations.
The public was already appalled, and remains so, even as time has passed. Johnson calculated that the public memory is short, and if the truth ever did come out then it’d all be too late and we’d want to “move on”, as the mantra went.
Allies of Johnson’s went around trivialising the affair, using the line (no doubt coined by Johnson) that he’d been “ambushed by cake”. It was his way of attempting to charm his way out of trouble again.
During Partygate, and again now, he tried to deploy all the techniques he’d honed since he began his career in deceit at Eton – self-deprecatory joking, carefully worded non-denials, blaming others, distraction, attacking his opponents and accusers, evasion, answering questions that aren’t relevant, dishing out worthless non-apologies, even once hiding in an industrial fridge. Now he’s run out of road. The albino greased piglet has at last been stuck – and by Harriet Harman of all people; precisely the kind of progressive liberal he most hates in the world.
The seriousness of Johnson’s shame should not escape us, even as we’ve become used to it. He is the first prime minister to have been found lying to parliament in this way. He did so knowingly, and it was an unusually bold and callous lie.
In doing so, he has further undermined the public’s faith in parliamentary democracy. He’s also damaged the chances of future public health restrictions being effective. There is some poignancy in the fact of the big lockdown lie being confirmed just as the Covid-19 inquiry gets under way. The timing reminds us of the abject hypocrisy of it all – the way that Johnson and those around him would secretly party away and mix freely at social gatherings, denied to the rest of the country. If they did nothing wrong, why didn’t they tell us how much they were enjoying themselves at the time?
Johnson wrote the rules – or at least approved them – and appeared on television earnestly urging us to follow them for the sake of our loved ones and the NHS. Cameras off, he then slunk back and presided over a culture of rule-breaking in Downing Street. He acquiesced in the antics and was happy to see everyone else fined for disobedience, even as people were unable to see dying relatives and enduring lockdown funerals.
One rule for them and other for us. We locked down, he ignored the rules in Downing Street and at Chequers. Johnson’s big lockdown lie is sufficient to disqualify him from any public office for the rest of his life. Now is the time for the rest of us to move on.
I find it clear that both Nadine Dorries and Boris (for once) are telling the truth.
Dorries clearly trusted Boris/Rishi would resolve this. Whereas Rishi was lying. Boris never got his head round the detail. As per usual. And trusted someone-Sunak-who led him to believe there would not be a problem. An honest man would have said-reduce the MP peerages to knighthoods/damehoods. Or they need to resign now. Which was never said-by Sunak or Holac.
I thought Rishi Sunak promised a new era of honesty as leader. Not to lie in a way that even Boris might struggle to say with a straight face.
Turning briefly to Stanley Johnson. Disgraceful that Boris should put his name forward. But there is a distinct lack of clarity as to what he may have been put forward for. If it was a Peerage, can quite see why Holac would block that. But recent press coverage says it was a Knighthood. Which would be none of Holac's business-if Sunak decided to block it (and I could see why) then he needs to be honest and own up.
UK's Sunak faces down critics after Boris Johnson honours row
LONDON (Reuters) -British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said on Monday he had rejected a plea from Boris Johnson to overrule an independent body and allow some of the former leader's allies to join parliament's upper chamber because he didn't think it was right.
Responding to critics within his ruling Conservative Party, which has been rocked in recent days by Johnson's dramatic Friday night decision to quit parliament, Sunak added that he had no sympathy for those who did not like his decision.
Former prime ministers such as Johnson are entitled to bestow honours, including a lifetime seat in parliament's House of Lords, after they step down and it is not uncommon for British leaders to use their list to reward political allies.
But some of Johnson's nominees were not included in a final list published on Friday after they failed to receive backing from the body that vets such appointments.
"Boris Johnson asked me to do something that I wasn't prepared to do, because I didn't think it was right," Sunak said in his first public comments on the events of the last few days.
"That was to either overrule the HOLAC committee (House of Lords Appointments Commission) or to make promises with people," Sunak said, responding to a media question on whether he had intervened in the process.
Sunak has the power to overrule HOLAC's advice, but said he chose not to.
"If people don't like that, then tough," he said.
Johnson said Sunak's version of events was "rubbish".
"To honour these peerages it was not necessary to overrule HOLAC - but simply to ask them to renew their vetting, which was a mere formality," Johnson said in a statement.
He said this despite HOLAC saying it was not possible
I am not posting any more articles on this because they are all saying the same thing, except in this one they say that he was updated on his Honours List in February, and as more fact emerge Boris looks more guilty
Johnson ‘was updated on resignation honours list by Cabinet Office before June’
Ms Dorries has claimed information about what was needed for her to pass the vetting process for nominees was not relayed to her in time and accused the Prime Minister of “duplicitously and cruelly” blocking her appointment.
She used an interview with TalkTV to launch a fresh attack on Mr Sunak, claiming he used “weasel words” and “sophistry” in a meeting with Mr Johnson last week which left the outgoing MP believing she would be included.
It is understood Mr Johnson was provided with information via the Cabinet Office about his list some time after the House of Lords Appointments Commission (Holac) sent a list to Mr Sunak in February.
The rancour between the former Tory leader and his successor descended into a public slanging match as Mr Sunak said his one-time ally had asked him to “do something I wasn’t prepared to do”.
The Prime Minister suggested Mr Johnson wanted him to ignore the recommendations of the House of Lords Appointments Commission.
But Mr Johnson’s camp accused him of having “secretly blocked” the peerages of former culture secretary Ms Dorries and other allies in his resignation list.
The former prime minister released a statement saying: “Rishi Sunak is talking rubbish.
“To honour these peerages it was not necessary to overrule Holac – but simply to ask them to renew their vetting, which was a mere formality.”
The Cabinet Office dismissed the attack, saying: “Holac did not support the nominations of the MPs put forward by the former prime minister.
“It is unprecedented for a sitting prime minister to invite Holac to reconsider the vetting of individual nominees on a former prime minister’s resignation list.
I am not posting any more articles on this because they are all saying the same thing, except in this one they say that he was updated on his Honours List in February.
Johnson ‘was updated on resignation honours list by Cabinet Office before June’
Ms Dorries has claimed information about what was needed for her to pass the vetting process for nominees was not relayed to her in time and accused the Prime Minister of “duplicitously and cruelly” blocking her appointment.
She used an interview with TalkTV to launch a fresh attack on Mr Sunak, claiming he used “weasel words” and “sophistry” in a meeting with Mr Johnson last week which left the outgoing MP believing she would be included.
It is understood Mr Johnson was provided with information via the Cabinet Office about his list some time after the House of Lords Appointments Commission (Holac) sent a list to Mr Sunak in February.
The rancour between the former Tory leader and his successor descended into a public slanging match as Mr Sunak said his one-time ally had asked him to “do something I wasn’t prepared to do”.
The Prime Minister suggested Mr Johnson wanted him to ignore the recommendations of the House of Lords Appointments Commission.
But Mr Johnson’s camp accused him of having “secretly blocked” the peerages of former culture secretary Ms Dorries and other allies in his resignation list.
The former prime minister released a statement saying: “Rishi Sunak is talking rubbish.
“To honour these peerages it was not necessary to overrule Holac – but simply to ask them to renew their vetting, which was a mere formality.”
The Cabinet Office dismissed the attack, saying: “Holac did not support the nominations of the MPs put forward by the former prime minister.
“It is unprecedented for a sitting prime minister to invite Holac to reconsider the vetting of individual nominees on a former prime minister’s resignation list.
"It is unprecedented for a sitting prime minister to invite Holac to reconsider the vetting"
It is. There are various reasons for this:-
1. Holac has only had this power since 2005 2. No sitting MP has been nominated before 3. Holac has only once (as far as is known) rejected anyone. Cruddas. That Boris overruled. There has never previously been a case where re-vetting was to be considered 4. Holac is there to advise the current PM. So it's duty, upon rejecting 8 nominees, was to tell the PM. Yet Sunak clearly never appraised Boris or Nadine of this, or gave the MPs the option of a lesser honour or resignation as MPs
You seem to think everything will be clear when Boris is exposed as a liar. Whereas that is going to come as a shock to no-one
Ask yourself this-why is Boris happy to release documentation from 2021/22, while Rishi is taking Court action to try and prevent it?
"It is unprecedented for a sitting prime minister to invite Holac to reconsider the vetting"
The accurate HOLAC quote is below.
It is. There are various reasons for this:-
1. Holac has only had this power since 2005 2. No sitting MP has been nominated before 3. Holac has only once (as far as is known) rejected anyone. Cruddas. That Boris overruled. There has never previously been a case where re-vetting was to be considered 4. Holac is there to advise the current PM. So it's duty, upon rejecting 8 nominees, was to tell the PM. Yet Sunak clearly never appraised Boris or Nadine of this, or gave the MPs the option of a lesser honour or resignation as MPs
I dont whether any or all of the above is true, but I think it is irrelevant. You surely dont want to criticise the current PM for sticking to the rules.
You seem to think everything will be clear when Boris is exposed as a liar. Whereas that is going to come as a shock to no-one
You are the person sticking up for him. I was making the point that I dont think that Sunaks lies on Partygate were on a par with Boris, and that you would probably not be arguing that point when the report is published.
Ask yourself this-why is Boris happy to release documentation from 2021/22, while Rishi is taking Court action to try and prevent it? We might find out soon.
Sunak didnt need to update him. The Cabinet Office updated him in February. Although there was no need to update him about the sitting MPs, as none of them had resigned by the January deadline. Their goose was cooked.
However Holac ruled it was not allowed to approve peerages for sitting MPs outside of the normal time limit of six months before a general election. Any vetting carried out now would be deemed to be out of date by the time of the next election in 18 months' time, it said. 2/4 A note from Holac chairman Lord Bew was submitted to this effect to 10 Downing Street.
I cannot fathom why you think I am "sticking up for Boris".
I think he has been lied to. I believe that Rishi Sunak has treated the Resignation Honours List as terribly as Boris has treated others in the past.
If it was just Boris, I wouldn't care. But it is the attack on those loyal to him, and the attack on the whole system that grates.
I sincerely hope that, when it is time for Sunak's Resignation Honours List (which will be late 2024 at the latest), the then-PM treats him and his loyal supporters just as shabbily.
Think Holac is part of the fabric of British life? Think again.
Officially created in 2005. First move was to dispute their power with Tony Blair. Meaning that Blair and Brown declined to have a Resignation Honours List.
Only actually started in the job in 2016, with Cameron's Resignation Honours List.
Total Lists scrutinised prior to Boris? 2. Cameron/May.
Applications reviewed, prior to Boris? 35. Number approved? 35/35. 16/16 Cameron/19/19 May.
Boris list? 15. Number accepted/refused? 7 ok'd/8 refused. No reasons given, to the public or those refused
Think Holac is part of the fabric of British life? Think again.
Officially created in 2005. First move was to dispute their power with Tony Blair. Meaning that Blair and Brown declined to have a Resignation Honours List.
Only actually started in the job in 2016, with Cameron's Resignation Honours List.
Total Lists scrutinised prior to Boris? 2. Cameron/May.
Applications reviewed, prior to Boris? 35. Number approved? 35/35. 16/16 Cameron/19/19 May.
Boris list? 15. Number accepted/refused? 7 ok'd/8 refused. No reasons given, to the public or those refused
This came up on the weekend. Gordon Brown had a Dissolution Honours list.
The shadows over the system have caused some to shudder away from honours. In 2010, Gordon Brown evaded a formal resignation list in the wake of the police investigation over some of the honours distributed by his predecessor, Tony Blair. Instead, the retiring Labour leader advised on a dissolution honours list. However, Keith Hill, who was standing down after 18 years in parliament and service in a variety of government roles, including junior minister and whip, firmly turned down a knighthood. He told his local paper, the Streatham Guardian: “My fundamental reason is that I have never had the least desire to have a title. I don’t want to be discourteous, but I find the whole idea a little embarrassing and too much for me.”
Think Holac is part of the fabric of British life? Think again.
Officially created in 2005. First move was to dispute their power with Tony Blair. Meaning that Blair and Brown declined to have a Resignation Honours List.
Only actually started in the job in 2016, with Cameron's Resignation Honours List.
Total Lists scrutinised prior to Boris? 2. Cameron/May.
Applications reviewed, prior to Boris? 35. Number approved? 35/35. 16/16 Cameron/19/19 May.
Boris list? 15. Number accepted/refused? 7 ok'd/8 refused. No reasons given, to the public or those refused
This came up on the weekend. Gordon Brown had a Dissolution Honours list.
The shadows over the system have caused some to shudder away from honours. In 2010, Gordon Brown evaded a formal resignation list in the wake of the police investigation over some of the honours distributed by his predecessor, Tony Blair. Instead, the retiring Labour leader advised on a dissolution honours list. However, Keith Hill, who was standing down after 18 years in parliament and service in a variety of government roles, including junior minister and whip, firmly turned down a knighthood. He told his local paper, the Streatham Guardian: “My fundamental reason is that I have never had the least desire to have a title. I don’t want to be discourteous, but I find the whole idea a little embarrassing and too much for me.”
Comments
Boris is lying yet again.
Boris Johnson pressed for his father Stanley to be honoured for his services to the Conservative Party and the environment during talks with Rishi Sunak.
In an escalating war of words, the former prime minister accused Sunak yesterday of “talking rubbish” as he denied asking him to bend the rules for his resignation honours list.
The Times can disclose that Johnson pressed for Sunak to help his father secure a knighthood after he was cut from the list amid claims that No 10 was uncomfortable with the proposal.
Johnson is also said to have claimed that his father deserved to be honoured in his own right for his services as a Tory MEP and his campaigning on the environment.
No 10 was said to harbour significant concerns about the reputational risk of giving Stanley Johnson a knighthood. One government source said: “It just would have looked terrible.”
Sunak is said to have told Johnson at the end of the June 2 meeting: “I’m not going to make any promises to you. I don’t want to you to leave this room thinking I have made a promise to you because I don’t want to fall out with you down the line over it.”
Johnson’s nomination of his father had prompted accusations that he was using the honours system to reward family members. In 2020 he nominated his brother Jo, a former minister, for a peerage. He is now Lord Johnson of Marylebone.
There was also criticism in light of allegations made in 2021 that Stanley Johnson, 82, had smacked Caroline Nokes, now a Conservative MP and chairwoman of the women and equalities committee, “about as hard as he could” on her bottom at the Conservative Party conference in Blackpool in 2003. Johnson Sr denied the allegation and said: “I have no recollection of Caroline Nokes at all.” A spokesman for Johnson declined to comment. No 10 has denied any involvement in the removal of Stanley Johnson from Johnson’s list.
Sunak claimed yesterday that during the same meeting Johnson had asked him to overrule the House of Lords Appointments Commission (Holac), which vets peerages, and elevate three Tory MPs to the upper chamber.
“Boris Johnson asked me to do something that I wasn’t prepared to do, because I didn’t think it was right,” Sunak said. “That was either to overrule the Holac committee or to make promises to people. Now, I wasn’t prepared to do that and I didn’t think it was right — and if people don’t like that, then tough.When I got this job, I said I was going to do things differently because I wanted to change politics, and that’s what I’m doing.”
Johnson responded that all Sunak needed to do was ask Holac to “renew their vetting”. He said: “Rishi Sunak is talking rubbish. To honour these peerages it was not necessary to overrule Holac but simply to ask them to renew their vetting, which was a mere formality.”
Johnson claims that he came to a “gentleman’s agreement” with Sunak that he would call off hostilities in return for his resignation honours list being waved through. He says Sunak assured him the list he submitted, including the nominations for peerages, would be honoured. The MPs would be “revetted” by Holac and get their peerages at a later date. After the meeting Johnson told MPs on the list they would be getting peerages.
The former prime minister believes he has been betrayed. He and his allies have taken to calling it the “swindler’s list”, with Johnson accusing Sunak of “sophistry”. No 10 has rejected Johnson’s version of events.
The Cabinet Office issued a statement last night saying that Johnson’s request to Sunak for MPs to be revetted would have been “unprecedented”. A spokesman said: “Holac did not support the nominations of the MPs put forward by the former prime minister.
“It is unprecedented for a sitting prime minister to invite Holac to reconsider the vetting of individual nominees on a former prime minister’s resignation list. It is not therefore a formality.”
Last night Nadine Dorries said she learnt she had not made the list half an hour before it was published. She told TalkTV: “I spoke to the chief whip in the morning and he said, ‘No, everything’s fine’. He got back to me 30 minutes before the list was published and said, ‘Actually, you’re not on the list’.”
Meet the very young new peers
Ross Kempsell
Eccentric as inhabitants of the House of Lords may be, none is thought to have spent their early career dressed in a chicken suit (Jack Malvern writes).
This gap is about to be filled by Ross Kempsell, 31, a former journalist whose chutzpah and loyalty inspired Boris Johnson to nominate him to be one of the youngest life peers since such peerages were introduced in 1958.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-pressed-rishi-sunak-to-grant-fathers-honour-ndn2jh9l9
Fri 8 Jul 2022 18.04 BST
The Convict’s resignation honours list – a sneak peek
Boris Johnson is preparing to decorate those without whom none of the last three years would have been possible
Boris Johnson ponders an MBE for Jacob Rees-Mogg: ‘He’ll want more than that but he’s desperate enough to take anything.’
With nothing else to do with his time, Boris Johnson has spent the last 24 hours working on his hotly anticipated resignation honours list. We managed to obtain an exclusive preview.
Stanley Johnson A hereditary peerage in recognition of his work for violence against women and for his extraordinary versatility. He is an example to all of us of the importance of having no principles whatsoever. He taught me everything I know. And it just so happens that when he dies, I will end up with the title. Fancy that.
Wilfred and Romy Johnson Lady Carrie, as she will one day become, has just pointed out to me that neither Wilf nor Romy have to be awarded any trinkets and will not inherit a title. So in the meantime I confer on them the Honourable Order of the Drinks Trolley, which will entitle them to keep the £3,500 Nureyev trolley that belongs to the Downing Street flat.
Any other Johnsons It’s possible that some of you may have the self-worth to turn down an honour from me but, assuming that you don’t, there’s plenty for all of you. Am not sure I can necessarily swing any more peerages, but a knighthood or a dame is no problem. And if you could all bung me a few grand, that would be a big help. I’m going to be a bit hard up for a while and have nowhere to live. Please PayPal whatever you can to Bozza@gmail.com.
Paul Dacre The best of the best. The man who embodies the very highest principles of a democratic free press. Polite at all times. Thank you for always answering the phone when I was in trouble and going the extra mile to provide helpful stories in the Daily Mail. For you, nothing less than a peerage is a good enough. From now on you shall be known as Lord **** of Fuckshire.
Durham police Like the Met, only special measures is good enough for you. You had one job! For heaven’s sake, there were 13 consecutive days of Daily Mail front page stories telling you that Keir Starmer was guilty of having a Covid party, and yet you still blindly carried on looking at the evidence and cleared him. Whatever happened to policing without fear or favour?
Nadine Dorries The most loyal and stupidest of colleagues. Supporting me even through the really tough times – mainly because she knew no one else but me would ever consider her for a cabinet post. For her the Order of Merit for her services to wrecking the BBC, Channel 4 and literature. Her books are unique. Thankfully.
Jacob Rees-Mogg I’ve never quite seen the appeal of the Moggster. He’s some kind of homunculus in an oversized suit who has never really managed to grow up. But he’ll do anything I say. So he gets an MBE for just breathing. He’ll want more than that but he’s desperate enough to take anything.
Lord Brownlow The walking chequebook no prime minister could do without. He was, quite simply, amazing. I would buy whatever I fancied, send him the bill and he would just pay it. No questions asked. And he has promised me he offers a discreet service for ex-prime ministers. So for him, a second peerage. Lord Lord Brownlow.
Lulu Lytle To be honest, I think Lulu has no taste whatsoever. The wallpaper was absolutely hideous and didn’t even stay stuck to the walls. No wonder Dilyn **** on it. But Carrie thinks Lulu is a genius, and anything for a quiet life. And to be fair she kept her mouth shut about some of the parties. So she gets an OBE on the proviso she offers us a 75% discount on doing up our next house. Wherever it may be.
Martin Reynolds Good old Party Marty. He may have been useless as a top civil servant in No 10 but he sure could organise some great parties for us all in Downing Street when we were all under the cosh with Covid. The fun we had. I’ll never forget the bodies piled up in the flower beds. So he gets a K and becomes ambassador to Saudi Arabia. Love to see how he gets on in a dry country!
Alexander Lebedev If his son can get a peerage, then Alex must be in line for one. ****, he’s certainly earned it by not blabbing about that party in Italy. Christ, I must have been **** for the whole weekend because I remember next to nothing. Hope I didn’t leak anything to the KGB. Arise Lord Lebedev of Lubyanka.
Chris Evans There has to be a bauble for the editor of the Daily Telegraph. After all, I’ll be needing my regular £350k a year gig for knocking off one badly written column a week. Or maybe we could round that up to an even £500k now. After all, inflation is above 10% now. Just wait till I find out who has been prime minister all this time. What’s that you said, Chris? Absolutely old boy. Knight companion of the garter it is.
Conor Burns Some things, once seen, cannot be unseen. But you have done valiantly to contain your PTSD … And for your silence, you get a K.
Simon Case I can’t tell you how convenient it is to have a cabinet secretary who is so terminally dopey. Someone who notices almost nothing and does even less. He doesn’t even react when he knows I’m lying. Superb. So if you’re still awake, Simon, there’s a knighthood waiting for you on your desk.
Evgeny Lebedev Yes, yes, I haven’t forgotten you. Will a CBE do you this time? Usual terms. A million quid in used euros. Or a “Prince Charles”, as we call it now.
The owner of Luxury Treehouses Ltd I’ve no idea of your name, but there’s an OBE in it for you if you can find your way into giving me a free £150k treehouse. I promise to promote it by being photographed in it while I’m writing my memoirs. Much like that fool David Cameron and the shepherd hut.
Chris Pincher You’ve had a rough time of it recently, old boy. Anyone of us could have caught out groping when we were pi ssed. So hopefully a K makes up for things a bit.
Michael Gove It’s a stunning achievement to have been sacked by three different prime ministers for disloyalty. Not even I managed that. So I’m creating the Ancient Order of the Turncoat just for you. I look forward to you being fired a fourth time by whoever replaces me.
Matt Hancock I know how desperately you and Gina want to be Sir Matt and Lady Hancock. Which is why I’m not going to give it to you! Your neediness is just far too enjoyable. Dream on.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/08/boris-johnsons-resignation-honours-list-sneak-peak
Dorries clearly trusted Boris/Rishi would resolve this. Whereas Rishi was lying.
Boris never got his head round the detail. As per usual. And trusted someone-Sunak-who led him to believe there would not be a problem. An honest man would have said-reduce the MP peerages to knighthoods/damehoods. Or they need to resign now. Which was never said-by Sunak or Holac.
I thought Rishi Sunak promised a new era of honesty as leader. Not to lie in a way that even Boris might struggle to say with a straight face.
Turning briefly to Stanley Johnson. Disgraceful that Boris should put his name forward. But there is a distinct lack of clarity as to what he may have been put forward for. If it was a Peerage, can quite see why Holac would block that. But recent press coverage says it was a Knighthood. Which would be none of Holac's business-if Sunak decided to block it (and I could see why) then he needs to be honest and own up.
There were the 3 sitting MPs.
Two Tory Donors.
Havent a clue about the other 3.
Stanley Johnson shouldnt have been near the list.
This whole mess is a repeat of the Privileges Committee nonsense, except that this time Sunak is to blame.
This is simply not true. Boris undoubtedly tells lies-when he thinks he has something to gain from it. But so do lots of politicians-including Rishi Sunak. Boris would have played this totally differently if he was lying.
You refer to Boris' "previous convictions". What previous convictions? He has none. The closest he came to this was accepting a Civil Fixed Penalty Notice. At exactly the same time as Rishi Sunak. For the identical offences.
Let's look at who misled Parliament. The short answer is both of them:-
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/boris-johnson-rishi-sunak-said-they-followed-guidance_uk_62559a9ee4b066ecde0c6b60
Sunak's reply in the House to a direct question:-
“So will the chancellor categorically deny in the House that he or any of his officials or spads (special advisers) attended any of the Downing Street Christmas parties on November 27 or December 18 last year?”
Sunak replied: “No, I did not attend any parties.”
We now have a sitting PM presiding over punishment for his co-conspirator. Yet seeking the moral high ground. Having told the exact same lies.
He knew fine well Boris never looks at the fine detail. Hence the "sophistry"-false arguments designed to con people.
Which is exactly what Rishi Sunak is doing right now to us all.
If memory serves Sunak was walking through an office, didnt stay very long, didnt drink any alcohol, and may be excused for not thinking he was attending a party.
I appreciate that he was fined.
Boris on the other hand, said there werent any parties, no rules were broken, etc etc.
He lied to the House of Commons, ignored his advisers who told him would be lying, and still perseveres with his lies today.
And its not all over yet.
The police are looking at his diaries, and there may have been further breaches of the rules at Chequers.
Lets see if you wish to try and continue the Sunak/Boris comparison after the Privileges Committee report is published.
No doubt, even allowing for some childish petulance, Boris Johnson thought himself jolly smart by skipping the House of Commons before the privileges committee published its report.
The likely sanction of suspension from the Commons has been rendered redundant, and the debate on the report will be missing his contributions. He has avoided a ritual humiliation in the chamber at the hands of those who he considers dolts and fools and, on his own side, those who owe their ministerial jobs and cushy parliamentary lives to his campaigning genius.
On his way out of the mother of parliaments, which he’s always held in contempt (in the colloquial sense of the word), he’s rubbished the privileges committee. Just for good measure, he’s also dragged the House of Lords Appointments Commission into a confusing row about honours, and also lobbed a few rocks at the entire Sunak administration along the way.
A huge cloud of chaff of colourful Johnsonian verbiage, in other words, has been thrown up about kangaroo courts, Nadine Dorries, tax and Brexit, all to distract from the central fact that is about to become his political epitaph: he lied to parliament. He also knew what he was doing: He’s a clown, but he’s not stupid.
Johnson’s big lockdown party lie is the one that he could not, in the end, fully escape from. It is the first time in his life that the truth has caught up with him properly. The lie – and the proof of the lie – is right there in the privileges committee report, awaiting release (though there have been leaks). It has destroyed his career, despite all the talk of comebacks. No wonder he’s angry.
We’ve become so inured to the idea of Johnson as a professional liar, and the Partygate saga has dragged on for so long, that we forget too easily the true magnitude of this moment. We’ve actually known about it ever since that training video of a mock press conference featuring his one-time aide Allegra Stratton emerged. She, with gallows humour, simply couldn’t justify the way they’d been breaking lockdown rules as a “work meetings”.
After that, Johnson sought time and again to close the story down, even as the evidence mounted, with more and more implausible denials. The Sue Gray Report, now much maligned, was merely a simple and accurate chronology of what had happened and when, with some mild rebukes about the culture in Johnson’s operation, and sensible recommendations.
The public was already appalled, and remains so, even as time has passed. Johnson calculated that the public memory is short, and if the truth ever did come out then it’d all be too late and we’d want to “move on”, as the mantra went.
Allies of Johnson’s went around trivialising the affair, using the line (no doubt coined by Johnson) that he’d been “ambushed by cake”. It was his way of attempting to charm his way out of trouble again.
During Partygate, and again now, he tried to deploy all the techniques he’d honed since he began his career in deceit at Eton – self-deprecatory joking, carefully worded non-denials, blaming others, distraction, attacking his opponents and accusers, evasion, answering questions that aren’t relevant, dishing out worthless non-apologies, even once hiding in an industrial fridge. Now he’s run out of road. The albino greased piglet has at last been stuck – and by Harriet Harman of all people; precisely the kind of progressive liberal he most hates in the world.
The seriousness of Johnson’s shame should not escape us, even as we’ve become used to it. He is the first prime minister to have been found lying to parliament in this way. He did so knowingly, and it was an unusually bold and callous lie.
In doing so, he has further undermined the public’s faith in parliamentary democracy. He’s also damaged the chances of future public health restrictions being effective. There is some poignancy in the fact of the big lockdown lie being confirmed just as the Covid-19 inquiry gets under way. The timing reminds us of the abject hypocrisy of it all – the way that Johnson and those around him would secretly party away and mix freely at social gatherings, denied to the rest of the country. If they did nothing wrong, why didn’t they tell us how much they were enjoying themselves at the time?
Johnson wrote the rules – or at least approved them – and appeared on television earnestly urging us to follow them for the sake of our loved ones and the NHS. Cameras off, he then slunk back and presided over a culture of rule-breaking in Downing Street. He acquiesced in the antics and was happy to see everyone else fined for disobedience, even as people were unable to see dying relatives and enduring lockdown funerals.
One rule for them and other for us. We locked down, he ignored the rules in Downing Street and at Chequers. Johnson’s big lockdown lie is sufficient to disqualify him from any public office for the rest of his life. Now is the time for the rest of us to move on.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/voices-boris-big-lockdown-lie-114243530.html
UK's Sunak faces down critics after Boris Johnson honours row
LONDON (Reuters) -British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said on Monday he had rejected a plea from Boris Johnson to overrule an independent body and allow some of the former leader's allies to join parliament's upper chamber because he didn't think it was right.
Responding to critics within his ruling Conservative Party, which has been rocked in recent days by Johnson's dramatic Friday night decision to quit parliament, Sunak added that he had no sympathy for those who did not like his decision.
Former prime ministers such as Johnson are entitled to bestow honours, including a lifetime seat in parliament's House of Lords, after they step down and it is not uncommon for British leaders to use their list to reward political allies.
But some of Johnson's nominees were not included in a final list published on Friday after they failed to receive backing from the body that vets such appointments.
"Boris Johnson asked me to do something that I wasn't prepared to do, because I didn't think it was right," Sunak said in his first public comments on the events of the last few days.
"That was to either overrule the HOLAC committee (House of Lords Appointments Commission) or to make promises with people," Sunak said, responding to a media question on whether he had intervened in the process.
Sunak has the power to overrule HOLAC's advice, but said he chose not to.
"If people don't like that, then tough," he said.
Johnson said Sunak's version of events was "rubbish".
"To honour these peerages it was not necessary to overrule HOLAC - but simply to ask them to renew their vetting, which was a mere formality," Johnson said in a statement.
He said this despite HOLAC saying it was not possible
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/uk-s-sunak-faces-down-critics-after-boris-johnson-honours-row/ar-AA1cu62J?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=d33cf9bd6c1f479baceb4db116291299&ei=49
Johnson ‘was updated on resignation honours list by Cabinet Office before June’
Ms Dorries has claimed information about what was needed for her to pass the vetting process for nominees was not relayed to her in time and accused the Prime Minister of “duplicitously and cruelly” blocking her appointment.
She used an interview with TalkTV to launch a fresh attack on Mr Sunak, claiming he used “weasel words” and “sophistry” in a meeting with Mr Johnson last week which left the outgoing MP believing she would be included.
It is understood Mr Johnson was provided with information via the Cabinet Office about his list some time after the House of Lords Appointments Commission (Holac) sent a list to Mr Sunak in February.
The rancour between the former Tory leader and his successor descended into a public slanging match as Mr Sunak said his one-time ally had asked him to “do something I wasn’t prepared to do”.
The Prime Minister suggested Mr Johnson wanted him to ignore the recommendations of the House of Lords Appointments Commission.
But Mr Johnson’s camp accused him of having “secretly blocked” the peerages of former culture secretary Ms Dorries and other allies in his resignation list.
The former prime minister released a statement saying: “Rishi Sunak is talking rubbish.
“To honour these peerages it was not necessary to overrule Holac – but simply to ask them to renew their vetting, which was a mere formality.”
The Cabinet Office dismissed the attack, saying: “Holac did not support the nominations of the MPs put forward by the former prime minister.
“It is unprecedented for a sitting prime minister to invite Holac to reconsider the vetting of individual nominees on a former prime minister’s resignation list.
“It is, therefore, not a formality.”
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/johnson-was-updated-on-resignation-honours-list-by-cabinet-office-before-june/ar-AA1cuEb9?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=3a4cf08d3fab4f0d8fabcec6b57a1c48&ei=24
It is. There are various reasons for this:-
1. Holac has only had this power since 2005
2. No sitting MP has been nominated before
3. Holac has only once (as far as is known) rejected anyone. Cruddas. That Boris overruled. There has never previously been a case where re-vetting was to be considered
4. Holac is there to advise the current PM. So it's duty, upon rejecting 8 nominees, was to tell the PM. Yet Sunak clearly never appraised Boris or Nadine of this, or gave the MPs the option of a lesser honour or resignation as MPs
You seem to think everything will be clear when Boris is exposed as a liar.
Whereas that is going to come as a shock to no-one
Ask yourself this-why is Boris happy to release documentation from 2021/22, while Rishi is taking Court action to try and prevent it?
The accurate HOLAC quote is below.
It is. There are various reasons for this:-
1. Holac has only had this power since 2005
2. No sitting MP has been nominated before
3. Holac has only once (as far as is known) rejected anyone. Cruddas. That Boris overruled. There has never previously been a case where re-vetting was to be considered
4. Holac is there to advise the current PM. So it's duty, upon rejecting 8 nominees, was to tell the PM. Yet Sunak clearly never appraised Boris or Nadine of this, or gave the MPs the option of a lesser honour or resignation as MPs
I dont whether any or all of the above is true, but I think it is irrelevant.
You surely dont want to criticise the current PM for sticking to the rules.
You seem to think everything will be clear when Boris is exposed as a liar.
Whereas that is going to come as a shock to no-one
You are the person sticking up for him.
I was making the point that I dont think that Sunaks lies on Partygate were on a par with Boris, and that you would probably not be arguing that point when the report is published.
Ask yourself this-why is Boris happy to release documentation from 2021/22, while Rishi is taking Court action to try and prevent it?
We might find out soon.
Sunak didnt need to update him.
The Cabinet Office updated him in February.
Although there was no need to update him about the sitting MPs, as none of them had resigned by the January deadline.
Their goose was cooked.
However Holac ruled it was not allowed to approve peerages for sitting MPs outside of the normal time limit of six months before a general election.
Any vetting carried out now would be deemed to be out of date by the time of the next election in 18 months' time, it said. 2/4
A note from Holac chairman Lord Bew was submitted to this effect to 10 Downing Street.
I think he has been lied to. I believe that Rishi Sunak has treated the Resignation Honours List as terribly as Boris has treated others in the past.
If it was just Boris, I wouldn't care. But it is the attack on those loyal to him, and the attack on the whole system that grates.
I sincerely hope that, when it is time for Sunak's Resignation Honours List (which will be late 2024 at the latest), the then-PM treats him and his loyal supporters just as shabbily.
Officially created in 2005. First move was to dispute their power with Tony Blair. Meaning that Blair and Brown declined to have a Resignation Honours List.
Only actually started in the job in 2016, with Cameron's Resignation Honours List.
Total Lists scrutinised prior to Boris? 2. Cameron/May.
Applications reviewed, prior to Boris? 35.
Number approved? 35/35. 16/16 Cameron/19/19 May.
Boris list? 15. Number accepted/refused? 7 ok'd/8 refused. No reasons given, to the public or those refused
Gordon Brown had a Dissolution Honours list.
The shadows over the system have caused some to shudder away from honours. In 2010, Gordon Brown evaded a formal resignation list in the wake of the police investigation over some of the honours distributed by his predecessor, Tony Blair. Instead, the retiring Labour leader advised on a dissolution honours list. However, Keith Hill, who was standing down after 18 years in parliament and service in a variety of government roles, including junior minister and whip, firmly turned down a knighthood. He told his local paper, the Streatham Guardian: “My fundamental reason is that I have never had the least desire to have a title. I don’t want to be discourteous, but I find the whole idea a little embarrassing and too much for me.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/01/from-lloyd-george-to-the-lavender-list-the-history-of-honours-scandals
When Grant Shapps was wheeled out to tell lies on behalf of the Government. Saying something existed. When it did not.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/bbc-forced-to-issue-correction-after-grant-shapps-lie-over-gordon-brown-honours-list/ar-AA1coxPa#:~:text=In actual fact, Brown did not issue a,nine Lib Dems and one from the DUP.
Or perhaps you do not believe the House of Lords:-
https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/peerages-created-following-prime-ministerial-resignations/