Interrogating the prime minister on Ukraine, partygate and the cost-of-living crisis

Interrogating the prime minister on Ukraine, partygate and the cost-of-living crisis

Apr 2, 2022 | Bylines, News

Johnson appeared before the Commons liaison committee to answers questions on the situation in Ukraine and the cost-of-living crisis, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for Yorkshire Bylines.

On Wednesday 30 March, Prime Minister Johnson appeared before the Commons liaison committee to answers questions on the situation in Ukraine and the cost-of-living crisis. This was the second time in a few hours that Johnson was asked difficult questions, having attended prime minister’s questions (PMQs) just three hours earlier.

The cross-party liaison committee, chaired by Sir Bernard Jenkin (Conservative) is made up of select committee chairs. It is the only government committee that can question the prime minister on policy, which it does three times a year. On this occasion, the meeting was chaired by Clive Betts (Labour), as Sir Bernard Jenkin was suffering from Covid.

Partygate added to the agenda

Before getting to the main topics, Betts raised the issue of the 20 Fixed Penalty Notices (FPN) issued by the Metropolitan Police the day before. Pete Wishart (SNP) asked Johnson if he was one of the 20 recipients, and if not, whether he expected to receive a fine in due course. Johnson replied, “I’m sure you’d know if I were”, before reverting to a now common theme of not giving “a running commentary” on an ongoing investigation.

Wishart suggested that if Johnson were served with a fine he would be “pretty much toast” adding that “no prime minister could survive” being found guilty of criminality. When Johnson refused to even acknowledge any criminality had taken place, Wishart listed Johnson’s many and varied prior excuses. He added that it was “crystal clear” that Johnson had broken the ministerial code and this was a “resignation issue”. The public, he said, would be “frustrated and disappointed” with Johnson’s non-answers. Johnson again refused to comment, saying he would return to be “properly interrogated” by the committee, and parliament, once the investigations had concluded.

Catherine McKinnell pressed Johnson about “whether any laws were broken”– especially in light of the FPNs. He refused even to acknowledge that simple fact, saying “I’m not certain of that. You may know something that I don’t”.

Both Wishaw and McKinnell drew attention to the insensitivity of holding a lavish dinner on the anniversary of the Covid memorial. Johnson’s response was to say how incredibly hard the government had worked during Covid and how proud he was of their achievements. He described the government’s record on handling the pandemic as “pretty remarkable”.

The Ukraine crisis

Tom Tugendhat (Conservative) asked Johnson of the value of President Macron continuing discussions with Putin. Johnson said Putin was “clearly not to be trusted”. He added that it was not the objective of the UK government to remove Putin from power, despite President Biden apparently wishing to do so. Tugendhat also asked about additional military and civilian assistance. Johnson wouldn’t be drawn into specifics but said the government was looking at “going up a gear”.

Johnson said the UK should “continue to intensify sanctions with a rolling programme” until all of Putin’s troops are out of Ukraine. When questioned, Johnson said this included Crimea, but wouldn’t be drawn with regards to Georgia.

Sarah Champion (Labour) had previously written to Johnson with regard to the £400m humanitarian aid pledged by the government to supporting Ukraine. As Johnson had failed to reply to her letter of 9 March, she again asked how much of the pledged funds had actually reached organisations in Ukraine, in other countries and in the UK. Johnson would have to get back to her, he said

Support for refugees

Dame Diana Johnson (Labour) asked if the prime minister had given consideration to an emergency humanitarian visa, especially as the family visa was so complex and was causing confusion. He wanted a “light touch”, he said, and didn’t seem to appreciate the difference between the two options.

Dame Johnson pointed out that just 1 percent of applications for Homes for Ukrainians had resulted in a visa. Both agreed that the British public had shown enormous generosity, with 200,000 people having signed up to the scheme to offer accommodation to refugees – rather different to the figures of 2,700 granted visas.

 

Chair Betts asked Johnson to confirm the funding arrangements, as different committees had previously been given different versions of the details. Johnson confirmed that under the Homes for Ukrainians scheme, local authorities would receive £10,500 per annum, per person. However, he confirmed that under the family reunion scheme, there was no financial support for local authorities, despite the costs being the same.

He described the access to free travel, education, benefits etc – without any additional local authority funding – as “a considerable package of support”. Johnson was unable to explain the difference between the two schemes in terms of the demands they would make on local council budgets.

The cost-of-living crisis

Conservative MP Neil Parish raised the issue of rising food prices, and concerns over food production in Ukraine, the “bread basket of Europe”. In response to concerns over food and drinks exports, Johnson insisted UK exports are “colossal”.

Concerns were raised by Philip Dunne (Conservative) about the burden of rising fuel costs. Johnson stated that the UK had “failed for a generation to put in enough long-term supply”. He blamed the Labour Party for the failure to commission more nuclear power stations, saying that nuclear had “massive potential”. Johnson admitted that nuclear was a long-term solution and unlikely to make a difference for a decade. However, “I’m optimistic”, he said, “we’ve shown that we can do things fast”. A cue, naturally, for a mention of the booster vaccination roll out.

Johnson dismissed Dunne’s questioning of the government’s recent commitment to net zero, made at the COP26 conference. Johnson said the net-zero ambition “had not been adulterated or lost”.

Labour’s Stephen Tibbs challenged Johnson over his recent misrepresentations, at PMQs, of numbers of people in work. Eventually, Johnson accepted Tibbs’ point, but not without declaring that the government’s employment record was “outstanding”. Johnson insisted he had since corrected the record – Tibbs said he was unaware of such a correction. Hardly surprising considering no such correction has been made.

Tibbs went on to query why no help was offered in the spring budget for unemployed people on benefits, struggling with fuel bills. The unemployed would see the percentage of their income spent on fuel costs rise from 20 percent in 2020, to 25 percent in April, to 47 percent in October. Johnson said he knew “how tough it is”, going on to say that priorities had to be set, in the best interests of the country. The government’s pockets were not bottomless and raising taxes was to be avoided at all costs. “We are better off”, he said, “helping people into work”.

McKinnell challenged Johnson over the government’s levelling up plans, asking if he knew how many times child poverty is mentioned in the government’s levelling up white paper. None, as it turns out, despite the rising levels of child poverty and the further expected rises. The omission was merely a “formal accident”, Johnson said.

Mel Stride (Conservative) raised the issue of trade as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), and the impact of Brexit on post-pandemic recovery. All countries had seen exports dip due to the pandemic, but where EU countries had recovered, the UK had not. When challenged to predict how long it may take the UK to recover to pre-Brexit levels, Johnson refused to prophesise, saying there was “no natural impediment to our exports”. All it takes, he said, is “just will, energy and ambition”. But not a strategy, apparently.

Only the “right people” are welcome

A failure to answer questions, a reliance on unsupported optimism or a retreat into meaningless rhetoric are now the norm for our prime minister. However, on this occasion Johnson was not responsible for the most disturbing assertion of the day. That came from Sir Bill Wiggin. At a time when the British people are opening their hearts and homes to desperate refugees, the Conservative MP for North Herefordshire expressed concerns that only the “right people” be let into the UK. Those “right” people include wealthy Qataris, apparently, but definitely not anyone arriving by rubber dinghy across the Channel.

We are all holding our breath for the day we will finally have a government that demonstrates honesty, realism and compassion. Only then will we be able to claim to have the “right people” running the country.

Johnson sidelined and snubbed in Brussels

Johnson sidelined and snubbed in Brussels

Mar 25, 2022 | Bylines, News

Johnson has removed the ‘great’ from Britain and the ‘united’ from Kingdom. It’s time we removed the Johnson from Downing Street, writes Sue Wilson MBE for Yorkshire Bylines.

On Thursday 24 March, leaders from across the globe – including President Joe Biden – met in Brussels to discuss the Ukrainian crisis. The first meetings – of Nato and G7 members – included Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Biden was also present at a later meeting of the European Council (EC), having been specially invited to attend. That invitation was not extended to Johnson.

Johnson sidelined

The government had expected that Johnson would be on the EC summit guest list, especially since the foreign secretary, Liz Truss, attended an earlier summit at the start of the crisis. Of course, that was before Johnson opened his mouth and inserted both feet. Once again, our PM had said the wrong thing, at the wrong time, causing considerable resentment and outrage.

Johnson’s comments, comparing the fight of the Ukrainian people to Britain voting for Brexit, caused widespread offense at home and abroad. As a direct result of his inappropriate remarks, Johnson’s invitation to attend was never issued. Boris, in the words of the Express, had been “snubbed”.

Johnson’s isolation was plain to see when leaders of the western world met before the world’s press. Where heads of state were seen greeting each other warmly and shaking hands – in particular seeking out President Biden – Johnson was given a wide berth. Boris no-mates stood alone, with nowhere to put his hands but in pockets.

 

Zelenskyy appeals to Nato

A month after the Russian invasion began, President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine appeared before Nato via video link. He appealed directly for help, saying the only way “to save our people and our cities” from Russian attack was with Nato’s help. Specifically, he called upon Nato to provide “effective and unrestricted” support. He thanked world leaders, including Biden and Johnson, for the equipment provided so far, but said much more was needed.

Johnson urged UK’s “allies and partners to step up military and economic support” in a thread posted on Twitter. He listed the military aid the UK would be providing, and on this occasion, managed to avoid his usual ‘world-beating’ rhetoric. Perhaps, for once, he had learned something from his recent misplaced comments.

 

Following the meetings, Nato leaders issued a joint statement agreeing to reinforce their defences to the East. They plan to “significantly strengthen” their defence posture and to “further develop the full range of ready forces and capabilities necessary to maintain credible deterrence and defence”. The Nato alliance, according to Biden, has never been more united that it is today.

Brussels – centre of the free world

The European Commission summit brought world leaders back into the room, to continue where earlier meetings had left off. This time, the participants were spared the sight of loose-end Johnson, as they made further important international decisions, without input from the UK.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen commented that, “Brussels is today the centre of the free world”. In a tweet showing the flags of the EU, USA, Canada and Japan, but not the UK, she said, “our bonds are stronger than ever before”.

Addressing the media directly she added, “we have decided to step up our support for Ukraine, to sharpen the sanctions against Russia and to break free from Russian fossil fuel”. Tomorrow, in conjunction with President Biden, the EU will present “a new chapter in our energy partnership”.

Earlier in the day, von der Leyen declared “our most valuable asset” against Putin was “our unity, the speed of our action and our determination”. That unity now largely excludes the UK. Britain – once an important voice at the top European table – is now, thanks to Johnson, terra non grata.

Johnson has removed the ‘great’ from Britain and the ‘united’ from Kingdom. It’s time we removed the Johnson from Downing Street before any more damage can be done.

Johnson insults Ukraine – A New Low

Johnson insults Ukraine – A New Low

Mar 21, 2022 | Bylines, News

Listening to our Prime Minister make crass, inappropriate, even insulting comments is unhappily nothing new, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for West England Bylines. We’ve grown accustomed to his style, his language, his need to please his own party. He has done so at our expense. He’s embarrassed us, made us and shamed our once great nation.

We thought we’d seen the worst of him. We were wrong.

Johnson’s latest insult

The offending statements were made at the Conservative Party Spring Conference in Blackpool on 19 March. In his closing speech, Johnson told delegates the Ukrainian struggle for freedom was comparable to the British people voting for the freedoms of Brexit. He did so in front of the Ukrainian Ambassador.

As with Foreign Secretary, Liz Truss, before him, Johnson levelled an attack on ‘woke’ issues, using the Ukrainian crisis as a weapon in the ongoing Tory culture wars.

 

“I know that it’s the instinct of the people of this country, like the people of Ukraine, to choose freedom every time” – Boris Johnson

Widespread condemnation

While it’s not unusual for his remarks to draw criticism, Johnson’s latest appalling comments have drawn widespread condemnation. The Tories have been doubling down, repeating Johnson’s insensitive and damaging rhetoric, and applauding (literally) his every word.

A notable exception came from MP and Defence Select Committee member, Tobias Ellwood. He tweeted that “international leadership and unity” are required if we are to defeat Putin, the implication being that Johnson is a threat to both. Of Johnson’s suggestion that the Ukrainian peoples’ struggle and British people voting for Brexit are comparable, Ellwood said it “damages the standard of statecraft we were beginning to exhibit.”

 

The strength of feeling levelled at Johnson’s comments came from a wide range of sources. Some expected, some not. Ian Dunt spoke of his “disgust” and how what Johnson had said was “gnawing away” at him. Jessica Simor, QC, described Johnson’s speech as “utterly grotesque” and “stomach turning”. She added that, “for this alone” it was time for the Tories to “get rid of him”.

Best for Britain CEO, Naomi Smith said, “Equating the Brexit vote to Ukrainian plight is not only a disgraceful insult to those in the grip of war, it dismisses the fact Ukraine has applied to join the EU, the greatest peace project in human history.”

Johnson’s comments also drew strong criticism from outside of the UK. Two senior European politicians, Donald Tusk and Guy Verhofstadt – both rather familiar with Brexit themselves – added their own condemnation. Verhofstadt called Johnson’s remarks “insane”, pointing out that “Brexit was about undoing freedoms and leaving the EU”. Ukrainians, however, “want more freedoms and to join the EU”. Tusk levelled his comments directly at Johnson, saying, “Boris, your words offend Ukrainians, the British & common sense.”

The response from self-proclaimed “staunch Brexiter”, Julia Hartley-Brewer was, perhaps, more unexpected. She said that comparing the vote to leave the EU with the Ukrainian people’s struggle against a foreign invader was “an insult to their bravery and sacrifice”, describing it as “totally cringe”.

Deflection and distraction

In many ways, the Ukrainian crisis has perhaps been a welcome distraction for our PM. With our focus quite rightly on the terrifying plight of the Ukrainian people, those pestering niggles that have threatened Johnson’s position have faded into the background. Few are asking what happened to the Sue Gray report, the Met Police investigation, or various other scandals involving the leader or his party.

One exception has been the focus on Russian money, donors and close ties with the Conservatives. Another exception must be the UK’s continued failings towards Ukrainian refugees. Despite constant suggestions from Johnson to the contrary, the UK is not a generous or welcoming host. Where our neighbours have bent over backwards to help those in desperate need – waiving visas, helping find food, shelter, work – the UK is making the process as difficult as possible.

Ukrainians refugees must apply for a visa – assuming they have family connections or a sponsor. Not only that, but every stage of the application process seems deliberately designed to make things more fraught, gruelling and off-putting.

Johnson and his government insult us all further when they dare to suggest what a great job they have done supporting other refugees, such as those fleeing Afghanistan and Syria. The sheer audacity of such obvious lies is exasperating.

Self-inflicted damage

The pain, the anger, the disbelief that Johnson’s comments have caused will be with us for some time. The debate as to whether Johnson deliberately aims to offend, or does so by accident, will continue. Perhaps just as worrying is the fact that a team, presumably, of so-called experts would have approved his speech beforehand. Not only will they have agreed the content, but they will have thought it was just what was necessary.

If the aim was to please the Brexit extremists, maybe they have succeeded in the short term. But if this crisis has taught us anything, it’s that the British people are a lot more caring, a lot more generous, a lot more empathetic than the government, or the PM that represents us.

Johnson may have won over a few right-wing back-benchers, but he has distanced himself from the “will of the people” and damaged his chances of keeping his job. By supporting his stance, his own party have weakened their own position, furthered their own demise and distanced the UK from its former friends and neighbours.

The Conservatives might not yet be ready to get rid of Johnson. The country, however, is. If the party won’t rid themselves of their leader, Johnson will take them all down with him.

Now that really would be worth a standing ovation and a round of applause.

Frosty reception for latest protocol speech

Frosty reception for latest protocol speech

Mar 19, 2022 | Bylines, News

Lord David Frost, former Brexit negotiator, is having another tantrum. It seems he is not taking criticism of his recent speech well, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for Yorkshire Bylines.

Lord David Frost, former Brexit negotiator, is having a bit of a tantrum. Yes, another one. It seems he is not taking criticism of his recent speech well, accusing critics of not having read the speech first. The Churchill lecture was given at the EuropaInstitut at the University of Zurich on 15 March. I’m sorry to report that I have read more than enough of it, so at least you don’t have to.

According to the Spectator, Frost set out a potential basis for future relations between the UK and the EU in a “warm” tone. His comments mark a “deliberate attempt to move on from scratchy relations of the last few years”, while failing, naturally, to accept any responsibility for how his own bombastic, truculent style affected EU/UK relations. For good measure, and without a hint of irony, Frost argued there is a “need to recognise that the EU is a natural ally”, adding that the UK and EU should “seek – as sovereign equals – ways to cooperate and work together more”.

Empty threats on the Northern Ireland protocol

The threat of triggering Article 16 – effectively suspending the Northern Ireland protocol – was one often bandied about by Frost, and by the prime minister. They have each claimed, on occasion, that the protocol has caused “serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties”. In doing so, they say, it has reached the necessary threshold to ‘justify’ triggering Article 16.

Maroš Šefčovič, vice president of the European Commission, described these threats as “enormously disruptive” and could result in “very serious consequences”. Increasingly, however, the EU politely dismissed them merely as empty threats.

Fast forward to his speech and Frost half-heartedly suggests the threat be taken off the table. Not without a quid pro quo though. In exchange for not throwing our toys out of the pram (again), Frost demands the EU accept the need for a fundamental renegotiation of the protocol. Should the EU fail to accept a renegotiation – something they have adamantly and repeatedly rejected – then surprise, surprise, we’re back to invoking Article 16. After all, according to Frost, the protocol was “always temporary” and it was “not realistic” to expect the border in the Irish Sea to last forever.

 

Or, to put it another way, as the Telegraph did, the “Tories should pledge to tear up the Northern Ireland protocol unless EU backs down”. It seems though, that Frost’s message was “not that of this headline”, according to his tweet.

Also, he’s a bit touchy about being referred to as one of those “Tory public schoolboys”. Duly noted

Questionable judgment and false statements

In a Twitter thread, Professor Steve Peers points out a number of false statements (lies) made by Frost in his speech. Frost claimed the protocol was “imposed on us” – a rather different picture from the one painted at the time of his signing the deal. So much for that glorified “oven-ready deal” sold to the country, which parliament voted for and Conservatives applauded.

Frost also suggested that Theresa May’s government was only interested in a “simulacrum of leaving”, which was clearly untrue. May had, from very early on, taken the single market and freedom of movement off the negotiating table, thanks to her obsession with immigration. But even May’s Brexit had not been hard enough for Johnson or Frost.

Peers acknowledges Frost’s positive suggestions on how the deal could be improved, such as youth mobility and cooperation on foreign and defence policy. However, this would involve the reversal of policies that Frost himself had negotiated, and, says Peers, “frankly, this calls his judgement into question”.

 

Peers also disagrees with Frost about the accuracy of the Telegraph headline, describing it as a “fair” interpretation. The speech, however, he described as “intellectually dishonest” – a description that could equally be levelled at the Tory public schoolboy.

Distorted Brexit reality

When Brexit was ‘done’, Frost signed an international, legally binding agreement that he never read, never understood, or never had any intention of implementing. He was given a Cabinet role by Johnson and elevated to the House of Lords, before resigning in a fit of pique when the EU exposed the weakness of his arguments. If he ever understood the way the EU works, negotiates, or protects its values, he has a strange way of showing it.

With every speech, including those made to parliament, Frost has never lost his ability to distort Brexit reality. Despite having negotiated a hard Brexit deal, including the protocol he now hates, his own deal was never extreme enough for his own liking.

I’ve had quite enough of Frost, and Tory public schoolboys, to last me a lifetime. Johnson and Frost have damaged our economy, our reputation and the democracy they falsely claimed to prize. You’ll have to read the next Frost speech yourselves, as I won’t be bothering. I know what he will say. The same as he always does – trumped up nonsense divorced from reality. Just like Brexit.

Home Office response to Ukraine refugee crisis a “total disgrace”

Home Office response to Ukraine refugee crisis a “total disgrace”

Mar 12, 2022 | Bylines, News

The government’s handling of Ukraine refugees is a “total disgrace”, the Home Office could and should do better, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for Yorkshire Bylines.

When Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper addressed Home Secretary Priti Patel at the despatch box on Thursday, she expressed feelings that much of the country could associate with. Showing passion, frustration and anger at the woeful government response to the Ukrainian refugee crisis, Cooper pointed out the shocking inadequacies and failings of the Home Office scheme.

Cooper described the government’s response to the Ukraine refugee crisis as a “total disgrace” and highlighted the fact that Patel had to be “hauled into the House of Commons to make basic changes to help vulnerable people” fleeing Ukraine. She acknowledged some progress since last week but criticised the slow pace of action, especially considering that the government has known about a likely Russian invasion for weeks.

 

Ukrainian refugees left out in the cold

Meanwhile, desperate Ukrainian women and children are facing a bureaucratic nightmare, often waiting outside warm, relatively empty buildings for hours in freezing temperatures. Worse still, when they finally start the complicated visa application process – assuming they have made or can get an appointment – they have been sent to another town, or even another country, to continue their application.

The list of requirements is lengthy, and would be a bureaucratic nightmare under normal circumstances. Add in the complexities of fleeing a war zone in haste, often without even a suitcase, and demands for proof of residency or the production of a utility bill make even less sense and are even more degrading and inappropriate. Many refugees will be lucky to escape with their passport, let alone any other paperwork required by the British authorities. Thankfully, the system is being improved to allow online applications, though many won’t be able to take advantage of this addition to the process.

A risk to national security?

In a ridiculous attempt to justify their position, the government is insistent that the extensive checks and bureaucratic hurdles are necessary to protect our security. Despite the fact that the applicants are vulnerable women and children, almost exclusively with family in the UK, apparently they are a potential security threat.

Not only does the government, presumably genuinely, believe that Russia will take advantage of this crisis and import spies to the UK amongst the refugees, but it has criticised Ireland for their “liberal policy”. A government source told The Telegraph that, “Ireland has basically opened the door to everyone in Ukraine”, creating a problem due to the lack of biometric checks in the common travel area.

Already in trouble for a series of false claims – such as suggesting it was offering help in Calais when it wasn’t – the government’s criticism of Ireland’s approach has been described as “dirty propaganda”

 

Doubling down

In addition to claims made by the home secretary, government ministers and MPs have been doubling down on the rhetoric.

Interviewed on Sky News, James Heappey, representing the Ministry of Defence, said it was “a hard job being home secretary”. Not as hard as being a refugee fleeing a war zone, Kay Burley reminded him. On BBC Breakfast, Charlie Stayt asked Heappey why refugees couldn’t be brought to the UK and the paperwork sorted out on British soil. Heappey reiterated that the home secretary “has to weigh that up against risk”. He added, “we are not making the mistake of dropping our guard altogether”. In response, Stayt suggested that the premise that women and children escaping a war zone are a security risk was “bogus”.

 

Leading the effort against Russia

On Monday evening, a special hour-long edition of BBC Question Time was dedicated to the Ukrainian war. Following the government line, Education Secretary Nadam Zahawi suggested the UK was leading the efforts and that Russia regarded Prime Minister Boris Johnson, as a leader in this field.

His comments drew derision, both on the programme – most notably from the former Danish prime minister, Helle Thorning-Schmidt – and later on social media. Thorning-Schmidt said that Zahawi almost made her “chuckle” with his ridiculous claims, and that the European Union is “leading the effort against Russia”. Regarding his claim about Johnson, she suggested Russia would not see our prime minister as a leader and Zahawi should set the record straight.

UK shamed by EU

According to the United Nations, over two million refugees have already fled Ukraine. Only 760 of those desperate people have been granted UK visas to date. As the fighting continues, the number of people expected to be displaced could exceed four million, with 18 million people projected to be affected.

EU countries, albeit geographically closer to Ukraine, have taken tens, even hundreds of thousands of refugees. In Poland’s case, it’s over 1.4 million. Even Ireland, with its relatively small population (just over five million), has taken in over 2,500 refugees – a third of them children.

Across the EU, refugees are being welcomed with open arms, being offered sustenance, free travel, accommodation and support. They are welcome to stay for three years, and without the need to apply for visas or jump cumbersome bureaucratic hurdles.

Many refugees are only seeking a temporary solution to the crisis and will want to return to their homeland at the earliest opportunity. But regardless of whether they wish to stay temporarily or permanently, they deserve our help and support.

The government response – hostile, and deliberately so – does not, however, represent public opinion. The generosity shown by the British people when the government launched its Ukraine Humanitarian Appeal demonstrates a sincere wish to offer help. The public are showing a level of compassion and humanity the Home Office would do well to emulate. In denying Ukrainian refugees the support they so desperately need and deserve, the government is also denying the public the opportunity to do whatever they can to help.

In an earlier article, I referred to the government’s handling of the Ukrainian refugee crisis as “world-beating indifference”. But it’s worse than that. In Yvette Cooper’s words, it’s a “total disgrace”. We can do better than this. And we should.

Conservative Friends of Russia group disbands with immediate effect

Conservative Friends of Russia group disbands with immediate effect

Mar 8, 2022 | Bylines, News

After 10 years of operation, the Westminster Russia Forum, formerly known as the Conservative Friends of Russia, has suddenly disbanded, writes Bremain Vice Chair Lisa Burton. 

On 1 March, the Westminster Russia Forum, formerly known as the Conservative Friends of Russia, was dissolved ‘immediately’. Should this pro-Russia group have existed in the first place?

As it becomes more evident that Britain’s apathy, particularly from the Conservatives and the government itself, has enabled and encouraged Vladimir Putin and his regime, the group’s work needs scrutinising. Not only so we can avoid similar mistakes in the future but also so intelligence services can conduct enquiries into the group’s connections and funding to ensure no wrongdoing.

 

Conservatives have been complicit and complacent with the Putin regime

 

London is undisputed the global capital for Russians to launder money. In 2008, The UK government’s golden visa scheme was launched to allow the wealthiest people a fast track to British citizenship. A mere £2m got you and your family settled status in five years. For the super-wealthy, a mere £10m got you and your family there in just two years. This visa scheme was of concern to many. The project was insecure with worries around the efficiency of checks made on origins of wealth.

Parliament’s intelligence and security committee recommended in its Russia report, published in July 2020, that there should be an “overhaul” of the golden visa programme. Nothing happened.

A foreign affairs select committee report, produced four years ago, endorsed by Priti Patel as a backbench member, said ministers were risking national security by “turning a blind eye” to Russian “dirty money” flowing through the City of London. Yet again, the government took no action.

 

 

Priti Patel’s role

 

Last month, however, Patel suddenly announced the golden visa scheme would end with immediate effect in a bid to help stop “corrupt elites who threaten our national security and push dirty money around our cities”. Yet, she knew of the issues long before, so why only now?

One report examined the visa system between 2008 and 2015, a period in which 700 Russians gained residency. Yet, Patel and the government have consistently delayed its publication.

Then, there are the donations. There have been growing concerns regarding Russian oligarchs donating to the Conservative Party, and these donations have increased under Boris Johnson’s premiership. Indeed, six oligarchs alone have donated £2m since Johnson became prime minister.

 

 

History of the Conservative Friends of Russia group

 

The Westminster Russia Forum, initially the Conservative Friends of Russia, was founded in 2012 by Richard Royal, a communication specialist for Ladbrokes. Its organisers and members often appeared on Russia Today, the Russian state-owned news channel.

The group then, and now, calls itself a think tank, but no published research exists. They are more akin to a lobby group; however, there is no requirement to register their activities or interests, no scrutiny or checks, so we are left guessing as to the scope of the work they did.

As reported by Open Democracy, Sue Hawley, the director of Spotlight on Corruption, stated:

 

 

“‘Friends of’ groups of political parties are alarmingly unregulated and provide a back door for unofficial lobbying, access and paid influence. It is high time that these groups were brought out of the shadows, adequately regulated and that the public can have far greater insight into how they operate and who is behind them.”

 

Who is behind the group?

 

One of the group’s initial organisers in 2011 was Sergei Nalobin, a diplomat suspected of being a Russian agent. He was the first secretary in the Russian embassy’s political section and son of Nikolai Nalobin, a former KGB general, who left the UK in 2015. He wanted to build closer ties with the Conservative Party and, strangely, was interested in the rivalry between Boris Johnson and David Cameron.

The group launched at the Russian embassy in August 2012. Then minister John Whittingdale was the group’s honorary vice-president. He attended the opening with then office aide Carrie Symonds, now Carrie Johnson, wife of Prime Minister Johnson.

Another founding member of the group was Matthew Elliot, chief executive of the official Vote Leave campaign. Whittingale was also one of six Cabinet ministers to favour Brexit during the 2016 EU referendum. There seems to be a specific correlation between many of Brexit’s most prominent supporters, who are anti-EU yet enamoured with Russia.

 

Renaming the group

 

The original founder, Royal, persuaded Conservative MP Malcolm Rifkin to join the Conservative Friends of Russia. However, Royal publicly attacked Labour’s Chris Bryant MP, a prominent Kremlin critic, by sharing a photo of Bryant in his underpants taken from a gay dating site. After this, Rifkin resigned, and soon the group fell apart, with many Conservatives distancing themselves from it. This was when the group reformed under the name of Westminster Russia Forum.

The forum categorically states it is non-political and focuses on trade, culture, and sport, but its role has undoubtedly helped give credibility and influence to pro-Russia lobbyists. It would have brought Russian funding into UK businesses and politics.

The forum’s organisers are mainly London based, with business interests in Russia. The current chair, Nicholas Cobb, runs an energy communications firm focused on Russia and former Soviet republics. He has also appeared on Russia Today and is pro-Moscow.

The Westminster Russia Forum’s events grew from having around 50 attendees in 2015 to having 170 in 2020 when it drew 47 speakers on UK-Russia relations. The group was overwhelmingly effusive on the need for strong ties with the Putin regime.

The group struggled to attract big Conservative names after ‘underpantsgate’ in 2012. Still, it hosted around 80 events and intended to hold its first in-person event for two years on 4 March. As the group was unregulated, the public never had access to its activities and fundraising information records. Some political figures like Lord Andrew Adonis are now calling for their records to be handed to police and sanction advisers. Surely this would be the right course of action for ‘the national interest’.

 

Why the rush to dissolve the group?

 

When Russia illegally invaded Ukraine, the focus started to turn and look at the Conservative Party’s relationships with Russian oligarchs and its seeming reliance on Russian donations. A spotlight has been shone on the Conservatives Party, which has taken millions in oligarchs’ donations.

Johnson’s relationship with Evgeny Lebedev, son of Alexander Lebedev, a former KGB agent, has come under intense scrutiny once again. Johnson awarded Lebedev, who had only received dual British citizenship in 2010, a peerage in 2020.

Intelligence officials raised concerns that granting a peerage to a Russian business leader posed a national security risk, but these concerns were withdrawn after Johnson intervened.

On a brief look back through the group’s Twitter page, @WRForum, I didn’t find anything too salacious, but it is uncomfortable. The reliance and amount of retweets from the Russian embassy is striking.

It oozes pro-Russian sentiment and only retweets views and accounts that echo the narrative that Russia is not the aggressor.

 

We need to learn lessons

 

We desperately need to bring in new laws to ensure transparency around the many subgroups, ‘friends of’, and lobbying groups that exist.

While Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is undoubtedly a valid reason for a group that supports business and connections between Britain and Russia to disband, we must also consider that maybe knowingly or unknowingly, the group could have enabled dark actors and dark money to corrupt our political systems. If they have nothing to hide, the group should now turn over all documentation and information that it holds to sanction advisers and the intelligence services. Our democracy depends on it.