Boris johnson

Jean-Claude Juncker has got some front. Today, to the glee of Boris-bashers and hardcore Remainers, he has accused Boris of having told lies during the EU referendum campaign. Is he serious? This is a man who has publicly defended and even advocated lying. This is a man who has insisted that untruths are an essential part of political life. Sometimes ‘you have to lie’, Juncker once said. For him now to accuse Boris of being a liar is an act of staggering hypocrisy and technocratic cant. As part of his slow-motion vacation of the role of president of the European Commission, Juncker has given an interview to Der Spiegel. In

Boris Johnson – I’m ‘sorry’ we did not meet our Halloween deadline Sophy Ridge began her show with a pre-recorded interview with Boris Johnson. With the intended Brexit date of 31st October now receding into history, Ridge challenged the Prime Minister over his repeated promises to meet that deadline, and asked if he would apologise for failing to deliver on his commitment: Boris Johnson says it is a matter of deep regret that the UK did not leave the EU on 31 October #Ridge pic.twitter.com/OiWDb6BAQ8 — Politics Hub with Sophy Ridge (@SkyPoliticsHub) November 3, 2019 SR: Are you sorry? BJ: Yes, absolutely! SR: Will you apologise to all those Conservative

Normally wrangles about TV debates go on for weeks before one is agreed. Yet, before the election campaign has even formally started, ITV have announced a TV debate between Jeremy Corbyn and Boris Johnson on November 19th. This’ll be the first election head to heard this country has had. Agreement on this debate has been reached so fast, as I say in The Sun this morning, because  both Labour and the Tories think they benefit from this one on one format. On the Labour side, they hope that it helps them unite the anti-Tory vote behind Corbyn. While the Tories want a one on one debate because they think the

Never knowingly undersold. The slogan of one of our best-loved retailers could equally be applied to Nigel Farage. Despite poll ratings softer than a collapsing souffle, the Brexit party leader had Britain’s political media exactly where he wanted them today: in a state of feverish excitement about his general election plans. With the kudos of that Donald Trump radio scoop confirming his status as a great political showman, there was sufficient suspension of disbelief in the air for Nigel to be able to make an offer to Boris Johnson of a “Leave Alliance”. This was predicated on the Prime Minister ditching his painstakingly agreed new Withdrawal Agreement on the grounds

The last PMQs before the general election offered a teaser for what to expect over the next six weeks. With Boris Johnson keen to fight the incoming election on a promise to get Brexit done so the UK can focus on domestic issues, it’s clear Jeremy Corbyn plans to respond by suggesting the Prime Minister’s Brexit would be damaging to public services. Top of that list is the NHS. The Labour leader used the final session to lead on the NHS – suggesting the Prime Minister’s ‘sell-out deal’ with Donald Trump would mean NHS money going into private profit. Corbyn pointed to a recent Channel 4 Dispatches investigation to claim

The stronger the prospect of a general election, the easier it will be for Boris Johnson to get through the week that Britain was supposed to be leaving the European Union. He had said he would rather ‘be dead in a ditch’ than miss the deadline, but is now taking a two-pronged approach to distracting everyone from the fact that Thursday will come and go, and Brexit will still not have happened. The first part of this plan is to make sure that it is clear parliament is to blame for missing the 31 October deadline, rather than the Prime Minister who placed so much emphasis on it. So the

As Boris Johnson laid out his plan at political Cabinet on Thursday, it quickly became apparent how much of it was dependent on factors outside of his control. I write in The Sun this morning that he said that he still hoped that the EU would offer only the shortest of extensions, forcing parliament to get on with it. But he admitted that the EU was inclined to offer an extension to the end of January and that Emmanuel Macron was fighting a lonely battle against this. Earlier in the day, the Elysée had told Number 10 that the French President was too isolated on the issue in the EU

Boris Johnson has cancelled his appearance before the Commons Liaison Committee tomorrow morning, arguing that he feels he should devote himself to trying to secure a Brexit deal. In a rather last-minute cancellation, the Prime Minister has written a personal note to the Committee’s chair Dr Sarah Wollaston in which he argues that it would be much better for the MPs to question him when he has been in the job for five to six months, as it did with his predecessors. This is a valid argument, but it would carry more weight if Johnson had made it from the outset, rather than at the sort of time that students

Boris Johnson is still pursuing today’s vote as a decisive moment for the Brexit deal, rather than the start of yet another delay, with the Letwin amendment meaning the real meaningful vote could be moved to Tuesday. His opponents are speaking in a similar vein, framing the choice facing those MPs yet to make up their minds as being one concerning how trustworthy the Prime Minister is. Perhaps the most powerful argument against trusting Johnson came from DUP Westminster leader Nigel Dodds, who told the Chamber that: ‘It was once said that no British prime minister could ever agree to such terms and indeed those who sought the leadership of

Reflecting on Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal, I have many questions. Why are people who rejected the possibility of Northern Ireland being subject to EU rules and regulation via a contingent backstop now embracing the certainty of that happening? How could anyone reasonably expect the DUP to sign up to something that really does make Northern Ireland a very, very different part of the Union? Something they were repeatedly promised would never be conceded. Why are none of the people who used to be furious about the ‘£39 billion’ (actually less now but never mind) objecting to paying it now? Why shouldn’t MPs have at least a superficial analysis of the