Boris Johnson was branded “Major Sleaze” yesterday by Labour leader Keir Starmer.
He gave Mr Johnson the nickname as he grilled him over the stench engulfing Downing Street.
The Tory chief was presented with a slew of claims, accusations and allegations during Prime Minister’s Questions.
Mr Starmer railed against “dodgy contracts, jobs for mates and cash for access” and said: “Who is at the heart of it? The Prime Minister, Major Sleaze, sitting there.”
Mr Johnson has previously dubbed his political rival “Captain Hindsight” over his suggestions for handling Covid-19.
What is your view? Have your say in the comment section
Here, on day two of the Mirror’s Tory Sleaze Files, we look at another four of the allegations piling up for the PM.
Cummings and the chatty rat
SCANDAL: Dominic Cummings was brought into the heart of No10 within minutes of Boris Johnson becoming Prime Minister in July 2019.
Cummings is widely hailed as a campaign genius, but he is also a loose cannon. He was accused of being the “chatty rat” who leaked details of the November lockdown – which he denies.
He was ousted from Downing Street after losing a power struggle with the PM’s fiancee, Carrie Symonds.
Mr Johnson could have fired him in May when the Mirror revealed his lockdown-breaking drives to County Durham and Barnard Castle. Instead, he used up valuable political capital standing by his chief aide, only to dump him six months later.
Since Cummings left, there has been a series of highly damaging claims over Mr Johnson’s handling of the pandemic. No10 points the finger at Cummings in an attempt to blame a bitter ex-staffer. For his part, Cummings denies being the leaker.
He is due to give evidence to a parliamentary select committee on May 26, which could be explosive.
WHY IT MATTERS: The PM took ruthless Cummings into the centre of Downing Street despite siren warnings it could backfire.
Mr Johnson wanted to ensure Brexit happened and needed his Vote Leave brother-in-arms alongside him.
However, it is quite clear the Tory leader invested far too much faith, trust and power in Cummings, whose bizarre behaviour confused officials, advisers and MPs.
This triggers serious questions about Mr Johnson’s judgment.
Claims he wanted to let the virus “rip” rather than order a lockdown, not denied by No10, and accusations he said bodies should allowed to “pile high”, which the PM insists is not true, raise fundamental questions.
Priti Patel and bullying row
SCANDAL: The Home Secretary was found by a bullying probe to have breached the Ministerial Code by shouting and swearing at officials.
Ms Patel was ruled to have “not consistently met the high standards required by the Code of treating her civil servants with consideration and respect”.
The damning verdict by the Prime Minister’s standards adviser Sir Alex Allan in November came after complaints about her conduct at two Whitehall ministries.
Referring to her “frustration” with some officials, his report said: “The evidence is that this has manifested itself in forceful expression, including some occasions of shouting and swearing. This may not be done to cause upset, but that has been the effect on some individuals.
“Her approach on occasions has amounted to behaviour that can be described as bullying in terms of the impact felt by individuals.
“To that extent her behaviour has been in breach of the Ministerial Code, even if unintentionally.”
Ms Patel said there were “no excuses” and she offered an “unreserved, fulsome apology”.
Ministers found to have broken the Ministerial Code normally resign but Boris Johnson decided she could keep her job and Sir Alex quit instead.
WHY IT MATTERS: Ordinarily a minister deemed to have breached the Code would quit or be sacked.
Sir Alex’s judgment was not surprising in Westminster, where horror stories of Patel’s treatment of staff abounded. Yet Johnson refused to let her go, instead sticking two fingers up at a long-standing process – and official. The PM effectively said it does not matter if you bully staff as long as it is “unintentional”.
Critics say it is proof he values slavish loyalty in his top team above competence, probity and integrity.
Hancock and the NHS contracts
SCANDAL: Health Secretary Matt Hancock owns shares in a company approved as a potential supplier for NHS trusts in England.
In March, he declared he had acquired more than 15% of Topwood Ltd, which provides secure storage, shredding and scanning of documents. It also won £300,000 of business from NHS Wales – which Mr Hancock is not responsible for – this year.
Mr Hancock declared the shares in the MPs’ Register of Interests and a Government spokesman said he had acted “entirely properly”.
However, the entry did not say his sister Emily Gilruth owns a larger portion of the shares and is a director, or that Topwood had links to the NHS.
Labour said there was “cronyism at the heart of this Government”.
A Whitehall source said the Health Secretary had no active participation in running Topwood and was not involved in awarding the contracts.
A Department of Health source said Mr Hancock discussed the shares gift with civil servants before accepting them.
WHY IT MATTERS: Mr Hancock may have done nothing wrong, but the simple fact is that he owns shares in a company which could make money from the NHS. That, on the face of it, appears to a layman as a potential conflict of interest.
When the health service is under the microscope like never before during a pandemic, he should have been careful to ensure nothing he did would give rise to a perception of a potential conflict of interest.
This is the same Health Secretary who met former PM David Cameron and financier Lex Greensill for a “private drink” in 2019 to discuss a new payment scheme for the NHS.
An ally said he had “acted in entirely the correct way”. But again, it is how this looks to ordinary voters.
The Caribbean 'benefit' jaunt
SCANDAL: Weeks after securing the biggest Conservative election win for 32 years, Boris Johnson and Carrie Symonds jetted to Mustique.
The couple stayed on the Caribbean paradise isle between Boxing Day 2019 and January 5, 2020. But a row soon broke out over who funded the £15,000 luxury getaway.
The MPs’ Register of Interests stated the accommodation had a “value” of £15,000 and was covered by Carphone Warehouse co-founder David Ross. Mr Ross initially said he had not paid for the holiday.
But he later issued a clarification saying the register “is correct” and he had “facilitated accommodation”.
A spokesman for the businessman said at the time: “This is a benefit in kind from Mr Ross to Mr Johnson.”
A Downing Street spokesman said: “All transparency requirements have been followed.” An inquiry was launched last March. No10 and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards this week declined to comment on its progress.
WHY IT MATTERS: The holiday to Mustique may, with hindsight, be seen as a forerunner for the bigger and more important row over the redecoration of the PM’s Downing Street flat. Here was Johnson, fresh from his ballot box landslide, on a dream holiday to a private Caribbean island. But he and Symonds did not pay for the jaunt.
Instead, it was deemed to be “a benefit in kind” from a multi-millionaire businessman. It once again exposes the PM’s reliance on rich benefactors. Maybe they ask for nothing in return. But we do not know.
Why did Johnson, who earned £275,000-a-year as a columnist on the Daily Telegraph, not pay his own way? He once described the salary as “chicken feed”. In fact, it’s roughly 10 times the average wage.
