Labour antisemitism claims revealed ahead of BBC documentary – live news

Four whistleblowers speak of top Labour aides interfering in antisemitism investigations - video

Labour MP’s and commentators supportive of Jeremy Corbyn are being advised on how to respond to tonight’s Panorama programme, according to HuffPost’s Paul Waugh.

Former shadow business minister Stella Creasy tweeted:

If this is actually real and has been produced by someone within the Labour Party then heads should absolutely roll for it .. We need to tackle the problem of antisemitism, not try to ‘spin’ or ‘drown out’ the voices brave enough to speak out about it.

Jeremy Hunt has confirmed he was not the Tory leadership candidate who raised concerns about the composition of the BBC debate between him and Boris Johnson, which was slated for next Tuesday.

This just in from Jessica Elgot and Peter Walker.

Eight whistleblowers have told how they felt consistently undermined by senior Labour bosses in attempts to tackle antisemitism, alleging consistent interference in complaints and claiming that one key aide mocked their efforts.

Four of the whistleblowers, including the former Labour general secretary Iain McNicol, who left his post last year, have broken non-disclosure agreements to come forward.

Speaking to the BBC’s Panorama programme, about which the Labour party has raised complaints to the highest level at the BBC, former officials allege key aides including Labour’s director of communications, Seumas Milne and Labour’s new general secretary, Jennie Formby, interfered with investigations.

Jeremy Corbyn’s personal email address was also copied into leaked email chains, which former officials allege show interference.

Labour robustly denies any interference and say that “former disaffected employees sought the view of staff in the leader’s office, which was complied with in good faith”.

Labour peer Lord Falconer has said the party is “still in denial” about antisemitism within its ranks.

He told BBC Radio 4’s PM programme:

The thing that most strikes me about it, is it’s a Labour party still in denial. Hearing Andrew Gwynne, who is a decent man, still trying to defend what’s going on is a problem.

Falconer said that Labour was not taking the issue seriously, despite:

• The Equality and Human Rights Commission launching a full statutory investigation into allegations of anti-Semitism within the party.
• Suspended MP Chris Williamson “baiting the Jewish community by his persistent and utterly inappropriate support of people that are antisemitic”.
• Peter Willsman, an NEC member, saying “all this antisemitism is got up by the Israeli embassy”.

The Labour Party, my party, will not take it seriously and it is absolutely appalling. I don’t know why it is, I think it is because too many people think it is wrapped up in factionalism.

On whether much of the criticism over antisemitism was disguised to undermine Jeremy Corbyn as leader, Falconer said:

I don’t think it is. I think there is a very real problem about antisemitism. I think there are some people who want to get rid of Jeremy Corbyn who draw attention to the problems of antisemitism. I don’t think that means the problems of antisemitism are illusory or unreal. But whatever the position, what you’ve got to do is look at the evidence.

Now I haven’t seen the Panorama programme, I’ve only heard the extracts that you’ve read me, those extracts are as hair-raising and as anxiety-inducing as the Willsman case I referred to, and the Williamson case which everyone knows about.

He added that he did not believe antisemitism was part of Labour’s DNA, and stressed he did not believe Corbyn was antisemitic. However, he claimed a number of antisemites had joined the party since 2015 and “must be thrown out”.

Falconer went on to criticise Labour for using non-disclosure agreements to stop former staffers from revealing details of how the party handles complaints. He said the NDA’s were being wielded by a party acting more “like a big business or an executive” who sought to cover up abuse.

After speaking to the Foreign Affairs select committee, the department’s permanent under-secretary Simon McDonald convened an all-staff meeting to express solidarity with the outgoing ambassador to the US, Kim Darroch.

This is from Mark Warner, a Democratic senator in the US and vice chair of the senate intelligence committee.

This counters President Trump’s claim (dismissed as absurd by diplomatic experts) that Kim Darroch was “not liked or well thought of within the US”.

That’s all from me for today.

My colleague Mattha Busby is taking over.

David Lidington, the Cabinet Office minister and Theresa May’s de facto deputy, was speaking to the Commons Brexit committee this afternoon. The Economist’s John Peet has some highlights.

Boris Johnson is has been widely criticised at Westminster today for not backing Sir Kim Darroch, the outgoing ambassador to Washington, after President Trump said he would no longer deal with him.

But, according to this YouGov poll, public opinion on this is fairly evenly divided. YouGov found 41% of respondents saying the government should support Darroch when it polled on this yesterday, but 35% saying Darroch should be replaced with someone more amenable to the White House.

The BBC was meant to be holding a Question Time special with both Tory leadership candidates next Tuesday. But, according to the Sun’s Steve Hawkes, it now looks as if that will not go ahead.

Tonight the BBC is showing an hour-long Panorama programme looking at how Labour has dealt with allegations of antisemitism. There have been claims that the revelations will be damaging and Labour, which has been approached for its side of the story, has responded with a long letter to Tony Hall, the BBC director general, complaining about the programme.

Here is an extract from the Labour letter.

We’ve had a number of questions put to us by the Panorama team and we’ve answered them fully and extensively.

We’ve given them 50 pages of documentation in response to their questions and we’ve also complained to the BBC at various levels including director general level over the way the process has been engaged in, the lack of engagement with us at an earlier stage and the failure to come to us with a balanced and fair set of questions.

And from what we’ve seen of the questions and the nature of the investigation, the Panorama team had already come to a conclusion about where its investigation was going before it looked at the evidence in full.

We are absolutely adamantly opposed to antisemitism in all its forms and we will continue to take the strongest action to eradicate it from the Labour Party and we’ve taken a series of steps.

Momentum, the pro-Corbyn Labour group, has also been using Twitter to attack John Ware, the reporter who made the programme.

As the Times’ Matt Chorley reports, this is the same John Ware who was described as an “ever-vigilant investigative journalist” in a congratulatory Commons early day motion signed by Jeremy Corbyn in 2002.

Asked about the Labour criticism, a BBC spokesperson said:

The Labour party is criticising a programme they have not seen. The programme adheres to the BBC’s editorial guidelines. In line with those, the Labour Party has been given the opportunity to respond to the allegations.

Scotland’s first minister Nicola Sturgeon has described it as “shameful” that Kim Darroch has been forced out “for doing the job that diplomats are appointed to do”. Responding to a tweet from Nigel Farage that suggested Darroch be replaced by a Brexiter, Sturgeon added:

Who could Farage be thinking of? The last thing that should happen is the politicisation of the civil service and the replacement of honourable diplomats with charlatans like this guy.

Meanwhile, the SNP’s foreign affairs spokesperson, Stephen Gethins MP, said that the resignation was a “deeply concerning and a worrying sign of where the UK’s role on the international stage is heading”, adding:

The integrity and impartiality of the civil service must not be compromised.

It would be unacceptable if the UK’s diplomatic service and appointments were outsourced to the whims of the Trump administration.

Mark Francois, the Tory Brexiter, says Theresa May should leave it to her successor to appoint the next ambassador to Washington. Speaking at an Institute for Government event, he told the Guardian:

This must have been a very difficult decision for Kim Darroch. But what is most important now is that it is the new prime minister who takes the decision on who his replacement will be because the relationship with the US will be fundamentally important, not least when we have left the EU.

The head of the civil service in Northern Ireland has warned against “complacency” over political limbo in the region as an official report predicts that 40,000 jobs are at risk in the region in the event of a no-deal Brexit. (See 2.07pm.)

David Sterling was accused of engaging in “operation fear” in March by a Brexiter Conservative MP by warning of the “grave” consequences for the region.

Today he said he had “developed a thick skin” in the face of such criticism but that those fears still hold.

“Our assessment is that no-deal would have a profound and longlasting impact on Northern Ireland and society, a point I made back in March and it remains valid today,” said Sterling speaking at the Institute for Government in London.

He said the uncertainty over Brexit was now impacting on investment with latest local purchasing managers index (PMI) data showing the “strongest reduction in output since September 2012”.

He also warned that there would be an increase in smuggling on the border and the community relations in those areas could deteriorate.

[No-deal] could change the attitude in communities which over time could have an impact in the culture of those areas.

While tensions around parades has been in “decline” and there was “less street disorder”, there were “other societal tensions that are probably the result of the political impasse,” he said.

We wouldn’t want to overstate it but at the same time I wouldn’t be complacent … it would wrong to be complacent and think this will be the same for evermore.

He said the absence of Stormont has meant that Northern Ireland issues don’t get the airing they should in Westminster.

“We have lacked that ministerial voice in Whitehall that has championed the cause of Northern Ireland,” he said adding he not want to see direct rule.

A Labour source said Boris Johnson was behaving as Donald Trump’s “patsy” if his lack of support prompted Sir Kim Darroch’s resignation, the Press Association reports. The Labour source said:

If that’s the case I think it is clear that Boris Johnson is effectively behaving as Donald Trump’s patsy and he’s doing that clearly because he’s banking on a sweetheart trade deal and is putting himself in hock to the US president.

It’s clear that he is not prepared and won’t stand up to Donald Trump and he won’t stand up for Britain and that’s clearly the result of a policy on Brexit that is putting the country at risk of a no-deal exit from the European Union.

This is from David Miliband, a Labour former foreign secretary.

From my colleague Peter Walker

These are from Nick Boles, who used to be a Conservative MP but who now sits as an independent.

A no-deal Brexit could cost 40,000 jobs in Northern Ireland, an updated report from the region’s department of economy has said. It said:

A no deal would have a profound and long-lasting impact on NI’s economy and society.

No-deal could lead to a sharp increase in unemployment with at least 40,000 jobs at risk.

It said the impact of EU tariffs and non-tariff barriers will mean that whatever the Irish government and the EU do “many businesses will no longer be able to export to the Irish market, leading to a major reduction in NI’s exports to Ireland,” it said.

It predicted the impact of EU tariffs could reduce NI’s exports to Ireland by 11% to £100m to £180m.

Aodhán Connolly, director of the Northern Irish Retail Consortium, said the report made for “stark reading” but “no surprise” as business had been warning of the consequences of no deal for more than a year.

Downing Street said Theresa May spoke to Sir Kim Darroch for around five minutes shortly before PMQs today.

This is from the Labour peer Andrew Adonis on the removal of Kim Darroch.

Back in the foreign affairs committee Sir Simon McDonald, head of the Foreign Office, says he has served as an ambassador twice. He says diplomats use ‘diptels” (diplomatic telegrams) when they want information circulated quite widely in the system. They are not used for information that is particularly sensitive. But they are there if an ambassador wants to pass on information not being picked up by the media.

Here are comments from three Labour MPs on Kim Darroch’s resignation.

From Ben Bradshaw, a former Foreign Office minister

From Bill Esterson

From Yvette Cooper, chair of the home affairs committee

The Conservative MP Bob Seely asks McDonald if he accepts that it looks as if only a relatively small number of memos were leaked, rather than a large cache. McDonald says he does not want to comment.

And Tom Tugendhat, the committee chair, asks McDonald if he has met his counterpart in the American embassy recently. McDonald said he did have a meeting. They had a “free and frank” exchange of views, he says.

Labour’s Chris Bryant goes next. He asks McDonald thinks there will be more leaks.

McDonald says he is “braced” for further revelations. “I fear there may be more,” he says.

Back in the committee Labour’s Ian Murray asks what the Foreign Office would think about having a political appointee as the next ambassador to Washington.

McDonald says there is one in post already, Ed Llewellyn, the ambassador to Paris.

He says political appointees are subject to security procedures after their appointment.

Q: What would happen if they failed?

McDonald says that has not happened before. If it were to happen, he would have to have a difficult conversation with the PM, he says.

Lord Kerslake, the former head of the civil service, said Kim Darroch’s resignation will lead to soul-searching across the Foreign Office and he criticised the failure of the former foreign secretary Boris Johnson to offer the ambassador his backing. Kerslake said:

Darroch did nothing wrong ... We cannot pander to Trump’s insecurity. There is going to have to be a lot of soul searching in the FCO as to how we arrived at this point.

Asked whether Johnson’s lack of support may have been a factor in Darroch’s decision, Kerslake said:

It was depressingly predictable for Boris. I wish that he had stood up [to the president] and been more forthright. Boris will rely on robust advice from ambassadors if he becomes prime minister. Hunt gave a much better answer to this question [in the ITV debate].

Back in the foreign affairs committee Sir Simon McDonald, head of the Foreign Office, says diplomats have been “shaken” by what has happened.

Asked if he thought the establishment should stand should to shoulder with a diplomat like Kim Darroch, he said of course. He said the Foreign Office was grateful for what Theresa May and Jeremy Hunt have said about this.

On a campaign visit to a pub in London this morning - alongside Brexiteer and JD Wetherspoon boss Tim Martin - Boris Johnson was asked about John Major’s threat to go to court to stop Johnson proroguing parliament. (See 8.52am.) Johnson replied:

What we are going to do is deliver Brexit on October 31, which is what I think the people of this country want us to get on and do.

I think everybody is fed up with delay and I think the idea of now consecrating this decision to the judiciary is really very, very odd indeed.

What we want is for Parliament to take their responsibilities, get it done as they promised that they would.

They asked the British people whether they wanted to leave in 2016, the British people returned a very clear verdict so let’s get it done.

McDonald says the most sensitive diplomatic memos are only circulated to between five and 10 people. But every computer has a forward button, he says.

McDonald says the Foreign Office will pursue who was responsible for this leak with all means at its disposal.

And he says diplomats must continue to give frank advice to London. But he will urge people to think again about what can be done to ensure their communications are secure, he says.

This is from Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair’s former communications chief.

Back in the committee McDonald says some of the leaked memos were “diptels”, diplomatic telegrams, that are circulated quite widely, and others were email letters, which have a much smaller Whitehall readership.

Here is the full quote from what Sir Alan Duncan, the Foreign Office minister, told the BBC about Boris Johnson.

Boris Johnson - a former foreign secretary and he hopes to be the future prime minister - has basically thrown our top diplomat under the bus,

There are a lot of people in the Commons who are very, very angry and feel that he has lost so much respect for having done what he has done.

His disregard for Sir Kim and his refusal to back him was pretty contemptible and also not in the best interests of the country he is trying to lead ...

Commenting on Johnson’s failure to defend Darroch in the ITV debate last night, Duncan said:

For someone who wants to lead, let alone unite, the country, that was contemptible negligence on his part.

He has basically thrown this fantastic diplomat under the bus to serve his own personal interests.

Q: What is the process for appointing a new ambassador?

McDonald says the standard procedure is for the post to be advertised, candidates to be interviewed, and then decisions taken by the foreign secretary and the prime minister. But that process is not always followed when a new ambassador to Washington is being appointed, he says.

McDonald says Darroch knew that the government was committed to keeping him in place.

But Darroch decided to go anyway, he says.

Boris Johnson has said he regrets the resignation of Kim Darroch. Describing Darroch as “a superb diplomat”, he went on:

I think whoever leaked his diptels (diplomatic telegrams) really has done a grave disservice to our civil servants, to people who give impartial advice to ministers.

I hope that whoever it is, is run down, caught and eviscerated, quite frankly, because it is not right that advice to ministers that civil servants must be able to make in a spirit of freedom should be leaked.

It is not right that civil servants’ careers and prospects should be dragged into the political agenda.

In PMQs Sir Vince Cable says Theresa May’s last job will be to recommend to the Queen who her successor should be. How will she be sure that that person can command a majority in the Commons?

May says, whoever wins the Tory leadership contest, they will make an excellent PM.

From my colleague Jennifer Rankin

This is from Peter Ricketts, a former head of the Foreign Office.

Another senior Tory has criticised Boris Johnson for refusing to stand up for Sir Kim Darroch, This is from Patrick McLoughlin, the former Tory chief whip, who is supporting Jeremy Hunt for the Tory leadership.

It is unedifying to see someone who wants to be prime minister failing to stand up for hard working civil servants, who have done nothing wrong, under attack from foreign governments. Leadership involves standing up for your team. If we don’t call out those who want a witch-hunt through the civil service we are complicit in creating divisions that may never heal.

Jeremy Hunt, the foreign secretary, has put out this statement about Sir Kim Darroch’s resignation.

I am deeply saddened by Sir Kim Darroch’s decision to resign as Her Majesty’s Ambassador in Washington. For 42 years, Sir Kim served his country with the utmost dedication and distinction.

He brought dispassionate insight and directness to his reporting to ministers in London. Whenever I visited Washington as foreign secretary, I was struck by Sir Kim’s professionalism and intellect. I am outraged that a selection of his reports should have been leaked.

I am sure that our ambassadors worldwide will continue to provide the objective and rigorous reporting that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has always prized. I profoundly regret how this episode has led Sir Kim to decide to resign. He deserves to look back upon his career as a servant of Britain with the greatest satisfaction and pride.

Sir Alan Duncan, the Foreign Office minister, has told the BBC that Boris Johnson’s treatment of Kim Darroch was “contemptible”.

Last night Duncan, who is backing Jeremy Hunt for the Tory leadership, described Johnson as an “utter wimp”. (See 11.07am.)

And this is from my colleague Patrick Wintour, the Guardian’s diplomatic editor.

This is from the Daily Mail’s Jason Groves.

This is from Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister, on the resignation of Kim Darroch.

The SNP leader at Westminster, Ian Blackford, says every time Theresa May speaks in Scotland, the SNP vote goes up.

He says today is the Srebrenica memorial day.

He says it is a pity that Boris Johnson did not stand up for Kim Darroch yesterday.

Mark Carney says the UK economy is not growing. And Danny Blanchlower says the economy is already in recession, Blackford says. (It sounds like he’s been reading Aditya Chakrabortty’s Guardian column today.)

May says the economy is doing well, but would have been doing even better if the SNP had voted for a Brexit deal.

Blackford says May is driving the UK economy over the cliff. He urges her to take a no-deal Brexit off the table.

May repeats her point about how the SNP could have taken no-deal off the table by voting for her deal. She says forecasts show the Scottish economy is expected to grow more slowly than the economy in the rest of the UK under the SNP.

Here is the full quote from Theresa May earlier on Kim Darroch.

This morning I have spoken to Sir Kim Darroch.

I have told him that it is a matter of great regret that he has felt it necessary to leave his position as ambassador in Washington.

The whole cabinet rightly gave its full support to Sir Kim on Tuesday. Sir Kim has given a lifetime of service to the United Kingdom and we owe him an enormous debt of gratitude.

Good government depends on public servants being able to give full and frank advice.

I want all our public servants to have the confidence to be able to do that and I hope the House will reflect on the importance of defending our values and principles, particularly when they are under pressure.

Corbyn says he is totally committed to tackling racism in any form in the Labour party. Shouldn’t May address Islamophobia in the Conservative party. He says May should listen to what the UN said about the government’s disregard for the rights of disabled people. And he turns to Windrush. Does May agree that that scandal would not have happened if legal aid had not been cut?

May says Corbyn needs to consider his arguments. She has apologised for what happened to the Windrush generation. She says a review found 18 people wrongly deported, but some of those cases happened under Labour. She says Labour claims to back whistleblowers, and yet it uses NDAs. He used to back leave, but now backs remains. He lives up to the words of Marx, not Karl but Groucho - “Those are my prinicples. If you don’t like them, I’ve got others.”

Corbyn says he will not take lectures from May. Her party consorts with racists in the European parliaments. He says legal aid cuts have disproportionately affected the poor and the disabled. Millions are denied access to justice because they are poor. Isn’t that a burning injustice?

May says Corbyn can try to avoid the antisemitism issue. She quotes the former Labour general secretary saying that one day Labour may be anti-racist, but not today. She attacks Labour for wanting to to tax more. Labour used to have a slogan, “Education, education, education.” Now it is just, “Tax, tax, tax.”

Corbyn says the coalition cut legal aid, and introduced fees for tribunals. But his union, Unison, took the government to court and won. He quotes a leaseholder who is being threatened with eviction who cannot get legal aid. He has been working until 2am every night collecting evidence. Doesn’t he deserve legal aid?

May says a quarter of the ministry of justice’s budget is spent on legal aid. He says the government is reviewing legal aid schemes.

Corbyn says Labour is committed to restoring legal aid for family law, housing, judicial review preparation and real action on immigration cases. He says the government should restore the cuts affecting disabled people.

May says spending on disabled people is at a record high. If Corbyn is interested in tackling injustice, he should deal with antisemitism, she says.

Jeremy Corbyn says he also regrets the resignation of Kim Darroch. He says the comments made about him are beyond unfair and wrong.

He says many people welcomed the points Theresa May made when she was first appointed about burning injustices when she became PM. Does she agree that access to justice is vital?

May says there are many aspects to this. She says the racial disparities audit she commissioned highlighted an important aspect of what needed to be done.

Corbyn says the coalition slashed legal aid. The results are unfair, he says. There are legal aid deserts across the country. Has that helped or hindered the fight against burning injustices.

May says tackling burning injustice is not just a matter of access to the legal system. If Labour cared about this, they would have done more when they were in power.

Parliament has a new group, the Independents. These are not to be be confused the independent MPs, the ones sit without party affiliation (normally because they have resigned from or been suspended by the party they were representing when elected). There are currently five Independents.

Just to make things complicated, four of them - Heidi Allen, Luciana Berger, Gavin Shuker and Angela Smith - used to be members of what started life as the Independent Group before it turned into Change UK. Change UK then split when six of its 11 MPs became independents.

Now four of those six are Independents. The other two were Chuka Umunna, who has joined the Lib Dems, and Sarah Wollaston, who is still an independent.

The fifth Independent is John Woodcock, who used to be Labour MP before resigning in protest against Jeremy Corbyn’s handling of antisemitism (although he was also suspended at the time over a harassment allegation that he strongly denied).

Matt Hancock, the health secretary who is supporting Boris Johnson for leader after his own bid failed, has been taking the Johnson line on Kim Darroch, the British ambassador to the US, in interviews this morning. He refused to say that Darroch should stay in his post, and he argued that the relationship with the US needed a “reset”.

Britain’s Next Prime Minister: The ITV Debate was watched by an average of 4.3m viewers, ITV has said. According to viewing figures from ITV, the debate had a peak audience of 4.7m viewers.

This is from the Spectator’s James Forsyth.

The pro-independence National newspaper leads this morning with the fact that the union and Scotland were not discussed at all during the televised Tory leadership debate on ITV last night. After last week’s plea from Theresa May – made in Scotland – to defend the union, and both Hunt and Johnson’s promises on the subject, one doesn’t have to be a staunch nationalist to note this omission.

Elsewhere, the Herald has a fascinating read-out of Theresa May’s most recent cabinet meeting which, according to UK political editor Michael Settle, discussed the threat to the union and rising support for independence at length, and concluded that extra spending was needed to promote the cause of UK unity.

This is from Nikki da Costa, Theresa May’s former director of legislative affairs at Downing Street.

John Major was asked about this in his Today interview. He did not specifically deny calling the 1997 election a bit early to avoid the publication of a cash for questions report, but he said that by the time he did call that election, the parliament had already more or less run its full course.

When Sir John Major said that a judicial review challenging the prime minister’s decision to advise the Queen to prorogue parliament for a no-deal Brexit might succeed, he may have been influenced by the arguments in this Times article (paywall) by David Pannick QC. Pannick represented Gina Millar in the article 50 case and he explains why he thinks the JR route might work.

Until the mid-1980s, judges decided what prerogative powers were enjoyed by the crown, but would not assess the way in which such powers were exercised. More recently, the courts have held that the legal reviewability of governmental action depends less on the nature of the power being exercised, and more on whether the grounds of review raise legal issues that the court is equipped to address ...

What could be challenged is the legality of the advice on prorogation given by the prime minister. The claimant would need to show that the advice breaches a fundamental legal principle. One such principle is the sovereignty of parliament. The supreme court so held in January 2017 in the case brought by Gina Miller (for whom I acted as counsel) successfully challenging Theresa May’s decision to notify the EU of Britain’s intention to withdraw from membership without first seeking the approval of parliament.

Whether prorogation is a breach of the constitutional principle of parliamentary sovereignty depends on the circumstances of the case. In Canada in 2008 [where parliament was prorogued for political reasons] the issue did not come to court.

There would be three important features of a case in October. First, the prime minister would be seeking to prorogue parliament for the purpose of avoiding parliamentary sovereignty on an issue of significant constitutional importance.

Second, he would be seeking to stop parliament sitting when time would be of the essence, given the deadline of the end of October.

And third, he would be seeking to evade parliament because it has previously made clear its wish to prevent a no-deal Brexit. If he were to advise the Queen to prorogue parliament in these circumstances, the courts would be likely to hear an urgent application and then declare his advice to be unlawful.

In a useful Twitter thread, starting here, the barrister Jo Maugham has compiled a list, with links, of some more articles addressing this question.

The BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg points out that, given where the Conservative party membership is on Brexit, John Major’s threat to go to court to stop a no-deal Brexit prorogation will probably be helpful to Boris Johnson.

Charlie Falconer, a former Labour lord chancellor (and that was in the days when the lord chancellor had to be a QC, not just a jobbing cabinet minister), says John Major is right to say that there would be a good case for taking a decision to prorogue parliament to avoid a no-deal Brexit to judicial review (JR).

From Sky’s Tamara Cohen