Boris Johnson allegedly told aides in Downing Street that he would rather let coronavirus “rip” than impose a second lockdown because of the economic harm further restrictions would cause.
The prime minister is said to have argued in September that there was no evidence that lockdowns worked and described them as “mad” during an intense debate within government.
The Times has been told that he repeatedly said that he would rather “let it rip” during this period than implement another lockdown, because the restrictions would cause businesses to close and people to lose their jobs.
He is also said to have expressed regret about the first lockdown, comparing himself to the mayor in the film Jaws who kept the beaches open despite the risk of shark attacks. Johnson has in the past suggested that the mayor was the “real hero” of the film for resisting political pressure.
A No 10 spokesman said: “These are gross distortions of his position. Throughout this pandemic we’ve done everything we can to save lives and protect livelihoods.”
Advertisement
It was reported last night that Johnson sent a text to Dominic Cummings, his former senior adviser, last year to say that the allegations that he was the “chatty rat” who had revealed details of the second lockdown were “bullshit”, according to The Daily Mail.
It was also reported that Cummings received a text absolving him of blame from Simon Case, the cabinet secretary, who is said to have told him that he had authorised the Downing Street press office to say he was not the “chatty rat”.
Cummings will use an appearance next month before MPs to accuse Johnson of having been prepared to let more people die rather than impose a second lockdown.
The prime minister denied claims yesterday that he also told aides during another meeting, this time in his study in mid-October, that he would rather “let the bodies pile high in their thousands” than impose a third lockdown.
Johnson reluctantly agreed to impose a second lockdown after warnings from Michael Gove, the Cabinet Office minister, that soldiers would be needed to guard hospitals over-run with coronavirus patients. The prime minister was said to be “in a rage” after the decision and allegedly shouted the “bodies pile high” comment from his study, with those in his private office able to hear because the doors were open.
Advertisement
Responding to an urgent question in the Commons yesterday, Gove stopped short of denying that Johnson had made the comment “The idea that he would say any such thing I find incredible,” he said.
While some observers suggested that Gove’s choice of words was constructed to avoid categorical denial, sources close to him said that he was clear that the prime minister did not make the remark.
Rachel Reeves, the shadow Cabinet Office minister, said: “The prime minister is now corrupting the standards of public life expected in high office.” She said that his alleged comments were “stomach-churning”.
Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, had said earlier that the allegation was “ludicrous”. He told LBC: “That’s not my boss. My boss feels every difficult decision because he knows about people and he wants life to be successful for everyone and that’s a really hard job in a pandemic.” Wallace also denied that Johnson was “sleazy”.
Nadine Dorries, the mental health minister, said that the allegation was “an outright lie” with “not one named source or substantiated fact”. She said that it represented “mendacious, vexatious, co-ordinated gossip given to negatively influence the outcome” of next week’s elections.
Advertisement
When Robert Peston, the political editor of ITV News, said that he too had been told that Johnson shouted the phrase in his study after he agreed to the second lockdown “in a rage”, Dorries replied on Twitter: “Man up Robert, name your cowardly (fictitious) source.”
Asked on a visit to Wales yesterday afternoon if he had made the comment, Johnson said “no”, adding: “The important thing that people want us to get on to do as a government is make sure that the lockdowns work, and they have. And I really pay tribute to the people of this country that have really pulled together and, working with the vaccination programme, we’ve got the disease under control.”
Johnson accused Cummings last week of “systemic leaks”, including the disclosure of his private text messages. Allies of Cummings said that it appeared to be an attempt to discredit him before a hearing with MPs on May 26 about the handling of the pandemic.
His evidence will focus on a five-day period in September when Johnson resisted calls for a “circuit breaker” of at least two to three weeks, waiting until November before imposing a lockdown. At the beginning of September Cummings is said to have argued strongly for a second lockdown. Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer for England, and Sir Patrick Vallance, the chief scientific adviser, were said to have supported that position. The Times has been told that Johnson found the decision “impossible” because of the economic consequences.
Downing Street accused Cummings of being the “chatty rat” who leaked details of the second lockdown to this newspaper. Case said yesterday that an inquiry would probably never find the culprit.
Advertisement
Gove was also asked about the refurbishment of Johnson’s Downing Street flat. Although the prime minister paid for the redecoration, he is said to have planned to use a £58,000 gift from a Tory donor. Asked by the Labour MP Kevan Jones if Johnson paid the original invoices or “reimbursed the donors who donated money, allegedly, to this fund, or to the Conservative Party”, Gove was unable to say. “The prime minister paid for the renovation,” he replied. “All donations to the prime minister or any other member of parliament, or indeed to political parties, will be declared appropriately.”
Prime ministers receive about £30,000 of public funding for the flat but the work is thought to have cost more.
Johnson has had a challenging fortnight. Henry Zeffman assesses how explosive each problem he faces could be, with a rating up to three bombs
Doing up the flat
Boris Johnson paid for the refurbishment of his Downing Street flat. But we do not know if he paid the invoices or paid the Conservative Party, a donor or another body that initially covered the costs. Having a donor cover the costs could be a breach of the ministerial code. Not declaring any loan promptly could breach electoral law. There is also a political concern: most voters would balk at the idea that a flat furnished with John Lewis furniture, as it was under Theresa May, is a “nightmare”. The Conservative Party insists that all rules have been followed. Bomb rating: 3
Advertisement
“Chatty rat” leak inquiry
The cabinet secretary’s admission that the person who leaked details of the government’s lockdown plans may never be identified suggests that this might be receding. But did Johnson suggest halting the inquiry in case it implicated one of his fiancée’s friends, as Dominic Cummings claimed? Were the security services involved? If so, why, given it was not a criminal matter? Bomb rating: 2
The Dyson texts
It is peculiar for the prime minister’s phone number to be widely known to various private citizens. It remains unclear why Johnson has not simply changed his number. But in the case of Sir James Dyson, people are likely to believe that it was fair for Johnson to offer assurances to secure a potential supply of ventilators. Bomb rating: 1
Cummings select committee appearance
Dominic Cummings’s appearance before a select committee next month may unleash fresh claims about Johnson’s conduct. It could inject new life into existing questions — especially if Cummings offers documents to support his claims. But it may be that Downing Street briefings by then have established that he is motivated by revenge for being ousted. Bomb rating: 3
Greensill and double jobs
The Boardman review might provoke more questions about Lex Greensill’s access to government, David Cameron’s lobbying or civil servants’ outside interests. None will worry Johnson unduly. Bomb rating: 1