A war of words has erupted between British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and Boris Johnson over the former prime minister’s attempt to give peerages to several close allies. Sunak accused his former boss of asking him to “overrule” the vetting advice on his House of Lords nominations. But in a fiery statement, Johnson accused Sunak of “talking rubbish”. The House of Lords Appointments Commission (HOLAC) said it rejected eight of Johnson’s nominations. There has been no confirmation of who the nominees were, and why they were not included on Johnson’s controversial resignation honors list. The honors list was published by Sunak’s government on Friday, without the names of some of Johnson’s key supporters, including Conservative MPs Nadine Dorries and Nigel Adams. A few hours after his honors list was released, Johnson announced he was standing down as an MP over an investigation into whether he had misled Parliament about lockdown parties. Competing claims have now surfaced about how and why the names would not have appeared on the list. Adams and Dorries have both announced they would be immediately standing down as MPs, triggering by-elections to replace them. On Monday, the row over the nominations spilled into a public spat between Johnson and Sunak. Speaking at a tech conference in London earlier, Sunak claimed Johnson had asked him to do “something I wasn’t prepared to do” on peerage nominations. “I didn’t think that was right. And if people don’t like that, then tough,” Sunak said. A few hours later, Johnson claimed it “was not necessary to overrule HOLAC — but simply to ask them to renew their vetting, which was a mere formality”. Downing Street did not respond any further, saying the prime minister did not regret his comments and adding: “As I say, he was asked a direct question. He gave a clear answer.” The process of vetting Johnson’s nominees for peerages appears to be the one of the points of disagreement between the former allies. There has been speculation in media reports about what would happen if a serving MP was nominated for a peerage, and whether they could remain in the House of Commons until the next general election, before taking up their seats in the Lords. But HOLAC says its vetting checks expire after six months, meaning its advice on nominations is only valid for that period. In his statement, Johnson appears to be suggesting the vetting checks for his nominees could be carried out again, at a later date. Sunak’s comments are the first made publicly about the dispute over peerages, and marks a heightening of tensions between the two. Their relationship has been an uneasy one after Sunak quit as chancellor in Johnson’s government, setting off a wave of resignations that brought down his premiership. As a departing prime minister, Johnson has the right to nominate people for seats in the House of Lords, and for other honors such as knighthoods. By convention, current prime ministers pass on the list of nominees to HOLAC, which can recommend their names do not go forward after a vetting process. HOLAC advises prime ministers on the suitability of candidates for peerages and usually, they accept its recommendations on appointments, whatever the outcome. But Johnson broke with this convention in 2020, when he nominated businessman Peter Cruddas for a peerage, despite his rejection by HOLAC. On Sunday, a spokesman for the vetting commission said it had rejected eight of Johnson’s nominations, but declined to name them or say why, adding it “does not comment on individuals”. Downing Street has insisted that Sunak passed on Johnson’s list of nominations unaltered. It said it also accepted HOLAC’s full approved list and passed it to the King. But on Monday, a source describing themselves as an ally of Johnson accused the prime minister of “secretly” blocking peerages for “Nadine and others”. “He refused to ask for them to undergo basic checks that could have taken only a few weeks or even days,” the source added. “That is how he kept them off the list — without telling Boris Johnson.” — BBC