Connect with us

Published

on

There is a danger on days like today of focusing on dazzling but smaller-scale revelations that have come out of today’s evidence at the COVID inquiry hearings. 

This includes the eye-opening WhatsApps appearing on the courtroom screens, the biblical language about the cabinet and prime minister, the misogynist comments about officials, a prime minister on holiday left undisturbed at a critical time as the virus spread and the failings of individual politicians and government departments.

We saw Dominic Cummings blocking – digitally prevent communications with – the prime minister on WhatsApp after a row over the influence and alleged briefings by Boris Johnson’s wife.

Each one a vital, depressing component of what we’ve learnt today.

But what really hits you, listening to six hours of testimony, is the overall quantum of the dysfunction we heard about; first from Lee Cain, Mr Johnson’s director of communications, and then from Dominic Cummings, his most senior adviser, over the period from January 2020 until end of the emergency phase of the pandemic.

Behind the door of Number 10, Mr Johnson and officials were handling the worst crisis Britain had faced since the Second World War.

COVID inquiry latest: ‘I was much ruder about men’ – Dominic Cummings denies misogyny

More on Boris Johnson

At the time, a lot of people cut them some slack, hoping and praying they would get things right.

Perhaps everyone should not have been so tolerant.

The sheer scale of the feuding, contempt and dysfunction we’ve heard about today beggars belief.

There was no pandemic plan in March 2020, just people lying about there being a pandemic plan. In Number 10, they were told on 16 March that the civil contingencies secretariat did not even have these plans centrally. That message, Mr Cummings said, was such a shock that people thought it was a spoof.

There was a core, wrong-headed belief at the beginning of the pandemic in Number 10, where people believed Britain could never be locked down until 10 days before it was, based on a dogged, widespread misreading of the nature of the British people.

And we heard how the prime minister’s most senior adviser, Mr Cummings, was trying to keep him away from pandemic planning meetings, fearing he would be a distraction. A simply incredible thing to admit.

But more than anything else, we hear in different ways through different bits of testimony how Britain at that point had an unfocused, indecisive prime minister who at one point looked willing to write off an entire older generation for the sake of the young.

Yes, at points he resisted the Whitehall health “blob”, asking questions and challenging assumptions in a way few others were prepared to do – but often to little effect, outmanoeuvred by those around him.

Chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance wrote in one of his notebooks in August 2020 that Mr Johnson was “obsessed with older people accepting their fate and letting the young get on with life and the economy going”.

Quite bonkers set of exchanges. Another note from Sir Patrick in December 2020 said that the prime minister was suggesting that COVID “is just nature’s way of dealing with old people”.

Extraordinary remarks not least from a prime minister whose voting coalition depends on older voters at its core.

It should be no surprise that cabinet government in this country does not work effectively, or that 10 years into the Tories being in power, not every person around the top table is highly regarded by Tory colleagues.

Nor should it be a surprise that the structures in government to handle a pandemic were failing – secret exercises four years earlier in Whitehall ended in failure, and Brexit had distracted many for years.

The failings that led to the pandemic response have a long tail.

Read more:
Johnson suggested COVID was ‘nature’s way of dealing with old people’
Key WhatsApp messages from the COVID inquiry

However, what we learnt from the COVID inquiry today was that layered on top of this was a uniquely toxic, destructive set of individuals trying to work their way through the crisis.

It was an environment where the prime minister’s right hand aide described himself as being in a “homicidal” mood at points, wanting to go back to Number 10 and fire people. At one point Mr Cummings launched four-letter diatribes about a senior official and said he wanted to “handcuff” her and remove her from the building.

Mr Cummings said during his testimony that during February he began to realise the pandemic plans Matt Hancock had told him existed did not actually exist.

This level of toxicity would make governing in normal times all but impossible. During a crisis it feels unforgivable.

Is what we’ve heard today enough to shame future politicians to ensure this never happens again?

Continue Reading

Politics

Crypto influencer found dead in Montreal park months after abduction

Published

on

By

Crypto influencer found dead in Montreal park months after abduction

A 32-year-old woman has been charged with murdering Mirshahi. However, it isn’t confirmed whether the case has ties to his involvement with crypto. 

Continue Reading

Politics

Assisted dying opponents believe they have the momentum – as Streeting criticised for ‘overstepping the mark’

Published

on

By

Assisted dying opponents believe they have the momentum - as Streeting criticised for 'overstepping the mark'

Labour MPs who are opposed to legalising assisted dying believe the momentum is swinging behind their side of the campaign, Sky News has learnt.

MPs are currently weighing up whether to back a change in the law that would give terminally ill people with six months to live the choice to end their lives.

At a meeting in parliament on Wednesday, Sky News understands Labour MPs on the opposing side of the argument agreed that those who were undecided on the bill were leaning towards voting against it.

One Labour backbencher involved in the whipping operation for the no camp told Sky News: “The undecideds are breaking to us, we feel.”

The source said that many of those who were undecided were new MPs who had expressed concerns that not enough time had been given to debate the bill.

“They feel they are too new to be asked to do something as substantive as this,” they said.

Politics latest: Farage mocked over ‘rare’ PMQs appearance

Issues that were being brought up as potential blocks to voting for the legislation include that doctors would be able to suggest assisted dying to an ill patient, they said.

The source added: “We were elected to sort the NHS out rather than assisted dying.

“And there is no going back on this – if any doubt, you should vote it out.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Labour MP Kim Leadbeater discusses End of Life Bill

The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, put forward by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, is due to be debated on 29 November, when MPs will be given a “free vote” and allowed to vote with their conscience as opposed to along party lines.

In a recent letter to ministers, Cabinet Secretary Simon Case said the prime minister had decided to “set aside collective responsibility on the merits of this bill” and that the government would “remain neutral” on its passage and the matter of assisted dying.

There has been much debate about the bill since its details were published on Monday evening, including that the medicine that will end a patient’s life will need to be self-administered and that people must be terminally ill and expected to die within six months.

Ms Leadbeater, who has the support of former government minister Lord Falconer and ChildLine founder Dame Esther Rantzen, believes her proposed legislation is the “most robust” in the world and contains safeguards she hopes will “reassure” those who are on the fence.

They include that two independent doctors must confirm a patient is eligible for assisted dying and that a High Court judge must give their approval.

The bill will also include punishments of up to 14 years in prison for those who break the law, including coercing someone into ending their own life or pressuring them to take life-ending medicine.

She has also argued the fact terminally ill patients will have to make the choice themselves and administer the drugs themselves “creates that extra level of safeguards and protections”.

However, several cabinet ministers – including Health Secretary Wes Streeting and Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood, who would be responsible for the new law – have spoken out against the legislation.

Mr Streeting, who has said he intends to vote against the bill owing to concerns that people might be coerced into taking their own lives, announced a review into the potential costs of assisted dying if it is implemented.

The health secretary warned that a new assisted dying law could come at the expense of other NHS services – and that there could be “trade-offs” elsewhere.

Sky News understands Ms Leadbeater has said she is “disappointed” by Mr Streeting’s comments about the bill.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Tory MP: ‘Impossible’ for assisted dying bill to be safe

And another Labour MP who is voting for the legislation told Sky News they believed Mr Streeting had “overstepped the mark”.

“I think it’s a bit of a false exercise,” they said.

“It’s definitely going to raise eyebrows – it’s one thing to sound the alarm but he is purposefully helping the other side.”

The MP said that while it did feel “the momentum is moving away from us, a lot of it will come down to the debate and argument in the chamber”.

“Some of the scaremongering tactics might backfire,” they added.

“It’s still all to play for but it’s undoubtedly true the other side seems to be making headway at the moment.”

Read more:
Where it’s already legal and why it’s controversial

Ban jeering in parliament report suggests

A source close to Mr Streeting told Sky News: “Wes has approached this issue in a genuine and considerate way, setting out his own view while respecting others’ views.”

As a private member’s bill that has been put down by a backbencher rather than a government minister, the legislation will not receive as much time for consideration as a government bill – but proponents say it can always be amended and voted down at later stages.

At Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday, Tory MP Sir Alec Shelbrooke questioned whether enough time had been set aside to debate the bill and urged Sir Keir Starmer to allow two days, or 16 hours, of “protected time” to “examine and debate” the legislation before the vote.

Sir Keir replied: “I do think there is sufficient time allocated to it but it is an important issue.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Assisted dying: Wes Streeting orders review into potential costs of changing the law

Published

on

By

Assisted dying: Wes Streeting orders review into potential costs of changing the law

Health Secretary Wes Streeting has ordered his department to carry out a review of the costs of potentially changing the law to legalise assisted dying.

Mr Streeting, who intends to vote against a landmark bill on the issue, has warned that a new assisted dying law could come at the expense of other NHS services if it is implemented.

It comes as MPs weigh up whether to vote for a change in the law when given the opportunity to do so later this month.

The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, put forward by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, would give terminally ill people with six months to live the choice to end their lives.

There has been much debate about the bill since its details were published on Monday evening, including that the medicine that will end a patient’s life will need to be self-administered and that people must be terminally ill and expected to die within six months.

Politics latest: Farage mocked over ‘rare’ PMQs appearance after US trips to back Trump

Ms Leadbeater, who has the support of former government minister Lord Falconer and ChildLine founder Dame Esther Rantzen, believes her proposed legislation is the “most robust” in the world and contains safeguards she hopes will “reassure” those who are on the fence.

More on Assisted Dying

They include that two independent doctors must confirm a patient is eligible for assisted dying and that a High Court judge must give their approval.

The Labour MP has argued the fact terminally ill patients will have to make the choice themselves and administer the drugs themselves “creates that extra level of safeguards and protections”.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

MP discusses End of Life Bill

However, several cabinet ministers – including Mr Streeting and Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood, who would be responsible for the new law – have spoken out against the legislation.

Announcing the review, Mr Streeting said: “Now that we’ve seen the bill published, I’ve asked my department to look at the costs that would be associated with providing a new service to enable assisted dying to go forward, because I’m very clear that regardless of my own personal position or my own vote, my department and the whole government will respect the will of parliament if people vote for assisted dying.”

Ms Leadbeater has said she is “disappointed” with Mr Streeting’s comments – telling The House magazine the health secretary’s comments “suggest he hasn’t read the bill”.

While the health secretary has warned of the potential cost downsides for the NHS, his critics have pointed out there may be potential savings to be made if patients need less care because they choose to end their own lives – something Mr Streeting branded a “chilling slippery slope argument”.

“I would hate for people to opt for assisted dying because they think they’re saving someone somewhere money – whether that’s relatives or the NHS,” he said.

“And I think that’s one of the issues that MPs are wrestling with as they decide how to cast their vote.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘Impossible’ for assisted bill to be safe

“But this is a free vote – the government’s position is neutral.”

Speaking to reporters after delivering a speech to the NHS Providers conference in Liverpool, Mr Streeting said there were “choices and trade-offs” and that “any new service comes at the expense of other competing pressures and priorities”.

“That doesn’t mean people should vote against it on that basis,” he said.

“People need to weigh up this choice in the way that we’re weighing up all these other choices at the moment.”

Read more:
Why is assisted dying controversial – and where is it legal?
Cancelled pay rises for managers among proposed NHS reforms

MPs will debate and vote on Ms Leadbeater’s Private Member’s Bill on 29 November, in what will be the first Commons vote on assisted dying since 2015.

The government has given MPs a “free vote” on the issue, meaning they will be able to vote according to their conscience and without the pressure to conform to party lines.

In 2015, a bill by former Labour MP Rob Marris that would have made it legal for the terminally ill to end their lives was defeated in the Commons by 330 votes to 118.

Continue Reading

Trending