Connect with us

Published

on

There was no shielding plan early in the pandemic and vulnerable groups were “appallingly neglected” as a “fatalistic” approach took hold in Downing Street, Dominic Cummings has claimed.

The former chief aide to Boris Johnson, who described Downing Street as being in “complete chaos”, was asked to what degree decision-makers considered ethnic minority groups, domestic abuse victims and others in the run-up to imposing a national lockdown.

Mr Cummings told the COVID inquiry: “I would say that that entire question was almost entirely appallingly neglected by the entire planning system.”

COVID inquiry latest: PM ‘obsessed with older people accepting their fate’

Politics Hub with Sophy Ridge

Politics Hub with Sophy Ridge

Sky News Monday to Thursday at 7pm.
Watch live on Sky channel 501, Freeview 233, Virgin 602, the Sky News website and app or YouTube.

Tap here for more

He said “one of the most appalling things” was the lack of a shielding plan in March 2020 “and the Cabinet Office was trying to block us creating a shielding plan”.

Mr Cummings, one of the most senior advisers in government during the first wave of the pandemic, also told the inquiry that strict border controls and the rapid expansion of testing could have had a “much better” outcome for saving lives and the economy than lockdowns.

But he said a “fatalistic” approach had gripped the government, which did not envisage attempting to create new systems to control the spread of coronavirus.

More on Boris Johnson

“No one thought it was really practical to build our way out of the problem,” he said.

“The fundamental U-turn that we shifted to, was to try and build our way out of it instead of fatalistically accepting it.”

Mr Cummings also described how attitudes around whether to change to a lockdown strategy in March were not suddenly changed.

He said “this was all complete chaos” about when various aspects of government decided a lockdown was necessary, rather than managing COVID in the community.

The inquiry also heard:

• There were conversations in early March 2020 – weeks before the national lockdown – about whether local authorities could book out ice rinks and hire trucks to carry and store “massive numbers of bodies”;

• Matt Hancock “sowed chaos” by continuing to insist in March 2020 that people without symptoms of a dry cough and a temperature were unlikely to be suffering from coronavirus;

• Everyone in Downing Street called Mr Johnson an indecisive “trolley”

• Mr Cummings warned Mr Johnson of the NHS imploding “like a zombie apocalypse film” on 12 March, 12 days before lockdown was implemented

Mr Cummings was called to give evidence after former communications director Lee Cain.

Mr Cain said the former prime minister was indecisive over lockdowns because “the rump of the Tory party” did not like the strict measures.

Notes from former scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance were read out in which it was said that Mr Johnson agreed with his MPs that COVID was “nature’s way of dealing with old people”.

Read more:
2021: Pandemic left vulnerable workers open to abuse and exploitation

The two hearing laid bare the chaos and dysfunction in government as coronavirus presented the biggest crisis the UK has seen since 1945.

Mr Cummings took aim at much of the government during the “nightmare” of the pandemic – saying a text in which he called ministers useless f***pigs, morons, c****” actually “understated the position as events showed in 2020”.

He also claimed that everyone in Downing Street called Mr Johnson a “trolley” because of his indecision.

Mr Cummings was Mr Johnson’s top political aide in Downing Street from 2019 – having masterminded the Vote Leave Brexit campaign and helped usher the former prime minister into office.

But he left his role in November 2020 amid a power struggle behind the scenes and has since become a fierce critic of his old boss.

He was embroiled in a scandal at the outset of the pandemic when it emerged he had taken a lockdown-breaking trip to County Durham with his family.

Bereaved families were stationed outside the inquiry on Tuesday.

It comes a day after Martin Reynolds, the civil servant who was dubbed “party Marty” due to his role in the partygate scandal, gave evidence yesterday in which he admitted setting WhatsApp messages to “disappear” as calls for a COVID inquiry grew.

Continue Reading

Politics

Rachel Reeves hit by Labour rural rebellion over inheritance tax on farmers

Published

on

By

Rachel Reeves hit by Labour rural rebellion over inheritance tax on farmers

Chancellor Rachel Reeves has suffered another budget blow with a rebellion by rural Labour MPs over inheritance tax on farmers.

Speaking during the final day of the Commons debate on the budget, Labour backbenchers demanded a U-turn on the controversial proposals.

Plans to introduce a 20% tax on farm estates worth more than £1m from April have drawn protesters to London in their tens of thousands, with many fearing huge tax bills that would force small farms to sell up for good.

Farmers have staged numerous protests against the tax in Westminster. Pic: PA
Image:
Farmers have staged numerous protests against the tax in Westminster. Pic: PA

MPs voted on the so-called “family farms tax” just after 8pm on Tuesday, with dozens of Labour MPs appearing to have abstained, and one backbencher – borders MP Markus Campbell-Savours – voting against, alongside Conservative members.

In the vote, the fifth out of seven at the end of the budget debate, Labour’s vote slumped from 371 in the first vote on tax changes, down by 44 votes to 327.

‘Time to stand up for farmers’

The mini-mutiny followed a plea to Labour MPs from the National Farmers Union to abstain.

“To Labour MPs: We ask you to abstain on Budget Resolution 50,” the NFU urged.

“With your help, we can show the government there is still time to get it right on the family farm tax. A policy with such cruel human costs demands change. Now is the time to stand up for the farmers you represent.”

After the vote, NFU president Tom Bradshaw said: “The MPs who have shown their support are the rural representatives of the Labour Party. They represent the working people of the countryside and have spoken up on behalf of their constituents.

“It is vital that the chancellor and prime minister listen to the clear message they have delivered this evening. The next step in the fight against the family farm tax is removing the impact of this unjust and unfair policy on the most vulnerable members of our community.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Farmers defy police ban in budget day protest in Westminster.

The government comfortably won the vote by 327-182, a majority of 145. But the mini-mutiny served notice to the chancellor and Sir Keir Starmer that newly elected Labour MPs from the shires are prepared to rebel.

Speaking in the debate earlier, Mr Campbell-Savours said: “There remain deep concerns about the proposed changes to agricultural property relief (APR).

“Changes which leave many, not least elderly farmers, yet to make arrangements to transfer assets, devastated at the impact on their family farms.”

Samantha Niblett, Labour MP for South Derbyshire abstained after telling MPs: “I do plead with the government to look again at APR inheritance tax.

“Most farmers are not wealthy land barons, they live hand to mouth on tiny, sometimes non-existent profit margins. Many were explicitly advised not to hand over their farm to children, (but) now face enormous, unexpected tax bills.

“We must acknowledge a difficult truth: we have lost the trust of our farmers, and they deserve our utmost respect, our honesty and our unwavering support.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

UK ‘criminally’ unprepared to feed itself in crisis, says farmers’ union.

Labour MPs from rural constituencies who did not vote included Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower), Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury), Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire), Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley), and Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall), Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk), Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby), Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk), Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth), Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay), Perran Moon, (Camborne and Redruth), Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire), Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal), Henry Tufnell (Mid and South Pembrokeshire), John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) and Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndwr).

Continue Reading

Politics

UK takes ‘massive step forward,’ passing property laws for crypto

Published

on

By

UK takes ‘massive step forward,’ passing property laws for crypto

The UK has passed a bill into law that treats digital assets, such as cryptocurrencies and stablecoins, as property, which advocates say will better protect crypto users.

Lord Speaker John McFall announced in the House of Lords on Tuesday that the Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill was given royal assent, meaning King Charles agreed to make the bill into an Act of Parliament and passed it into law.

Freddie New, policy chief at advocacy group Bitcoin Policy UK, said on X that the bill “becoming law is a massive step forward for Bitcoin in the United Kingdom and for everyone who holds and uses it here.”

Source: Freddie New

Common law in the UK, based on judges’ decisions, has established that digital assets are property, but the bill sought to codify a recommendation made by the Law Commission of England and Wales in 2024 that crypto be categorized as a new form of personal property for clarity.

“UK courts have already treated digital assets as property, but that was all through case-by-case judgments,” said the advocacy group CryptoUK. “Parliament has now written this principle into law.”

“This gives digital assets a much clearer legal footing — especially for things like proving ownership, recovering stolen assets, and handling them in insolvency or estate cases,” it added.

Digital “things” now considered personal property

CryptoUK said that the bill confirms “that digital or electronic ‘things’ can be objects of personal property rights.”

UK law categorizes personal property in two ways: a “thing in possession,” which is tangible property such as a car, and and a “thing in action,” intangible property, like the right to enforce a contract.

The bill clarifies that “a thing that is digital or electronic in nature” isn’t outside the realm of personal property rights just because it is neither a “thing in possession” nor a “thing in action.”

The Law Commission argued in its report in 2024 that digital assets can possess both qualities, and said that their unclear fit into property rights laws could hamstring dispute resolutions in court.

Related: Group of EU banks pushes for a euro-pegged stablecoin by 2027

Change gives “greater clarity” to crypto users

CryptoUK said on X that the law gives “greater clarity and protection for consumers and investors” and gives crypto holders “the same confidence and certainty they expect with other forms of property.”

“Digital assets can be clearly owned, recovered in cases of theft or fraud, and included within insolvency and estate processes,” it added.