Defiant Andrew Bridgen condemns ‘corruption, collusion and cover-ups’ following his expulsion

Conservative MP Andrew Bridgen has been expelled from the Tory Party following remarks comparing Covid-19 vaccines to the Holocaust. Already stripped of the party whip and serving as an independent MP, Bridgen’s expulsion followed a disciplinary investigation that determined his comments breached lobbying rules. His claims, including describing the vaccine rollout as “the biggest crime against humanity since the Holocaust,” were denounced as “completely unacceptable” by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak.

Bridgen, who has circulated anti-vaccine conspiracy theories to cabinet members, intends to appeal the decision but remains defiant. He plans to run for re-election, characterizing his expulsion as evidence of widespread political “corruption, collusion, and cover-ups.”

Cleverly warns that if Beijing invaded Taiwan, it would destroy world trade

In his keynote speech at the Lord Mayor’s Easter Banquet, Foreign Secretary James Cleverly stated that failing to engage with China would be a “sign of weakness” and emphasized the importance of working with the country to maintain global stability. Cleverly acknowledged the authoritarian nature of China’s regime but underlined the necessity of direct engagement to shape the international order.

Cleverly also expressed concerns over Beijing’s expanding military presence, warning that any Chinese invasion of Taiwan would devastate global trade, citing potential losses amounting to $2.6 trillion. He called for greater transparency in China’s military build-up, which he described as the largest peacetime expansion in history, and advocated for a balanced approach that combines national security efforts, collaboration with allies, and direct engagement with China.

Ex-Chief Negotiator Says UK’s Exit from the EU Has Breathed New Life into Politics

Brexit has “revived” British politics and is healing the UK’s democracy, according to former Brexit negotiator Lord Frost. In comments made during a House of Lords debate, Lord Frost argued that leaving the EU allowed the UK to re-energise its political system by enabling debates and decisions to be made at home, rather than being dictated by Brussels.

Lord Frost praised Brexit for giving Britain the chance to reconsider policies across various sectors, from trade to immigration, that had been largely beyond national control during EU membership. He suggested that, despite ongoing challenges, the country is in a better position to influence its future.

However, he expressed dissatisfaction with Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s Windsor Framework, claiming it did not fully restore the benefits of Brexit, which he argued should apply to all aspects of British governance. Frost also defended populist politics, stating that it accurately reflects the views of the electorate and is an important aspect of the UK’s rejuvenated democracy.

The debate was sparked by Green Party’s Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, who had strongly criticised the government, drawing comparisons with the rise of the Nazi Party in the 1930s. Lord Frost disagreed with her assessment, defending the current state of UK democracy and stressing that the country had regained control over its decisions.

Lord Frost’s remarks highlight his belief in Brexit’s positive impact on the democratic process, positioning it as a necessary step for restoring sovereignty and political engagement.

Report Suggests Lack of Transparency Led to Inefficient Decision-Making

A new report from the Institute for Government (IfG) has accused the UK Treasury of undermining effective government decision-making during the Covid-19 pandemic due to its secrecy and reluctance to share analysis across Whitehall departments. While the Treasury’s economic support measures were largely deemed successful, its limited transparency in sharing vital research created significant challenges, according to the findings.

The report, titled The Treasury during Covid: What Lessons Can Be Learned from the Pandemic?, draws on over 50 interviews with government officials and experts. It reveals that the Treasury’s unwillingness to collaborate and share evidence with other departments contributed to what the IfG described as a “tug of war” between the Treasury and health policy-makers. This lack of coordination was particularly evident in the autumn of 2020 when critical decisions about managing the pandemic were being made.

A key example cited was the Eat Out to Help Out scheme, which was criticised for its “optimism bias” and its disconnect from the warnings of scientific advisers about the risks of a second Covid wave. The IfG also noted that the Treasury’s decision-making was influenced by a focus on economic recovery rather than balancing health and economic impacts.

The report highlights the late formation of a Cabinet Office team in 2020, which was tasked with facilitating the sharing of analysis and evidence across departments. This change, the IfG says, significantly improved decision-making as ministers were finally able to access a more comprehensive, unified evidence base.

To address these shortcomings, the IfG recommends that the government appoint a senior external economist to serve as the Treasury’s chief scientific adviser, and also calls for a more open and collaborative approach across all government departments. It suggests strengthening the Cabinet Office to break down silos between departments.

The Treasury responded by defending its actions during the pandemic, stating that it moved quickly to prevent unemployment from soaring and protect the economy during an unprecedented crisis.

This critique sheds light on the challenges faced by the UK government during the pandemic, particularly around the sharing of technical analysis, which the report argues hindered the effectiveness of the government’s overall response.