Boris Johnson has been pushed into promising a full public inquiry into the Government’s handling of Covid and says that one will begin before the end of this parliamentary session. MailOnline has the story.
The Prime Minister firmed up his commitment to an early probe into the crisis as he was grilled by MPs about the Queen’s Speech plans.
Up to now, Mr Johnson has seemed unwilling to give a timetable, pointing out that ministers and officials are focused on the response to the disease.
But Sir Keir Starmer and other opposition parties have insisted that an inquiry should start immediately to learn lessons.
In the Commons, Liberal Democrat Leader Sir Ed Davey urged Mr Johnson to set up an inquiry “on behalf of bereaved families across the country”.
Mr Johnson replied: “I can certainly say that we will do that within this session.” …
“I have made that clear before… I do believe it’s essential we have a full, proper public inquiry into the Covid pandemic.”
Although there is no fixed length for a parliamentary session, they typically run for around a year…
A full public inquiry would be likely to take many years to complete.
To date, most of the calls for an inquiry made by those in the media and political classes have focussed on the idea that the Government was too slow to introduce the first lockdown. Whether or not the inquiry will look at the impact of lockdowns on Covid mortality, other diseases, mental health, education and the economy – as Recovery suggests – has yet to be seen. I won’t be holding my breath.
The MailOnline report is worth reading in full.
Stop Press: The Prime Minister has announced that an independent public inquiry into the Government’s handling of Covid will begin in the spring of next year.
Stop Press 2: Julia Hartley-Brewer has stressed that “the key issue in the public inquiry… must not be whether Boris Johnson locked down too late in spring 2020 but whether he should have locked down *at all*”.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Interesting revelations here, and it becomes apparent why Starmer isn’t interested in Elon Musk investing in the UK. Musk has declared, ”This is war” over on X;
”The British are coming, to meddle in our elections!
In an explosive leak with ramifications for the upcoming U.S. presidential election, internal documents from the Center for Countering Digital Hate—whose founder is British political operative Morgan McSweeney, now advising the Kamala Harris campaign—show the group plans in writing to “kill Musk’s Twitter” while strengthening ties with the Biden/Harris administration and Democrats like Senator Amy Klobuchar, who has introduced multiple bills to regulate online “misinformation.”
The documents obtained by The DisInformation Chronicle and Racket show CCDH’s hyperfocus on Musk — “Kill Musk’s Twitter” is the first item in the template of its monthly agenda notes dating back to the early months of this year.
The Center for Countering Digital Hate is the anti-disinformation activist ally of Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s Labour Party, and a messaging vehicle for Labour’s neoliberal think tank, Labour Together. Both the CCDH and Labour Together were founded by Morgan McSweeney, a Svengali credited with piloting Starmer’s rise to Downing Street, much as Karl Rove is credited with guiding George W. Bush to the White House.
The CCDH documents carry particular importance because McSweeney’s Labour Together political operatives have been teaching election strategy to Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, leading Politico to call Labour and the Democrats “sister parties.”
McSweeney is an ascendant figure, having just been promoted to Starmer’s Chief of Staff in something of a palace coup after the abrupt resignation of longtime Labour fixture Sue Gray. McSweeney is lionized, not just for a Carville-style rightward tilt within the party, but for mastery of fundraising and dark money, having reportedly pulled a host of new wealthy donors to Labour in the last two years.
After 25 years of the “special relationship” being essentially “one-way traffic,” with Washington politicos advising the Brits, the Democrats “now believe they actually have something to learn from Labour,” as Politico explained. Democrats will supposedly learn from Labour’s tactical brilliance. For example, Starmer countered former Conservative PM Rishi Sunak’s accusations of being soft on immigration by promising to “smash the criminal boat gangs” bringing migrants across the English channel.
The new British government also believes that a Harris defeat would leave Starmer “alone” as the “keeper of the center-Left flame” and in “worrying isolation” as “the Grand Atlantic Alliance’s last hope.”
https://disinformationchronicle.substack.com/p/election-exclusive-british-advisors
And to further cement the story here is Reclaim the Net on the same subterfuge. Morgan McSweeney certainly thinks he’s fighting with the big boys. And Kneel wants to be very careful, the American Deep State won’t think twice about having him Magafulied if he phooks up.
British politicians interfering in American elections. What would the courts think…oh well skip that.
Naughty, naughty Kneel.
https://reclaimthenet.org/the-british-operatives-determined-to-kill-elon-musks-free-speech-platform-x
https://www.globalresearch.ca/global-tyranny-un-summit-future/5870659
And here is why the Democrats don’t care.
At the recent Summit of the Future 193 nations signed up to committing us to their vision of dystopia…
“Lost in the hoopla of the coming US presidential election and the pandemonium of current global affairs was an unheralded summit last month that could cause more upheaval on the planet than anything our self-described world leaders have thrown at the populace yet.
On September 22, representatives of 193 sovereign nation-states gathered at the United Nations headquarters in New York City to adopt a Pact for the Future.
The document, which includes a Global Digital Compact and a Declaration on Future Generations, promises to “open the door to new opportunities and untapped possibilities,” according to UN Secretary-General António Guterres.
The landmark agreement, which Guterres called a “step-change towards more effective, inclusive, networked multilateralism,” contains 56 “actions” that countries pledged to achieve.
The net effect of the Pact for the Future and its two so-called annexes is intended to radically accelerate the push toward completion of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and its Agenda 2030.
Marketed as a blueprint to “lay the foundations for a sustainable, just, and peaceful global order—for all peoples and nations” (and who could possibly object to such a heavenly vision?)—this latest flurry of UN paperwork may have set new records in linguistic maneuvers and platitudes per page.”
.
Sounds like 193 countries have signed up for immiseration. The big difference between the signatories is, unlike Kneeler, the majority will just ignore it if it’s not in their self-interest.
“the majority will just ignore it”
Exactly.
Whoa, you two!
Brilliant piece and Brilliant comments..but I’m left behind here!
Bit thick, but, explain for the many watches and future members of the sceptic, in laymens term?
One for all and all for one!
Thanks Dinger.
https://disinformationchronicle.substack.com/p/election-exclusive-british-advisors
Kneel thinks he’s big enough to help Kamala Harris win the US election. He’s flexing his muscles. Of course he could also get badly burnt.
Hat tip Guido.
McSweeney & his cohorts set up a US office to export their methodology with aim of shutting down independent media & in particular X.
They got funding from Hollywood bigwigs & others. Teamed up with the Democrats & set about targeting X, Matt Taibi & others.
The methodology basically targets advertisers, persuade advertisers not to place adverts by claiming that X, or whoever, are spreading misinformation.
Wouldn’t you love to be in the room when Starmer goes to visit Trump & in walks Elon? Priceless.
Starmer, McSweenet et al are more dangerous than we gave them credit for.
Exactly.
First Amendment … no longer fit for purpose.
That depends on your purpose, doesn’t it? It was fine until they altered the purpose.