Markus Andrews

Imposing some of the most severe restrictions on British life in recent history and instructing the public to “stay at home” exactly a year ago, Boris Johnson said coronavirus was the “biggest threat this country has faced for decades”. Rather than turning the tide on the coronavirus within 12 weeks – as Johnson infamously suggested in the early days of March 2020 – the public are enduring a third national lockdown, with many simple freedoms, such as visiting a family member or enjoying a drink with friends, still restricted. Hope is indeed on the horizon with the vaccination effort, but many people across the country will mark today by reflecting on the past year and remembering the 126,127 people who have died during the crisis.Inside the bubbleInside Politics newsletterThe latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekdayInside Politics newsletterThe latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekdayPolitical commentator Andrew Grice on what to look out for today: More

Voters in Scotland do not want an independence referendum in the next two years, a poll has suggested as the Scottish government published a draft bill laying out the terms of a possible future ballot.Nearly half (49 per cent) of voters think “coronavirus should be completely eliminated in Scotland” before a referendum is held while just 35 per cent support a vote in the next two years, according to a poll conducted by Hanbury Strategy for think tank Onward.Support for independence fell by 6 points to 50 per cent during the week Nicola Sturgeon gave evidence to the Scottish parliament on the Alex Salmond affair according to the pollThe poll tracked how support for independence has been volatile in recent weeks. Between the end of February and the first weekend in March, support fell by 12 per cent, going from 56 per cent in favour and 44 per cent against to an even split.Support for independence still remains around 15 per cent higher than before the 2014 referendum, standing at a total of 50 per cent. A Yes vote retains a 30+ point lead among 18-45 year olds, a 16 point lead among the working class and net support in five of Scotland’s eight regions.Read more:The Scottish government on Monday published the draft Referendum Bill, which seeks to hold a vote in the first half of the next parliamentary term if the SNP are reelected, a move opposed by the UK government.Inside Politics newsletterThe latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekdayInside Politics newsletterThe latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekdayIf the SNP won a majority and the UK government refused a referendum, 35 per cent of voters said they would be more likely to vote for independence.Though near the same proportion (33 per cent) said they would be less likely to vote Yes if the Scottish government were to hold a referendum without Westminster’s approval.Many voters said the focus on constitutional questions was distracting from the other priorities of the country. Three-fifths (61 per cent) agreed that politicians had been distracted from issues of health, education and the police in recent years due to constitutional matters.The poll did however find that voters though most issues would be better handled if Scotland were independent.The only issues on which Scottish voters thought they would suffer by leaving the UK were foreign affairs and defence, reform of the UK constitution and sourcing vaccine supplies. More

Care home workers will be required by law to have a coronavirus vaccination under plans reportedly approved by Boris Johnson.The prime minister and health secretary Matt Hancock have agreed to put forward legislation in order to protect vulnerable residents, according to a government paper leaked to the Daily Telegraph.However it is not clear from the document, submitted to the “Covid O” subcommittee of Cabinet, whether staff would lose their jobs if they refuse or whether exemptions will apply.The controversial move is being examined as part of a review of so-called ‘Covid status certificates”, which Boris Johnson had originally rejected as “discriminatory”.Mr Hancock said last month that some home owners were pressing the government to act because of the low uptake of vaccines among staff.Read more:He added that “whether you go the step further and say you can’t work in those settings without being vaccinated – that is an important question.”Inside Politics newsletterThe latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekdayInside Politics newsletterThe latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekdayThe Telegraph reported that the Cabinet paper discusses both primary and secondary legislation is discussed but has not gone as far as drafting full legal wording.One line is said to read: “The prime minister and the secretary of state have discussed on several occasions the progress that is being made to vaccinate social care workers against Covid-19 and have agreed, in order to reach a position of much greater safety for care recipients, to put in place legislation to require vaccinations among the workforce.”A government spokesman said that “no final decisions have been made”, adding: “The review into Covid status certification is considering a range of issues.”If approved, it would be the first law requiring vaccination since the 19th Century, when the government enforced compulsory smallpox vaccination for newborn babies.David Shepherd, an expert in employment vaccination policies, told the Telegraph that all law requiring compulsory vaccination was phased out by 1948.Additional reporting by Press Association More

The verdict of the independent inquiry into Nicola Sturgeon’s behaviour during the Salmond affair could not be clearer: “I am of the opinion that the first minister did not breach the provisions of the ministerial code in respect of any of these matters.” The “verdict”, determined by James Hamilton QC, former attorney general of Ireland, cannot be challenged on the grounds that he is partisan or otherwise unreliable. Unlike the committee of Scottish parliamentarians, with an opposition majority, who narrowly found that Ms Sturgeon had offered “inaccurate” evidence to them, and thus arguably misled the parliament, the Hamilton judgment is unequivocal, and relates precisely to the terms of the ministerial code. This requires ministers never to knowingly mislead MSPs, and plainly Ms Sturgeon did not. It gets better for Ms Sturgeon. Overplaying their hand, the Scottish Conservatives gambled on a more damning report coming out, and had already tabled a vote of no confidence in the first minister. With the SNP and the Greens backing her she will win that vote, cementing her victory and uniting her own party, at least cosmetically. By the end of the day Ms Sturgeon will be able to say that she has been vindicated by an independent inquiry and has the confidence of parliament, which now goes into recess, ready to launch the SNP campaign for the Holyrood elections on 3 May. Ms Sturgeon will be hoping for a fresh overall majority, a personal vote of confidence from the Scottish electorate, plus a mandate to seek a second independence referendum. More

The government has defeated a bid to save householders from bills running into tens of thousands of pounds to get rid of combustible cladding of the kind blamed for the Grenfell Tower tragedy. Despite a rebellion by 29 Tories, ministers comfortably saw off an amendment to the Fire Safety Bill by a margin of 322 votes to 253.But a leader of the rebels, Conservative backbencher Stephen McPartland, insisted the battle against “shameful” arrangments would go on, declaring: “It is not over yet! Government must come forward with compromise for leaseholders.”Housing secretary Robert Jenrick was accused of betraying thousands of leaseholders when he announced that £3.5bn of cash to replace cladding would go only to towers over 18m in height, with those in smaller buildings required to take out loans.Furious leaseholders said they were being asked to stump up tens of thousands to be repaid over many years, potentially knocking large sums off the value of their homes. The amendment passed by the House of Lords earlier this month would instead have seen the state pay the upfront cost of removing the dangerous materials, imposing a levy on cladding producers, contractors and developers to recoup the cost.Read more:Inside Politics newsletterThe latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekdayInside Politics newsletterThe latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekdayThe Bishop of St Albans, who co-sponsored the amendment in the Lords, was joined by the bishops of London and Kensington in voicing “disappointment” at tonight’s result.In a joint statement, the Church of England bishops said: “Leaseholders face crippling bills of astronomical proportions for a problem they had no hand in creating. “It is a source of regret that the government has dismissed proposed solutions to the cladding scandal without bringing forward its own solution to sufficiently deal with this injustice. Without a genuine solution, there is a real risk of bankruptcies, homelessness and possibly worse.“Leaseholders should not pay for problems created by developers and cladding providers, all of whom have profited in the preceding years. “We urge the government to bring forward a fair resolution to protect innocent leaseholders without delay.”Labour deputy leader Angela Rayner said: “The government has once again sold out leaseholders and millions of people trapped in the cladding crisis through no fault of their own.”The UK Cladding Action Group urged leaseholders to express their anger with the government in the upcoming local elections on 6 May.“Disappointed with the vote today? Feel let down, abandoned, hopeless,angry?” said the group. “Please don’t be. This fight is not over! Local elections are around the corner. Don’t mope, vote. Make sure anyone who does not support protecting the victims of this crisis, does not get your vote.”Pleading with MPs to back the amendment, Mr McPartland said: “Leaseholders are screaming for help, they are screaming in pain and what are we doing? Today we are saying to them ‘Thanks for paying the interim costs, once you’ve finished that we’re now going to load you up with remediation costs on top’ – tens of thousands of pounds that people just don’t have the funds for. “We’re nearly four years on from Grenfell and it appears to me that the government has given up on those who should be responsible for paying and just pushing the cost onto leaseholders. It is morally unacceptable.”Fellow-Tory Royston Smith brandished an invoice for more than £78,000 received by a constituent, telling MPs: “Imagine for one moment you’re trapped in a flat you’ve been told is unsafe. Night after night you go to bed with the fear of fire. You can’t sell your flat because it’s worthless. “Everyone knows none of this is your fault and then an envelope drops through your letterbox. When you open it, there is a bill for £78,000 to put defects right that are not of your making.“Bills like this one have already started to arrive and they’re not going to stop.”But housing minister Christopher Pincher said that the proposals could be “self-defeating” by motivating landlords to activate insolvency procedures and walk away from the problem.The bill now returns to the House of Lords.- Tory rebels on the Fire Safety Bill were: David Amess, Caroline Ansell, John Baron, Peter Bone, Peter Bottomley, Christopher Chope, Elliot Colburn, Philip Davies, David Davis, Roger Gale, Chris Green, Damian Green, Stephen Hammond, Philip Hollobone, Tom Hunt, Pauline Latham, Julian Lewis, Jason McCartney, Stephen McPartland, Esther McVey, Anne Marie Morris, Robert Neill, Matthew Offord, Mary Robinson, Andrew Rosindell, Royston Smith, Tom Tugendhat, David Warburton and William Wragg. More

A Tory candidate for Eastbourne Council has come under fire after tweeting “just bomb Bristol” as he lashed out at Sunday night’s protests against the government’s controversial policing bill.Stephen Halbhuber made the comments in response to a video showing a number of people painting graffiti on a building and throwing objects into a crowd watching below.Several Twitter users hit out at Mr Halbhuber’s comments.One said: “Local council candidate calling for people to be bombed? Disgraceful behaviour. You can’t even been [sic] trusted with a Twitter account, let alone a council state. Utterly disgraceful behaviour.”Another said: “As a Conservative candidate, this is a very inappropriate tweet. @pritipatel do you support prospective councillors making these suggestions?”Read more:Inside Politics newsletterThe latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekdayInside Politics newsletterThe latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekdayMs Milling responded to say Mr Halbhuber had been contacted, adding that his comments were “completely unacceptable”.Bristol and South Gloucestershire Conservatives have yet to respond to Mr Halbhuber’s remarks.Mr Halbhuber posted an apology for the comments on Monday evening, saying his comments “fell beneath” expected standards of “propriety and tolerance”.”I want to apologise unreservedly for my comments last night, and for any offence caused,” he tweeted.”Needless to say, it is not something that I believe, or would advocate for. In the cold light of day, I completely regret them.” More

Britain’s long-awaited defence review – described as the most significant since the Cold War – sees a smaller, nimbler military that can tackle modern roles such as protecting undersea cables or combat weaponised satellites in space. Forces will be better equipped, but smaller in number. Much of the existing kit will be replaced by upgraded substitutes, but there is apprehension about delay which often occurs in the procurement process.  The size of the army will be reduced by around 10,000 to 72,500, making it the smallest since 1714 War of Spanish Succession. Seven divisions will be reduced to four. More than 70 Challenger 2 mainline battle tanks will be mothballed. The squadron of 600 Warrior armoured vehicles will be retired while its replacement, Boxer, is still being developed.The number of royal navy frigates and destroyers will be reduced by two to 17 until the end of the decade when it rises to 20, with the eventual aim of reaching 24 by the mid-2030s.Read more:In the RAF, all 14 C-130 Hercules transport aircraft will go by 2023, to be replaced by the A400Ms.  Nine ageing Chinook helicopters and 20 Pumas will go, albeit with upgrades promised. Twenty-four Typhoon aircraft will leave service, with F-35s coming in and a new aircraft being developed in the UK as part of Project Tempest.  But while other conventional weaponry is being cut, the UK will increase its stockpile of nuclear warheads by 40 per cent, reversing the policy of seeking reduction to the nuclear arsenal.Inside Politics newsletterThe latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekdayInside Politics newsletterThe latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekdayThe government says it must reserve the right of nuclear retaliation in response to acts of aggression, including chemical and biological and even cyberattacks.The military’s forward posture will be allied with a doctrine of “Indo-Pacific Tilt”, with a post-Brexit “Global Britain” seeking alliances outside Europe and returning to east of Suez.Later this year, the aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth, accompanied by support ships, will go on its maiden operational voyage in the Indo-Pacific with US F35 warplanes aboard. There will also be focus on counterinsurgency. The army is setting up a special operations brigade for missions abroad, with a Ranger regiment that will engage in combat, as well as carry out training from a string of international bases.  A similar role is also envisaged for the royal marines, changing to Royal Marines Future Commando Force. The Command Paper setting out the changes – Defence in a Competitive Age – states previous reviews have been “overambitious and underfunded, leaving forces that were overstretched and underequipped”.It said the Integrated Review offered a “refreshed strategy and increased funding” that would “turn hollow forces into credible ones, modernising for the threats of the 2020s and beyond”.Defence secretary Ben Wallace described the review as “an honest assessment of what we can do and what we will do”.“We will retire platforms to make way for new systems and approaches, and we will invest in that most precious commodity of all – the people of our armed forces,” he pledged at its launch.However, there will be strong criticism over army cuts. Lord Richard  of Herstmonceux, the former chief of defence staff, warned that modernisation should not take place “at the expense of conventional capabilities”. “You’ve got to have some of the more traditional capability in case mass becomes an asymmetric attraction to one’s potential opponents,” Lord Richards told Times Radio.“I’m thinking Russia and China … they still possess large numbers, and if all we’ve got is high-tech stuff, and they’ve got half a million troops that can come across the border at you, then these high-tech capabilities aren’t going to be much good. “If your opponent senses that they are at a disadvantage, or their own capability is being neutered by one’s own possession of those capabilities, they will look for another way of achieving their goals, and that could suddenly become numbers again, mass. And we certainly won’t have it.”The opposition has also been critical, with shadow defence secretary John Healey saying there was a “gulf between the government’s ambitions and its actions, which is set to grow with this new review”. He added: “Further army cuts could seriously limit our forces’ capacity simultaneously to deploy overseas, support allies and maintain strong national defences and resilience.”  More

The crucial report, by QC James Hamilton, has ruled: “I am of the opinion that the first minister did not breach the provisions of the ministerial code in respect of any of these matters.”Attempting to draw a line, the first minister said: “I welcome the conclusions of James Hamilton’s independent investigation, which are comprehensive, evidence-based and unequivocal.”Inside Politics newsletterThe latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekdayInside Politics newsletterThe latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekdayThe verdict appeared, at a stroke, to remove any threat that Ms Sturgeon would lose a vote of confidence to be held by the Conservatives on Tuesday.The Scottish Green Party announced they would support her, saying: “Mr Hamilton has clearly concluded that the first minister did not breach the ministerial code.” Ms Sturgeon had admitted not giving Holyrood the full picture about when she first heard about the investigation into harassment complaints against her predecessor, in 2017.She later acknowledged an earlier discussion with Mr Salmond’s former chief of staff, but argued that was only in general terms – not a detailed account – and that she had forgotten about it.Crucially, Mr Hamilton backed that account, while saying it was “regrettable” that the meeting on 29 March that year had been omitted from her account.“In my opinion, however, her explanation for why she did not recall this meeting when giving her account to parliament, while inevitably likely to be greeted with suspicion, even scepticism by some, is not impossible,” he wrote.“What tilts the balance towards accepting the first minister’s account for me is that I find it difficult to think of any convincing reason why, if she had in fact recalled the meeting, she would have deliberately concealed it while disclosing all the conversations she had had with Mr Salmond.”It would also have been “naive to think that the meeting would remain secret given the first minister’s poor relationship with Mr Salmond at that point”, the QC added. If Ireland’s former chief prosecutor had ruled against Ms Sturgeon, she would almost certainly have had to quit – just six weeks before crucial Holyrood elections the SNP is expected to win.Such an extraordinary twist would have plunged the campaign for a second Scottish independence referendum into turmoil, after months when the “Yes” campaign has held a poll lead.Ms Sturgeon urged her opponents to throw in the towel, adding: “As I have previously made clear, I did not consider that I had broken the code, but these findings are official, definitive and independent adjudication of that.“Prior to its publication, opposition politicians stressed the importance of respecting and accepting the outcome of Mr Hamilton’s independent inquiry, and I committed wholeheartedly to doing so. Now that he has reported, it is incumbent on them to do likewise.” More