2020: Matt Hancock, "Right from the start we've tried to throw a protective ring around our care homes" 2026: Baroness Hallett, "The claim that a so called protective ring has be thrown around care homes right from the start was unfounded. Quite the opposite is true. The adult social care sector as a whole, appeared to be something of an after thought" My view: Matt Hancock said the government had tried to throw a “protective ring” around care homes. He repeated the claim in Parliament. Nadhim Zahawi later publicly backed it, while Boris Johnson defended the government’s handling when challenged. Now Baroness Hallett’s inquiry has rejected the claim as unfounded: care homes were not protected from the start; adult social care was treated as an afterthought. This was more than a failure of words. Patients were discharged from hospitals into care homes without routine testing, and care homes were not advised to isolate those arrivals. Staff faced shortages of PPE and testing, while residents and families bore the consequences. The inquiry describes a system that failed to plan for the risks and failed to put care homes at the centre of its response. What we saw was a collective failure—a collaboration of incompetence at the expense of life. The phrase “protective ring” offered reassurance while the protections people needed were missing. Thousands of families were left grieving, and care workers were left trying to cope with the consequences. Those responsible should face the findings honestly, explain how this happened and make sure the lessons lead to change. But the question remains, why is there almost no accountability for the actions government ministers took during covid?

George Monbiot explains why the UK should rejoin the EU, "There's a reason why Russia tried to intervene in the Brexit vote, they knew that it would harm the UK and the EU if we left" "They were very clear about that and boy have they been proved right" "It has damaged our economic life, our social and cultural life" "Wales alone has lost £1 billion net in regional and social funding which it would have received from the EU" "And it has greatly weakened the opportunities particularly for young people, to work abroad, live abroad, to have the freedoms we had before" "We could rejoin the Customs Union, or the Single Market, but if we did that alone we would be rule takers, we have to accept whatever the EU handed down because we would not be at the table negotiating and making decisions alongside other nations" "As an audience member pointed out, yes the EU is changing. But that's not a reason not to rejoin, but that's a reason to be there in case it changes into a direction we don't like. We can help it be the kind of EU that we want it to be" "I don't think there's any option but to rejoin fully" My view: Brexit was sold as a way to take back control. In practice, it has often meant giving up influence over decisions that still affect us. Our businesses have to navigate rules shaped in Brussels, but Britain has no vote in setting them. That is not meaningful sovereignty; it is distance from the table. Rejoining would give the UK a voice in the institutions where shared rules are debated and agreed. It would also restore a closer, more predictable relationship with our largest nearby market, making it easier for businesses to trade, invest and plan. Those gains would not erase every problem facing the country, but they would remove barriers we chose to put in our own way. The case is about more than trade. It is about making it easier for people to study, work and build lives across Europe; cooperating on research, energy, climate and security; and giving communities and regions access to shared opportunities. These are practical freedoms and partnerships that matter in people’s everyday lives. A halfway arrangement could reduce some friction, but it would leave Britain following many common rules without full representation in shaping them. If the UK wants influence over the direction of European cooperation, membership is the route that provides it. Rejoining would not mean surrendering every national choice; it would mean choosing to make some decisions together, with a seat, a vote and the ability to argue for the outcome we want. The question is not whether the EU is perfect. It is whether Britain is better placed to shape its future from within, alongside its neighbours, or to stand outside while decisions with consequences for us are made without us. After the experience of Brexit, there is a strong case for choosing influence, cooperation and closer ties again. And since Britain left, no other EU member state has followed it out. Instead, the Union has grown to 27 members, while 10 aspiring members are currently in the accession process. That does not prove the EU is perfect or that membership suits every country. But it does show that countries see real value in joining: access to a huge shared market, stronger economic links and greater stability. European Commission They are not signing up because the EU has no problems; they are choosing to take part in a shared project that can bring investment, opportunity and a stronger voice in decisions affecting their future. If countries across Europe are working to join, Britain should ask why it chose to walk away, and whether standing outside has made us better placed to shape what comes next.