Cabinet ministers didn’t know that furlough was being extended or that “Stay At Home” was back until they saw it on the TV.
Mood among Tory MPs is seriously bad. Even those who think this is the right thing to do now are dismayed that it’s come to this.
“Shambolic. Rudderless ramblings. constituents getting in touch furious or in tears.”
“Grim grim grim”
“I think it could be his Suez”
Cabinet ministers didn’t know that furlough was being extended or that “Stay At Home” was back until they saw it on the TV.
He’s now presiding over something much worse
At what point do Whitty and Vallance walk? They were clearly unhappy with Tier 3, which was only unveiled 19 days ago.
At what point does the PM accept he is f***ed politically, ignores the polls & backbench grumbling, and focuses solely on saving the country?
True or not, shows trust is broken down locally as well as nationally
May 17: “Near normality” by end of July
July 17: “Significant normality” by Christmas
Sep 9: “back to normal by Christmas”
Oct 23: “some aspects of our lives... back to normal" by Christmas
TONIGHT: very different and better by spring
I hope if you’re reading this your next month isn’t too grim. And you have friends, family and income to get through it.
Anyway thanks for reading. Join me on @TimesRadio on Monday from 10am
More from Uk
Better late than never. Here we go. What does this deal mean for borders, border formalities, customs & trade facilitation?
Long one. TL:DR very little at the moment but has potential
/1
Borders
When compared to no deal the deal changes very little in terms of border procedures. All formalities and checks will still be required.
Reminder - we're not starting from 0 here – both our container ports and our ro-ro ports are already congested
/2
On top of that, all the issues related to border readiness: lack of capacity and space, IT systems not ready, shortages of customs agents, treader readiness – have not been solved.
The deal doesn’t help with that.
/3
Here is where we are:
☑️The UK will phase-in border formalities over 6 months (customs and SPS)
☑️The EU will introduce full formalities in 3 days (customs + SPS)
☑️Irish Sea border also fully operational in 3 days with some short-term SPS easements
/4
Pre-notifications (safety & security declarations) not initially required on the UK side, needed for imports into the EU.
So what's in the deal?
/5
Long one. TL:DR very little at the moment but has potential
/1
Lots of stuff on technical barriers and customs cooperation. See @AnnaJerzewska for more on the latter. pic.twitter.com/3sC5xHD3Z8
— Steve Peers (@StevePeers) December 26, 2020
Borders
When compared to no deal the deal changes very little in terms of border procedures. All formalities and checks will still be required.
Reminder - we're not starting from 0 here – both our container ports and our ro-ro ports are already congested
/2
On top of that, all the issues related to border readiness: lack of capacity and space, IT systems not ready, shortages of customs agents, treader readiness – have not been solved.
The deal doesn’t help with that.
/3
Here is where we are:
☑️The UK will phase-in border formalities over 6 months (customs and SPS)
☑️The EU will introduce full formalities in 3 days (customs + SPS)
☑️Irish Sea border also fully operational in 3 days with some short-term SPS easements
/4
Pre-notifications (safety & security declarations) not initially required on the UK side, needed for imports into the EU.
So what's in the deal?
/5
A short thread on why I am dubious that the government can lawfully impose charges on travellers entering the UK for quarantine and testing (proposed at £1,750 and £210)
1/
The UK has signed up to the International Health Regulations (IHA) 2005. These therefore create binding international legal obligations on the UK.
The IHA explicitly prevent charging for travellers' quarantine or medical examinations.
https://t.co/n4oWE8x5Vg /2
International law is not actionable in a UK court unless it has been implemented in law.
But it can be used as an aide to interpretation where a statute isn't clear as to what powers it grants.
See e.g. Lord Bingham in A v SSHD https://t.co/RXmib1qGYD
/3
The Quarantine regulations will, I assume, be made under section 45B of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984
https://t.co/54L4lHGMEr
/4
That gives pretty broad powers but I can't see any power to charge for quarantine. Perhaps it will be inferred from somewhere else in Part 2A?
But...
1/
The UK has signed up to the International Health Regulations (IHA) 2005. These therefore create binding international legal obligations on the UK.
The IHA explicitly prevent charging for travellers' quarantine or medical examinations.
https://t.co/n4oWE8x5Vg /2
International law is not actionable in a UK court unless it has been implemented in law.
But it can be used as an aide to interpretation where a statute isn't clear as to what powers it grants.
See e.g. Lord Bingham in A v SSHD https://t.co/RXmib1qGYD
/3
The Quarantine regulations will, I assume, be made under section 45B of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984
https://t.co/54L4lHGMEr
/4
That gives pretty broad powers but I can't see any power to charge for quarantine. Perhaps it will be inferred from somewhere else in Part 2A?
But...
Yesterday, of course, Jeremy Corbyn launched his Peace and Justice Project, to much excitement on here. Laudable goals too:
Take on Murdoch ✅
Green New Deal ✅
Support for food banks ✅
Speed up vaccine delivery in developing countries ✅
That's all excellent.
I'm not sure if anyone can argue with those four aims: they're irrefutable and all massively important. You bet I'd like to see Labour doing likewise; you bet I'm frustrated that it's so quiet on all of it.
HOWEVER...
Contained within the announcement was exactly the same selective blindness which makes the entire thing all too easy to shoot down - and again, means Corbyn is pretty unlikely to persuade anyone who's not already persuaded.
The sort of blindness which makes me tear my hair out.
Peace and Justice - sounds great, doesn't it? So why did the Peace and Justice project proudly announce the support of a corrupt criminal not remotely interested in either of those
Rafael Correa, former President of Ecuador. Let's run through his record, starting with the positives.
Slashed poverty from 36.7% to 22.5% ✅
Reduced inequality from 0.55 to 0.47 on the Gini index ✅
So far, so good. Except, um...
Take on Murdoch ✅
Green New Deal ✅
Support for food banks ✅
Speed up vaccine delivery in developing countries ✅
That's all excellent.
I'm not sure if anyone can argue with those four aims: they're irrefutable and all massively important. You bet I'd like to see Labour doing likewise; you bet I'm frustrated that it's so quiet on all of it.
HOWEVER...
Contained within the announcement was exactly the same selective blindness which makes the entire thing all too easy to shoot down - and again, means Corbyn is pretty unlikely to persuade anyone who's not already persuaded.
The sort of blindness which makes me tear my hair out.
Peace and Justice - sounds great, doesn't it? So why did the Peace and Justice project proudly announce the support of a corrupt criminal not remotely interested in either of those
We\u2019re delighted to have the backing of Rafael Correa, who cut poverty and inequality by record levels as president of Ecuador.
— Peace and Justice Project (@corbyn_project) January 8, 2021
There is no limit to what we can achieve when we bring people together to take on injustice.
Join us https://t.co/w6QOdSqkeC pic.twitter.com/aT8atxSYvy
Rafael Correa, former President of Ecuador. Let's run through his record, starting with the positives.
Slashed poverty from 36.7% to 22.5% ✅
Reduced inequality from 0.55 to 0.47 on the Gini index ✅
So far, so good. Except, um...
You May Also Like
1/OK, data mystery time.
This New York Times feature shows China with a Gini Index of less than 30, which would make it more equal than Canada, France, or the Netherlands. https://t.co/g3Sv6DZTDE
That's weird. Income inequality in China is legendary.
Let's check this number.
2/The New York Times cites the World Bank's recent report, "Fair Progress? Economic Mobility across Generations Around the World".
The report is available here:
3/The World Bank report has a graph in which it appears to show the same value for China's Gini - under 0.3.
The graph cites the World Development Indicators as its source for the income inequality data.
4/The World Development Indicators are available at the World Bank's website.
Here's the Gini index: https://t.co/MvylQzpX6A
It looks as if the latest estimate for China's Gini is 42.2.
That estimate is from 2012.
5/A Gini of 42.2 would put China in the same neighborhood as the U.S., whose Gini was estimated at 41 in 2013.
I can't find the <30 number anywhere. The only other estimate in the tables for China is from 2008, when it was estimated at 42.8.
This New York Times feature shows China with a Gini Index of less than 30, which would make it more equal than Canada, France, or the Netherlands. https://t.co/g3Sv6DZTDE
That's weird. Income inequality in China is legendary.
Let's check this number.
2/The New York Times cites the World Bank's recent report, "Fair Progress? Economic Mobility across Generations Around the World".
The report is available here:
3/The World Bank report has a graph in which it appears to show the same value for China's Gini - under 0.3.
The graph cites the World Development Indicators as its source for the income inequality data.
4/The World Development Indicators are available at the World Bank's website.
Here's the Gini index: https://t.co/MvylQzpX6A
It looks as if the latest estimate for China's Gini is 42.2.
That estimate is from 2012.
5/A Gini of 42.2 would put China in the same neighborhood as the U.S., whose Gini was estimated at 41 in 2013.
I can't find the <30 number anywhere. The only other estimate in the tables for China is from 2008, when it was estimated at 42.8.
