🚨The new lockdown regulations are here: coming into force on Thursday

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (No. 4) Regulations 2020

Analysis below as I read them (thread)

https://t.co/adPk9PsE0j

32 pages, 13,891 words...

A short personal reflection on what happened yesterday.

I wanted to wait a bit before saying this as I think yesterday was for those who experienced the sharpest end of the disastrous breakdown between the Labour Party and Jewish people during the past 5 years.

I started talking about Labour antisemitism here in 2017 I think. My key aim was to try and act as a bridge between the left of the Jewish community and the left of the Labour Party. I used my platform on social media to do it and quite quickly I developed some back channels...

... to who I thought were sensible people in Jeremy Corbyn's office and Momentum. I kept those channels going for quite a long time. I found this paragraph from emails I exchanged in Spring 2018 with Laura Murray in Corbyn's office. It now seems quite prescient.

As I delved more into the issues and heard, privately, what was going on in the movement itself, I slowly and regrettably came to the conclusion that the issue was so serious it needed an "independent body" to come in. It was in Autumn 2018 that @antisemitism approached me...

... to assist in making a submission to the @EHRC to try and persuade them to enter the fray. I was skeptical, given the the UK's human rights organisations had stayed almost entirely silent (to this day, to their shame) on the issue, though I knew it was utterly necessary...

Here is the terms of reference and panel for the "Independent Review of the Human Rights Act"

Some initial thoughts

Terms of reference:

- Entirely expected that the "take into account" duty, which has been interpreted by the UK courts as a duty to follow the European Court of Human Rights where it has clearly and constantly taken a particular line, is under review...

"The impact of the HRA on the relationship between the judiciary, executive and Parliament, and whether domestic courts are being unduly drawn into areas of policy"

This is such a diffuse and difficult question to answer and ultimately depends on your definition of "policy"...

The framing of the question gives lie to this being a neutral 20-year "review". It's not, because the government plainly wants the outcome to be a finding that the HRA has led to courts "unduly" being drawn into areas of "policy"

There will be certain members of the panel, e.g. Sir Stephen Laws of the Judicial Power Project, who will argue strongly that the HRA has led to courts being "unduly" drawn into areas of policy.

A short personal reflection on what happened yesterday.

I wanted to wait a bit before saying this as I think yesterday was for those who experienced the sharpest end of the disastrous breakdown between the Labour Party and Jewish people during the past 5 years.

I started talking about Labour antisemitism here in 2017 I think. My key aim was to try and act as a bridge between the left of the Jewish community and the left of the Labour Party. I used my platform on social media to do it and quite quickly I developed some back channels...

... to who I thought were sensible people in Jeremy Corbyn's office and Momentum. I kept those channels going for quite a long time. I found this paragraph from emails I exchanged in Spring 2018 with Laura Murray in Corbyn's office. It now seems quite prescient.

As I delved more into the issues and heard, privately, what was going on in the movement itself, I slowly and regrettably came to the conclusion that the issue was so serious it needed an "independent body" to come in. It was in Autumn 2018 that @antisemitism approached me...

... to assist in making a submission to the @EHRC to try and persuade them to enter the fray. I was skeptical, given the the UK's human rights organisations had stayed almost entirely silent (to this day, to their shame) on the issue, though I knew it was utterly necessary...

An assessment of Johnson's press conference
Pros:
1. He has finally acted (better late than never)
2. He has extended the furlough scheme
3. He recognises test and trace needs to improve

Cons:
1. Even though coming 6 weeks after the SAGE call, with cases, hospitalisations and dealths now some 10 times as high, the measures are STILL weaker than proposed (e.g. no move to online teaching in universities)

2. No acknowledgement of the failures of the testing system, beyond numbers of tests (e.g. the falling proporttion of contacts being traced) and the need to root it in local public health structures.

3. A call for people to self-isolate, but no mention of the support needed to help people to do what is necessary: empty exhortations in the place of practical help.

4. No reversal of the laissez faire approach which simply hands over responsibility to others - employers, owners, head-teachers etc. - to create COVID safe facilities. No help to make this happen, no inspection to ensure it happens.

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”

All a bit late and cobbled too.

Cabinet ministers didn’t know that furlough was being extended or that “Stay At Home” was back until they saw it on the TV.

💥 Conservative minister: “The incompetence is another level. Is this a deliberate destruction of the Tory Party? People only vote for us because they think we don’t care, but are competent. Lose the competence and we’re fucked. We’ve lost the competence. And we are fucked.”

Another minister says: “The science seems sound. The comms in the lead up to this was shocking. What’s the point in having a tight, intimate decision making group when it leaks like a sieve?”

There is also scepticism among Tory MPs about the scary charts from Whitty and Vallance. Is the data driving the decisions or are the charts being rustled up to justify decisions?