Wednesday 15th November 2017
Posted: Wed 15 Nov, 2017 7:09 am
Morning all.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... uct-claimsScottish Labour interim leader steps aside amid misconduct claims
Party says Alex Rowley has stepped aside from role, which is to due be filled after leadership election on Saturday
Scottish Labour’s interim leader has resigned after his former partner made a series of claims about his behaviour during and after their relationship, the party said.
Alex Rowley stepped down from the role but denied the allegations and insisted he would “take all steps” to clear his name. (Guardian)
A common assumption in the June 23 referendum debate is that after leaving the EU, the UK could “simply” operate as an ordinary WTO member. Eventually that’s true, but getting there would be far from simple. Some experts believe that the adjustments would be little more than technical, and that any negotiations would be straightforward. They could be right. It would depend on whether the WTO’s membership is determined to accommodate the UK’s wishes. But recent experience in the WTO suggests that is unlikely. A closer look at the details suggests some key issues could be politically contentious among the WTO’s members, currently 162 countries. On top of that, recent negotiating experience suggests that willingness to accommodate each other’s interests quickly is a scarce commodity in the WTO and even a final agreement cannot be guaranteed. If that is true, then post-Brexit, the UK can expect a long and rough ride.
Absolute farce, he's stepping down in a few days anyway. And are we not being told what these "allegations" actually are, AGAIN??PorFavor wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... uct-claimsScottish Labour interim leader steps aside amid misconduct claims
Party says Alex Rowley has stepped aside from role, which is to due be filled after leadership election on Saturday
Scottish Labour’s interim leader has resigned after his former partner made a series of claims about his behaviour during and after their relationship, the party said.
Alex Rowley stepped down from the role but denied the allegations and insisted he would “take all steps” to clear his name. (Guardian)
Sky’s Beth Rigby says the amount of time people have to wait before they get their first universal credit payment, which is currently six weeks, is going to be cut, either by one week or two weeks. (Politics Live, Guardian)
Although if it is only one week, it would actually better fit the "principle" as currently peddled by government of one week with no money and then 4 weeks in arrears. The 6 weeks has never actually fitted with any argument and so always appeared arbitrary.AnatolyKasparov wrote:One week - whoopie-do.
Though as so often, once the principle is conceded further movement might become possible.
AnatolyKasparov wrote:Absolute farce, he's stepping down in a few days anyway. And are we not being told what these "allegations" actually are, AGAIN??PorFavor wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... uct-claimsScottish Labour interim leader steps aside amid misconduct claims
Party says Alex Rowley has stepped aside from role, which is to due be filled after leadership election on Saturday
Scottish Labour’s interim leader has resigned after his former partner made a series of claims about his behaviour during and after their relationship, the party said.
Alex Rowley stepped down from the role but denied the allegations and insisted he would “take all steps” to clear his name. (Guardian)
http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-l ... -1-4613684" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;The move comes after claims by his former partner that Mr Rowley sent abusive text messages.
Possibly a classic own-goalAnatolyKasparov wrote:This morning's Barclaygraph front page was a classic, eh?
As the furore grew, even Brexit-backing ministers began to condemn the front page as an attempt to “divide the party”.
OK, seems fairly small beer all told.Eric_WLothian wrote:http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-l ... -1-4613684" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;The move comes after claims by his former partner that Mr Rowley sent abusive text messages.
He'd covered police, fire safety, UC, education, but there was a point, the Paradise Papers.today it felt as if Corbyn was determined to run through every topic on his list from 9am this morning. Sometimes his scattergun approach can work, but today it felt rambling and unfocused, and he never really got past May’s preliminary defences.
Possibly it would have worked better if he'd prefaced each question with a reference to the Papers.He says public services are in crisis. But a super-rich few dodge their taxes. The Tories cut taxes for the few, and services for the many. Isn’t the truth that this a government that protects the super-rich, while the rest of us pick up the bill for poverty and the slashing of services.
There's a more dramatic version in the Herald:AnatolyKasparov wrote:OK, seems fairly small beer all told.Eric_WLothian wrote:http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-l ... -1-4613684" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;The move comes after claims by his former partner that Mr Rowley sent abusive text messages.
(The 'paper' mentioned in the article is, of course, the Sun).The unnamed woman, told the paper "He's destroyed my life. I'm a shadow of a woman I once was.
She reportedly told how she first met the Mid Scotland and Fife MSP when he was a councillor and she was a journalist in 1997, a year before he became General Secretary of Scottish Labour.
She said: "I had been single for a long time and enjoyed the companionship. We had a lot in common and I honestly wish I'd never let him into my life."
...The woman who made the allegations claimed he made her life "hell with his behaviour" and said she had been inspired to speak out after a number of other women made complaints about misconduct by politicians at Westminster and Holyrood.
Perhaps swinging against her again now!“Tensions are rising in Zimbabwe amid a deteriorating economy and a vicious struggle to succeed Mugabe, who is 93 and visibly ailing after 37 years in power. The sacking of Mnangagwa appears to settle that contest in favour of Mugabe’s wife, who is 52”.
Yes it doesn't sound like he really got anywhere. But funny how close Sparrow's take is to this disgraceful "joke" from BBC Laura K.gilsey wrote:I watched part of PMQs just now, AS says this.He'd covered police, fire safety, UC, education, but there was a point, the Paradise Papers.today it felt as if Corbyn was determined to run through every topic on his list from 9am this morning. Sometimes his scattergun approach can work, but today it felt rambling and unfocused, and he never really got past May’s preliminary defences.Possibly it would have worked better if he'd prefaced each question with a reference to the Papers.He says public services are in crisis. But a super-rich few dodge their taxes. The Tories cut taxes for the few, and services for the many. Isn’t the truth that this a government that protects the super-rich, while the rest of us pick up the bill for poverty and the slashing of services.
edit - I missed out the NHS but he didn't.
There's got to be a fairly substantial financial advantage for the government in having/not borrowing the money for a couple of weeks longer. They love pulling stunts ("savings") like that, less so conceding them. I think the OBR flag stuff like this up nowadays, which is good for transparency but might not be helpful in getting the Treasury to back down.AnatolyKasparov wrote:One week - whoopie-do.
Though as so often, once the principle is conceded further movement might become possible.
It should have been worded differently if that was what she wanted to get across. A jokey reference to food banks was always going to go down badly with many.Tubby Isaacs wrote:The Guardian say that he was raising too many different subjects in his questions, albeit ones that are important where he has done well in the past. Isn't that what she's getting at there?
Yes it's the juxtaposition of the "greatest hits" joke (which btw isn't terribly funny IMHO) with "food banks" that grates. Gives the impression she doesn't realise that Corbyn is asking this because he actually cares that people have to visit food banks.AnatolyKasparov wrote:It should have been worded differently if that was what she wanted to get across. A jokey reference to food banks was always going to go down badly with many.Tubby Isaacs wrote:The Guardian say that he was raising too many different subjects in his questions, albeit ones that are important where he has done well in the past. Isn't that what she's getting at there?
I think that JC was trying a slightly different approach (and he always get criticised for "ignoring X" when he majors on one topic) It didn't work brilliantly, no harm done really.
He's been quite good recently at asking topical questions, which though they may not seem effective at the time, allow him to refer back to them later with "...and I asked the pm about this the other day ..", so a range of subjects increases the likelihood of this.AnatolyKasparov wrote:It should have been worded differently if that was what she wanted to get across. A jokey reference to food banks was always going to go down badly with many.Tubby Isaacs wrote:The Guardian say that he was raising too many different subjects in his questions, albeit ones that are important where he has done well in the past. Isn't that what she's getting at there?
I think that JC was trying a slightly different approach (and he always get criticised for "ignoring X" when he majors on one topic) It didn't work brilliantly, no harm done really.
Yes, but at the end it was obvious to me that it was intended to be one question, about protecting the rich at the expense of the poor and public services.Tubby Isaacs wrote:The Guardian say that he was raising too many different subjects in his questions, albeit ones that are important where he has done well in the past. Isn't that what she's getting at there?
LK hadn't waited to the end to pass comment.a government that protects the super-rich, while the rest of us pick up the bill for poverty and the slashing of services
They're cutting it by 1- or 2-weeks (i.e they'll still have to wait 4-5 weeks for their money). The tweet could have been worded better.Willow904 wrote:Although if it is only one week, it would actually better fit the "principle" as currently peddled by government of one week with no money and then 4 weeks in arrears. The 6 weeks has never actually fitted with any argument and so always appeared arbitrary.AnatolyKasparov wrote:One week - whoopie-do.
Though as so often, once the principle is conceded further movement might become possible.
What I really want to see is a complete rejection and withdrawal while the old benefit systems are still in operation because once the old frameworks have gone we'll be pretty much stuck with forever tweaking a turd. As such I'd like to see more focus on the state of the IT, as this was supposed to be a key part of UC and where genuine savings were supposed to come from (rather than from benefit cuts, which could have simply been applied to the old system if desired).