FlyTheNest

The Telegraph
@Telegraph
The front page of tomorrow's Daily Telegraph: 'PM's Plan B: Good Friday deal could be rewritten'

US Rep Brendan Boyle
@RepBrendanBoyle
·
6h
The Good Friday Agreement is an internationally binding treaty signed by the UK and Ireland, and guaranteed by the United States. There is absolutely no ability for any one party to the agreement to unilaterally re-write it.

The DWP is in further disarray over universal credit (UC) following a new high court ruling. It has been forced to admit that its multi-million pound software will be unable to calculate the correct amounts of benefit that claimants covered by the decision are entitled to.

They also refused to accept the DWP’s claim that the court could not find in favour of the claimants because the DWP’s software is not able to make the necessary calculations:

“Mr Brown further relied on the fact that the system of universal credit was intended to be automated. He referred to the evidence in particular of Ms McMahon indicating the importance of automation in the design of the system of universal credit and indicating that it would not be possible to make an automated change to address the issue that has arisen in this case. Ms McMahon indicates that any solution would have to involve a manual calculation of the amount of the award.”

The court pointed out that the DWP already had to make manual calculations in other circumstances, that the issue would involve less than 1% of UC payments and, in any case, the correct application of the law is what matters even if it does inconvenience the DWP.

Willow904 wrote:This is interesting regarding what I was saying the other day about rumours that the DWP had never managed to build a fully working automated UC software application:

https://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/ ... urt-ruling" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The DWP is in further disarray over universal credit (UC) following a new high court ruling. It has been forced to admit that its multi-million pound software will be unable to calculate the correct amounts of benefit that claimants covered by the decision are entitled to.

Their defence for paying people the wrong amount was literally that their computer system doesn't work:

They also refused to accept the DWP’s claim that the court could not find in favour of the claimants because the DWP’s software is not able to make the necessary calculations:

“Mr Brown further relied on the fact that the system of universal credit was intended to be automated. He referred to the evidence in particular of Ms McMahon indicating the importance of automation in the design of the system of universal credit and indicating that it would not be possible to make an automated change to address the issue that has arisen in this case. Ms McMahon indicates that any solution would have to involve a manual calculation of the amount of the award.”

The court pointed out that the DWP already had to make manual calculations in other circumstances, that the issue would involve less than 1% of UC payments and, in any case, the correct application of the law is what matters even if it does inconvenience the DWP.

tinybgoat wrote:https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/u ... ir-members
"Can Conservative MPs change leader without consulting their members?

Some Tories believe they could elect a new prime minister amongst themselves – before giving members a say in a year’s time."

RogerOThornhill wrote:Morning all.

tinybgoat wrote:https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/u ... ir-members
"Can Conservative MPs change leader without consulting their members?

Some Tories believe they could elect a new prime minister amongst themselves – before giving members a say in a year’s time."

I might be wrong but didn't that happen last time?

One of the most outrageous arguments deployed by the DWP was that it was the responsibility of the
claimants to persuade their employers to change their payroll system, so that it fitted in with the DWP

"Authorities have faced significant challenges since 2010-11 as funding has reduced while demand for key services has grown.
Not only are the risks from poor governance greater in the current context as the stakes are higher, but the process of governance
itself is more challenging and complex.
---
...the Department does not systematically collect data on governance, meaning it can’t rigorously assess whether issues are isolated
incidents or symptomatic of failings in aspects of the system. The Department can intervene both formally and informally in authorities
where it has concerns about governance arrangements, but the process by which it does this is not always revealed publicly, meaning
its scale and effectiveness is not open to scrutiny or challenge."

Local authority governance
https://www.nao.org.uk/press-release/lo ... ernance-2/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In a move that was enthusiastically supported by former education secretary Michael Gove, Durand opened a satellite boarding school on the site of the former St Cuthman’s school in Sussex in September 2014. The boarding school catered for pupils in certain year groups from Durand’s Lambeth site, and was the first in the country not to charge parents for boarding services.

However, after Durand repeatedly failed to secure planning permission to develop the site, the DfE withdrew its funding offer, and the boarding school closed in September 2017.

tinybgoat wrote:

RogerOThornhill wrote:Morning all.

tinybgoat wrote:https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/u ... ir-members
"Can Conservative MPs change leader without consulting their members?

Some Tories believe they could elect a new prime minister amongst themselves – before giving members a say in a year’s time."

I might be wrong but didn't that happen last time?

Good point, but only because there was only candidate remaining, think idea here is that mps would choose leader, allowing members to have a vote some time later.
(Not quite sure how, would they just vote on the same candidates as MP's did, or re-run entire process, or maybe just start with a confidence vote from members..
can't see it going down well)

£2.5bn increase in local authority spending on acquiring land and existing buildings from 2015-16 to 2017-18, much of which is for commercial investment purposes
https://www.nao.org.uk/press-release/lo ... ernance-2/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...[T]here was significant reclassification of commercial activity from planning & development and central service to trading services.
Spending on trading services has increased significantly over the last 4-years, rising from £323m in 2014-15 to £2.9bn in 2017-18.
These figures represent a significant increase even accounting for reclassification changes affecting the category this year.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... utturn.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Until 2016-17, authorities rarely spent more than £50m on trading services. Whilst, this year a record 12 authorities spent more than
£50m (totalling spend of £1.5bn), including two authorities which spent over £200m each, Spelthorne (£270m) and Warrington (£220m),
closely followed by Eastleigh with a spend of £194m.

Trading services include the maintenance of direct labour and service organisations, such as civic halls, retail markets and industrial estates, and commercial activity.

citizenJA wrote:What is trading services, exactly? All I got from the linked document above was this

Trading services include the maintenance of direct labour and service organisations, such as civic halls, retail markets and industrial estates, and commercial activity.

adam wrote:I know nothing, obviously, but I can't understand why on earth May would see a general election now or why her party would be content with her to do so

On the World at One Stephen Crabb, the Conservative former cabinet minister, said some of his Brexiter colleagues were being “deeply, deeply irresponsible” because they were making people think a no-deal Brexit would be acceptable.

'When you go outside London, as I was at the weekend, you hear people in the street saying: ‘We just need to leave without a deal, let’s just get out without a deal’. And I think we’re in quite dangerous territory as a country where, certainly a chunk of my party, or a wing of my party, is fomenting that kind of opinion. It is deeply, deeply irresponsible.'

AnatolyKasparov wrote:No-deal advocates are very fond of saying any problems would be "short term", I notice. Even if true, that is a highly flexible phrase.

gilsey wrote:I agree with Crabb.

On the World at One Stephen Crabb, the Conservative former cabinet minister, said some of his Brexiter colleagues were being “deeply, deeply irresponsible” because they were making people think a no-deal Brexit would be acceptable.

'When you go outside London, as I was at the weekend, you hear people in the street saying: ‘We just need to leave without a deal, let’s just get out without a deal’. And I think we’re in quite dangerous territory as a country where, certainly a chunk of my party, or a wing of my party, is fomenting that kind of opinion. It is deeply, deeply irresponsible.'

gilsey wrote:@cja

The Tees Valley elected mayor is buying back the local airport.

Whether that will generate income in future remains to be seen.

PorFavor wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote:No-deal advocates are very fond of saying any problems would be "short term", I notice. Even if true, that is a highly flexible phrase.

Please see above . . .

Hilary Benn
‏
Verified account

@hilarybennmp
55m55 minutes ago
More
The Prime Minister has just suggested that farmers in Wales wouldn’t mind a no deal Brexit. This is what NFU Cymru said in Sept: “the impact of a no-deal Brexit scenario on Welsh farming would be devastating.”

Labour’s Paul Farrelly asks May why she has been unable to say this afternoon if she will implement the result if MPs vote for an amendment next week proposing an alternative Brexit approach.

May says the people gave the government an instruction in the referendum. She wants MPs to vote for a deal implementing it.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/bl ... 7a614f7774" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jeremy Corbyn signalled on Monday the party could support Cooper and Grieve’s plans, a move which would likely mean defeat for the government and victory for the rebels.

The Labour leader told the Commons: “We will, as we have said consistently from the beginning, back amendments that seek to rule out the disaster of no deal.”

Your claim that a named official was “drawing up plans to overturn the normal rules of parliament” in support of “rebel MPs” are insinuations of improper behaviour and support for a particular political position, and a gross misrepresentation of the nature of the relationship between Clerks and Members of Parliament