Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Govt defeated TWICE on tax credits watch

Announcements
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Gotta love how now they haven't got their inbuilt majority in the Lords any more suddenly the Tories are trying to paint themselves as the big champions of democracy even as they turn around and threaten to stack the Lords, which hasn't even been threatened since the People's Budget and then by the King, not a politician. Apparently that is the Tory version of "Lords reform" :p:

    Anyone seeing clips of the Lords vote, Lady Hollis, Newsnight tonight, Osborne's jumpy interview, Cameron's lies from the election "debate", will know clearly who are the good and who are the bad guys here.

    When you even have Tory backbenchers plus figures like Boris and Tim Montgomerie beating up on you the public understand what is going on, they're not stupid. They also understand, I think, the constitutional issues.

    For the avoidance of doubt, the Tories could have put this through as a proper finance bill, which would have been subject to the Salisbury Convention that the Lords cannot block money bills. However, they would have run up against the argument that by convention the SC only applies to things indicated in the party's manifesto: of course they didn't put this in/actively lied about it. So instead they have chosen to go under the radar with a statutory instrument, which the Lords can block, as I understand it, more or less at will.

    The party's panic, sliminess and disarray is clear to see.

    The Lords, unfortunately, lost their bottle and did not vote to block the legislation, rather to have it reviewed and mollified. Once again, this acquiescence was thanks to abstention by right-wing Labour peers. Not sure if it is good or bad: to have blocked it would have been a daring move. Cameron is the most anti-democratic prime minister ever with about five different measures in the works to shore up the Tory majority, but I don't think even he would have stacked the Lords. However he might have moved against it with some other reform that conveniently introduced a Tory majority in that place.

    The problem with what the Lords have done at present is that Osborne now has a way to weasel out of it. He can still introduce the meat of his reforms - particularly for new claimants such as our generation - while drawing as much attention as possible to how he is the caring listening Chancellor. Furthermore, if John McDonnell is as incompetent as he seems, he will actually stick to his word and not try to make political capital.

    I feel that the public will see the whole affair as a legitimation of the often demonised House of Lords as well as of the too little demonised George Osborne. To be fair, this is literally how it's supposed to work and an example of typical British constitutionality:
    1. the government say, "Elect us, we hate scroungers too, we'll cut £12bn off the welfare state"
    2. the public says, "OK"
    3. the government say, "Surprise kids, turns out we actually don't care about you but we do hate Labour and everything Labour do, so here's our political stunt which will hurt you even though you work"
    4. the public say, "Baww we didn't sign up for this"
    5. the government say, "Trololol we don't care"
    6. the Lords say, "Come on guys this clearly isn't going to work, nobody wants it, and we have no or less need to be party political"
    7. the government say, "Sigh, OK we'll change some stuff"

    and in the end nobody is satisfied, the whole thing is illogical and a total waste of time, but on the whole it kludges together an OK outcome.
    Nonsense - this is how it went

    Government: We're the party to cut the government welfare bill and will start with tax credits
    Lords: Hell no we're a bunch of business toffs who don't want to pay our workers more (corporate welfare), further enable us to justify our low wages - vote for a delay
    People: Yay we wins - we are champions now!
    Government: Real tories win anyway, lower corporation tax and continued corporate welfare
    RIP UK PLC = Bankrupt.

    Best open that swiss account. Pip pip tally ho.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bill_Gates)
    Nonsense - this is how it went

    Government: We're the party to cut the government welfare bill and will start with tax credits
    Lords: Hell no we're a bunch of business toffs who don't want to pay our workers more (corporate welfare), further enable us to justify our low wages - vote for a delay
    People: Yay we wins - we are champions now!
    Government: Real tories win anyway, lower corporation tax and continued corporate welfare
    RIP UK PLC = Bankrupt.

    Best open that swiss account. Pip pip tally ho.
    Tax credits are a far better policy instrument than the minimum wage as they are given based on actual household income rather than how many hours of work your boss needs doing that week: the latter has absolutely zero economic ties to how much income the worker needs to live on.

    I would far rather see corporations taxed at the top and then the money distributed evenly to low-paid workers via tax credits than have corporations essentially throw the money into the crowd and watch the strongest workers come out with 100% of the wages and the weaker ones with 0%.

    It also prevents workers trampling on each other for money and promotes solidarity which ultimately raises everyone's income. Solidarity which among other things creates tribal loyalty to the Labour Party
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Somewhat disgusting given that there has been a tradition for over a century for the Lords not to vote down a money bill, all Cameron needs to do is follow through on the threat Asquith had to make and they should fall in line

    And it really wouldn't have toxified Middle England

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The House of Lords argument is that it wasn't a finance bill but a welfare bill which they are allowed to get involved in.

    Still, it'll be quite funny to hear the 'let's get rid of the house of lords' brigade support the House of Lords on this one.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Tax credits are a far better policy instrument than the minimum wage as they are given based on actual household income rather than how many hours of work your boss needs doing that week: the latter has absolutely zero economic ties to how much income the worker needs to live on.

    I would far rather see corporations taxed at the top and then the money distributed evenly to low-paid workers via tax credits than have corporations essentially throw the money into the crowd and watch the strongest workers come out with 100% of the wages and the weaker ones with 0%.

    It also prevents workers trampling on each other for money and promotes solidarity which ultimately raises everyone's income. Solidarity which among other things creates tribal loyalty to the Labour Party
    I'd prefer to see people receiving a higher wage and the removal of tax credits. There's then a cost saving in administering the tax credits.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    I would far rather see corporations taxed at the top and then the money distributed evenly to low-paid workers via tax credits than have corporations essentially throw the money into the crowd and watch the strongest workers come out with 100% of the wages and the weaker ones with 0%.

    It also prevents workers trampling on each other for money and promotes solidarity which ultimately raises everyone's income. Solidarity which among other things creates tribal loyalty to the Labour Party
    So you'd rather companies not provide an incentive for people to work harder, and let these companies languish in inefficiency? They're not charities, you know.

    And neither is the government.

    Furthermore, your plan would not raise worker income (if you could even consider tax credit as income) in any way - in order to pay more tax to further fund the tax credit carousel, companies have to be more productive, but without any incentive to work harder, the workers will not become more productive. What you get, however, is a stagnation of the economy.

    And that is why people voted for Conservative in the last election.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    If it weren't through a lack of trying there would be a smaller house of Lords with a lot more Tory peers, barely any liberals and maybe a few more kippers.

    So it wasn't in the manifesto? Shall we have a look at the voting records of Clegg (when he actually votes) and miliband in a year or two and see how much they said they went back on? Or look at brown, Clegg and Cameron last parliament, or Blair when he was in power?

    As I said to butterfly, can you please show me one PM that has been 100pc honest.



    Where I'd this three years coming from?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The three year delay was part of the bill the lords passed. As in they can't cut tax credits for people on them for three years- so the cuts would start in three years time. I thought you'd have been aware of that.

    As to the promise, he unequivocally made a promise live on national TV that he would not cut tax credits - that's not 'not benign 100pc honest' - that's being 0pc honest.
    And he can't use the excuse of him not knowing about the finances, he was pm at the time. It was an outright and blatant lie.
    And yes Blair and clegg went back on promises but do you think I am a fan of either? Both were routinely and strongly criticised for doing so, why should Cameron not be?

    Again, this may well work to osbournes advantage as it gives him a chance to soften the bill without it looking like a u-turn. If I was a cynic I'd almost want Tories to pass this - let them have their new poll-tax.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    The three year delay was part of the bill the lords passed. As in they can't cut tax credits for people on them for three years- so the cuts would start in three years time. I thought you'd have been aware of that.

    As to the promise, he unequivocally made a promise live on national TV that he would not cut tax credits - that's not 'not benign 100pc honest' - that's being 0pc honest.
    And he can't use the excuse of him not knowing about the finances, he was pm at the time. It was an outright and blatant lie.
    And yes Blair and clegg went back on promises but do you think I am a fan of either? Both were routinely and strongly criticised for doing so, why should Cameron not be?

    Again, this may well work to osbournes advantage as it gives him a chance to soften the bill without it looking like a u-turn. If I was a cynic I'd almost want Tories to pass this - let them have their new poll-tax.
    They can still cut them but there as to be 3 years of financial mitigation. Not sure exactly what that means mind.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Also how did this pass? Tories have been stuffing the house of lords with Tory lords. :lol:
    Even the bishops, who can normally be relied on to support right wing objectives after a lot of hand wringing, came out for the ammendment. Must be a keenly felt blow in the clubs on Pall Mall.

    I suspect though that much of this is a put up job - Osborne was, I think, pushing out a horribly tough option which he knew would get fought against and then revised downwards to where he wanted to be. At least, that's what I hope is the case.

    However, it is equally plausible that Cammie and Gideon simply don't give a **** if 3 million working families get a big drop in their incomes over the next few years and similarly don't give a **** if it pushes lots of them into homelessness and into the hands of debt companies.

    Perhaps Wonga and Quickquid are really behind this policy?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    I'd prefer to see people receiving a higher wage and the removal of tax credits. There's then a cost saving in administering the tax credits.
    We all would. The issue is one of timing - either zero consideration was given in Whitehall and the Treasury to the effect on millions of people of cutting their tax credits now rather than at the time the increases in NMW kick in - or it was fully considered and they view it as some kind of mysterious incentive. Since a large number of these people are self-employed, perhaps the logic was that they will all go out and work harder. Except that would result in even steeper tax credit cuts.

    It seems that we are back in the world of Whitehall, where joined up logic is never a 'thing'.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Somewhat disgusting given that there has been a tradition for over a century for the Lords not to vote down a money bill, all Cameron needs to do is follow through on the threat Asquith had to make and they should fall in line

    And it really wouldn't have toxified Middle England

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Asquith dissolved Parliament and called new elections in order to prove to the Lords that he had clear support for his budget. He then did it again a few months later for the Parliament Act of 1911, and only then did he threaten to flood the Lords. If Cameron and Osborne want to follow Asquith's precedent, they should at the very least first call a referendum on the matter before flooding anywhere.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ~Seraphina~)
    Out of the many here you are one of the few that knows your stuff. I have given you rep points. Care to elaborate more on this issue?
    Thanks! I'll try...what would you like to know?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    We all would. The issue is one of timing - either zero consideration was given in Whitehall and the Treasury to the effect on millions of people of cutting their tax credits now rather than at the time the increases in NMW kick in - or it was fully considered and they view it as some kind of mysterious incentive. Since a large number of these people are self-employed, perhaps the logic was that they will all go out and work harder. Except that would result in even steeper tax credit cuts.

    It seems that we are back in the world of Whitehall, where joined up logic is never a 'thing'.
    Interesting take on it on radio 4 the other day. The government has already hit middle and upper class families. Cuts need to be made so in order to protect the most vunerable at the bottom, the ones further up the chain get hit. So actually, the not as vunerable get hit to protect the vunerable.

    I think the logic is sound. Pay workers more so they don't need tax credits in the first place.

    There'll be the usual party politics involved but isbourne is trying to shift the uk to a high wage high productivity country.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Hopefully Tax credits changes get squashed and house of lords gets reformed

    Win Win :rofl2:


    Does no one else find it odd that the house of lords is not supposed to veto these kinds of things yet it perfectly acceptability for a party to lie to the electorate and do the exact thing they said they would not do straight after they get elected?

    How is the former a democratic crisis whilst the latter isn't?

    Tories getting ****ed by the house of lords is funny though since this is the kind of hurdling conservatism they appear to stand for.
    The argument that the Lords 'is not supposed' to strike down secondary legislation is tenuous at best. They don't 'as a matter of habit', sure, but nor does the Commons, and I doubt a claim would hold water that the Commons isn't supposed to.

    As I said above, while the Lords' influence over money Bills and other primary legislation is largely known, that on secondary legislation is nowhere near as clear-cut as the Government would like you to believe.

    Also, the Lords has still remained courteous to the Commons' financial prerogative by voting to only delay consideration of the Regulation until the Government provides further information - it has not (yet) rejected the Regulation.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bill_Gates)
    Nonsense - this is how it went

    Government: We're the party to cut the government welfare bill and will start with tax credits
    Lords: Hell no we're a bunch of business toffs who don't want to pay our workers more (corporate welfare), further enable us to justify our low wages - vote for a delay
    People: Yay we wins - we are champions now!
    Government: Real tories win anyway, lower corporation tax and continued corporate welfare
    RIP UK PLC = Bankrupt.

    Best open that swiss account. Pip pip tally ho.
    As impartial as ever, Bill_Gates...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Interesting take on it on radio 4 the other day. The government has already hit middle and upper class families. Cuts need to be made so in order to protect the most vunerable at the bottom, the ones further up the chain get hit. So actually, the not as vunerable get hit to protect the vunerable.

    I think the logic is sound. Pay workers more so they don't need tax credits in the first place.

    There'll be the usual party politics involved but isbourne is trying to shift the uk to a high wage high productivity country.
    I've got a good idea, how about you crawl out of osbournes arse and come up for air?
    So why does the new minimum wage not apply to under 25s? And why is still far below the actual living wage. And what about those who run a small business who aren't eligible for the nmw?
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by skeptical_john)
    Thanks to the (unelected lords) the odious tax credit changes will not be going through anytime soon.

    They lost two votes. One calling for financial mitigation and another calling for the govt to respond to IFS (quasi constitutional body?) questions.

    Part of me thinks lords have done Osborne a huge - albeit embarrassing - favour.
    The tax credits cut could have re-toxified Tories with middle Britain, Now he can make the changes with out it looking like a uturn,
    All they've done is delay it 3 years.

    Interestingly Labour have actually shafted the unemployed in these amendments. One part of the one which passed has actually agreed to cut universal credit rather than tax credits.

    So a good ploy from Labour here (tad shocked they've done this given how far left they are). They've pushed it back (Osbourne will accept this and take credit in the Autumn Statement) and then proceeded to shaft the unemployed at the expense of the working poor.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    All they've done is delay it 3 years.

    Interestingly Labour have actually shafted the unemployed in these amendments. One part of the one which passed has actually agreed to cut universal credit rather than tax credits.

    So a good ploy from Labour here (tad shocked they've done this given how far left they are). They've pushed it back (Osbourne will accept this and take credit in the Autumn Statement) and then proceeded to shaft the unemployed at the expense of the working poor.
    What's your source for the impact on UC please Rakas? I haven't heard that bit.

    On the general issue of Tory lies, it's amusing to note that even the Telegraph thinks they lied about it pre-election. Here they are quoting Gove shortly before election day:

    "When he appeared on the BBC's World at One in April, Michael Gove was asked: "are you going to be cutting tax credits?". He responded: "No." Later on in the interview, he insisted that the Tories "are going to freeze them [tax credits] for two years, we are not going to cut them."
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...-the-cuts.html
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I've got a good idea, how about you crawl out of osbournes arse and come up for air?
    So why does the new minimum wage not apply to under 25s? And why is still far below the actual living wage. And what about those who run a small business who aren't eligible for the nmw?
    Under 25s tend to retire significant training upon employment.

    Do you know how hard it is to find a 21 year old forklift driver with a minimum of 5 years experience. How about a 19 customer services operator who can demonstrate 5 years of customer services experience.

    It's the same reason why graduates don't get paid until they get some experience behind them. Because they're a risk due to lack of demonstrable skill.

    It's not a hard concept. It's why apprentices are on low wages. They're a drain on company resources.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    The Daily Mash reports...

    THE government has urged the House of Lords to act less democratically, or possibly more so.

    After the upper house voted against taking £1300 away from poor people, the government claimed that unelected politicians disagreeing with something the Conservative Party lied about was morally wrong.

    Chancellor George Osborne said: “On the one hand, we promised the quarter of the electorate that actually voted for us that we wouldn’t do this, which doesn’t seem terribly democratic in the first place.

    “But having a bunch of people nobody voted for stopping us from doing whatever we like doesn’t seem fair, either.

    “It’s all dreadfully complicated, or blindingly simple. One of the two.”

    He also stressed that him trying to dodge a Commons debate and the Lords acting entirely within their remit brought up constitutional issues that he had not quite worked out yet.

    Labour supporter Wayne Hayes added: “It’s a great day for an institution I think should be abolished and proof that the fatally flawed, undemocratic system works.”
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Tax credits are a far better policy instrument than the minimum wage as they are given based on actual household income rather than how many hours of work your boss needs doing that week: the latter has absolutely zero economic ties to how much income the worker needs to live on.

    I would far rather see corporations taxed at the top and then the money distributed evenly to low-paid workers via tax credits than have corporations essentially throw the money into the crowd and watch the strongest workers come out with 100% of the wages and the weaker ones with 0%.

    It also prevents workers trampling on each other for money and promotes solidarity which ultimately raises everyone's income. Solidarity which among other things creates tribal loyalty to the Labour Party
    You fail to acknowledge the argument we have a huge trade deficit we cannot afford to give out hand outs. Especially ones which enable corporations to pay artificially low wages. Any money taken away from government spending is great right now. Corporations cannot be adequately taxed they have more expertise and economic power than governments.

    No one has loyalty to any party only self interest. Majority of people are hard working and want to get on, be that buying property and RENTING out or investing in stocks of CORPORATIONS.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.