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
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    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,
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I agree- short term good for labour, long term maybe good for Tories.
    Osborne has a way out now.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    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
    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
    This wasn't a Bill - it was a Regulation. And as many Noble Lords were reminding others in the debate, the Order-making power that the Tax Credits Regulations are made under were granted under a 2002 Act, which was approved by both Houses. In that Act, the enabling passage specifies such Orders can only become law by consent of both Houses.

    This is a different matter from the typical finance bills, which come under the purview of the Parliament Act. Instead this is governed under a different set of rules. There are even separate types of statutory instrument that are specifically Commons-only, and this wasn't one of them.

    Moreover, as, again, Noble Lords were keen to point out in the debate, the Government didn't have to pass the legislation as a Regulation like this. It was quite easy to have passed an Act of Parliament which legislated in precisely the same manner, and the Salisbury-Addison Convention would have had a much stronger hold.

    I think the Government has a *point* in warning of what it would look like to have an unelected House legislating on financial matters, but then that's a bit rich seeing as this is a bed of their own making, and they sought to divert attention from the merits of the Regulation onto the doomsday predictions of a Lords defeat.

    We'll see what happens next I suppose, but I doubt the Lords will be going anywhere.
    Offline

    20
    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
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The practice of other taxpayers having to subsidise those who breed like rabbits shall continue. Oh joy. The Tories won a majority based on the idea of reducing the silly welfare state and reducing the deficit; well looks like one of the biggest steps has been stopped.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (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.
    Neither of the "wins" is likely to come about, the Lords isn't going to be reformed any time soon, at least not the reforms you want, nor is it likely to be crushed, worst comes to the worst, the Parliament acts will kick in again. Was no tax credit cuts put in the manifesto? Could you also point out to me one PM that has 100% told the truth please.
    Offline

    15
    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
    Funny to see a Tory boy throw his toys out the pram because they've been delayed in their plan to make lots of low paid workers far poorer.

    There's also a tradition that a party shouldn't campaign that they won't do something and then do that very thing.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Disgusting attack on our democracy. Get rid of the unelected parasites.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Also how did this pass? Tories have been stuffing the house of lords with Tory lords. :lol:
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Funny to see a Tory boy throw his toys out the pram because they've been delayed in their plan to make lots of low paid workers far poorer.

    There's also a tradition that a party shouldn't campaign that they won't do something and then do that very thing.
    Can you give me a page reference for the manifesto stating this wouldn't happen?


    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Also how did this pass? Tories have been stuffing the house of lords with Tory lords. :lol:
    Have we? Funny how barely a third of Lords are Tories given this.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Can you give me a page reference for the manifesto stating this wouldn't happen?




    Have we? Funny how barely a third of Lords are Tories given this.
    On One of the 'debates' Cameron explicitly promised he would not cut tax credits - he's done just that.
    And yes the Tories don't have a majority in the lords but that's certainly not through a lack of trying.

    I personally find it hilarious to see a Tory complaining about 'unelected lords'- when have you ever cared about that before?

    Stop throwing your toys out the pram and grow up.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    This three year delay could be very significant as it could well force osbourne to have introduce these cuts close to the 2020 election.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    On One of the 'debates' Cameron explicitly promised he would not cut tax credits - he's done just that.
    And yes the Tories don't have a majority in the lords but that's certainly not through a lack of trying.

    I personally find it hilarious to see a Tory complaining about 'unelected lords'- when have you ever cared about that before?

    Stop throwing your toys out the pram and grow up.
    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.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    This three year delay could be very significant as it could well force osbourne to have introduce these cuts close to the 2020 election.
    Where I'd this three years coming from?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)

    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.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    What a silly argument. Look up Tu Quoque. Trying to justify the actions of yourself and others on the failings of others previously, i.e an appeal to hypocrisy, is a basic fallacy. Instead of mudslinging and allegations against leaders we do not support - you will be hard pressed to find a Clegg or Blair worshiper left in Labour/Lib Dems - try to actually justify your leader's decisions and actions.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    On One of the 'debates' Cameron explicitly promised he would not cut tax credits - he's done just that.
    And yes the Tories don't have a majority in the lords but that's certainly not through a lack of trying.

    I personally find it hilarious to see a Tory complaining about 'unelected lords'- when have you ever cared about that before?

    Stop throwing your toys out the pram and grow up.
    Left wing mobs have been throwing tantrums and rioting in London on a near bi-quarterly basis over the last five years, but yeah, the right are the ones who need to calm down and grow up, sure.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Murphy12)
    What a silly argument. Look up Tu Quoque. Trying to justify the actions of yourself and others on the failings of others previously, i.e an appeal to hypocrisy, is a basic fallacy. Instead of mudslinging and allegations against leaders we do not support - you will be hard pressed to find a Clegg or Blair worshiper left in Labour/Lib Dems - try to actually justify your leader's decisions and actions.
    I am well aware of tu quoque, the fact if the matter is that an attribute common amongst politicians is being used as an argument against, well, hundreds of thousands who did not make the statement (could argue over 10m) whilst happily rejecting the notion their own men are not doing exactly the same. And if we are going to ignore Clegg and Blair, after all we both know they're equally guilty, let's go fit Corbyn the infallible, wait, also guilty.

    Justify them you say? I think a manifesto pledge for a welfare cut off was it 12 or 20bn does that, or how about a deficit of 69bn

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    This wasn't a Bill - it was a Regulation. And as many Noble Lords were reminding others in the debate, the Order-making power that the Tax Credits Regulations are made under were granted under a 2002 Act, which was approved by both Houses. In that Act, the enabling passage specifies such Orders can only become law by consent of both Houses.

    This is a different matter from the typical finance bills, which come under the purview of the Parliament Act. Instead this is governed under a different set of rules. There are even separate types of statutory instrument that are specifically Commons-only, and this wasn't one of them.

    Moreover, as, again, Noble Lords were keen to point out in the debate, the Government didn't have to pass the legislation as a Regulation like this. It was quite easy to have passed an Act of Parliament which legislated in precisely the same manner, and the Salisbury-Addison Convention would have had a much stronger hold.

    I think the Government has a *point* in warning of what it would look like to have an unelected House legislating on financial matters, but then that's a bit rich seeing as this is a bed of their own making, and they sought to divert attention from the merits of the Regulation onto the doomsday predictions of a Lords defeat.

    We'll see what happens next I suppose, but I doubt the Lords will be going anywhere.
    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?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I am well aware of tu quoque, the fact if the matter is that an attribute common amongst politicians is being used as an argument against, well, hundreds of thousands who did not make the statement (could argue over 10m) whilst happily rejecting the notion their own men are not doing exactly the same. And if we are going to ignore Clegg and Blair, after all we both know they're equally guilty, let's go fit Corbyn the infallible, wait, also guilty.

    Justify them you say? I think a manifesto pledge for a welfare cut off was it 12 or 20bn does that, or how about a deficit of 69bn

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    So what you are saying is that you accept it is a fallacy, i.e the hypocrisy of the opposition in no way justifies your own stance, but continue through with it? And follow it up with a straw-man too! Claiming that I and others here are in fact rejecting the fact 'our own men do the same', which I can ensure you I do not. Compound that with a lack of evidence on the Corbyn allegation and a tautological argument (everyone does it so you can't criticise us because everyone does it), you have yourself a bad argument.

    As for your last justification, here I forget the latin for it, but it's a 'non-specific' fallacy or something - he said he'd leave Tax Credits in an election debate, goes back on it just because it wasn't written firmly. There is also the whole 'do we need cuts' debate, that same goes for the high deficit.

    Quite a poor response all things considered.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    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.
 
 
 
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?
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.