So the Tories are bleating on about a constitutional crisis if the Lords vote down their welfare bill. Given that we don’t have a written constitution, why should the upper house be restricted on what they can do by convention? Surely conventions can and do change?

The welfare cuts are a manifesto pledge on whuch the Tories where elected just 5 months ago. If the Lords seek to overturn the legislation that’s anti democratic. I have a feeling they will back down and/or the motion be defeated.

Immodium

Portugal seems to be having a proper constitutional crisis…

jambalaya – Member
The welfare cuts are a manifesto pledge on whuch the Tories where elected just 5 months ago. If the Lords seek to overturn the legislation that’s anti democratic. I have a feeling they will back down and/or the motion be defeated.

I agree, the welfare cuts were an election pledge, however specifically Cameron said they won’t cut child tax credits on more than one occasion. If the Lords can’t make politicians keep their promises, then what’s the point in the Lords?

I fully believe than a non-elected upper house is a shambles, but if that’s what we’ve got making them impotent to affect actual policy making seems even more of a shambles.

jambalaya – Member

The welfare cuts are a manifesto pledge on whuch the Tories where elected just 5 months ago

No they weren’t. They intentionally left it out of their manifesto, and lied about their plans before the election. They said that they would make cuts, but not these cuts.

By all means, show me it in their manifesto and prove me wrong.

The Tories did say they wanted to make £12bn welfare cuts, they just didn’t say where they would make them (in fact I believe that they left most of the details out of their manifesto because they thought they’d be in coalition again and wouldn’t have to deliver all of it).

The only concrete detail they did give was this: [video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxS-Tow-Qik[/video]

jambalaya – Member

The welfare cuts are a manifesto pledge on whuch the Tories where elected just 5 months ago.

On the contrary: he specifically pledged – repeatedly – that tax credits would not be cut.

Anyway… the lords aren’t his problem. His own backbenchers are. A lot of them are sat on slim majorities, and are worried that the massive hit that the poorest paid workers in their communities are about to take is not going to play well when people start getting evicted, or getting their food from food banks. Because that’s whats going to happen

You never know – despite being Tories, I’m even prepared to countenence, just for a fleeting moment, that maybe they’re not all nasty, sociopathic bastards who want to see working people suffer, and are maybe considering admitting that they possess a slight shred of empathy or compassion in their cold hearts, and can see that this is really a pretty nasty thing to be doing to the very people they purport to represent – Hard Working Families ™

Bozza – probably for personal leadership election reasons – has been very critical. So have a lot of other Tory MP’s.

Dave is acting like he won the last election by a lanslide. But he didn’t. He’s got a majority of 12, and some very nervous backbenchers

You never know – despite being Tories, I’m even prepared to countenence, just for a fleeting moment, that maybe they’re not all nasty, sociopathic bastards who want to see working people suffer, and are maybe considering admitting that they possess a slight shred of empathy or compassion in their cold hearts, and can see that this is really a pretty nasty thing to be doing to the very people they purport to represent – Hard Working Families ™

So that’ll be the two tory MPs who voted against the bill? http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2015-09-15&number=71&showall=yes#voters

I said I was prepared to countenance it. Then remembered who we were talking about here. Compassion and empathy in action? Hmmmmmmmm….

They really are an utter bunch of ****s!!!

Thought this was going to be about all the traps in the loo being taken 🙁 *sulks*

Ha – “crisis” – it isn’t a crisis. People not having enough money to feed their kids properly is a crisis.

Rachel

Crisis? Not sure about that – although a bad hair day for Ms Morgan yesterday.

Not sure where the surprise is here – the fact that real cuts were coming after the election (austerity, what austerity?) was well flagged here 😉

The HoL (and the b’benchers) having some success. Osborne will play hard ball in ST and then soften the blow in the Autumn Statement. Odd system but works surprisingly well!

Binners, a simple reverse image search shows that that image is Iain Duncan Smith celebrating the announcement of the National Living Wage. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this the second time you’ve looked to mis-represent that image in the last week or so?

ST

?

Binners, a simple reverse image search shows that that image is Iain Duncan Smith celebrating the announcement of the National Living Wage. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this the second time you’ve looked to mis-represent that image in the last week or so?

Which dept is that low life pond scum in charge of? Also, if the cuts can occur in months why does it take several years to increase the national minimum wage, (it’s 65p/hr short of a living wage)? What that picture above shows is IDS celebrating misappropriation of the term “Living Wage”.

Short term (sorry!)

Pity there isn’t an objective debate about tax credits – crap idea through history and again now, that grew well beyond original plans (again historical trend?) and needs addressing (ditto).

Yes, that does mean some losers by definition.

I dont get it. Is the crisis that the gov are trying to stop the lords doing something or that the lords might do something and the gov takes “revenge” or is the crisis that the lords do nothing?

Different decade, different ‘crisis’ Labour wanted to pass the Hunting Act in 2003, it went to the Lords and Lords (lead by Conservative peers) knocked it back 3 times until the speaker had to force it though using seldom used laws from 1911 and 1949.

There’s nothing to stop the Government doing the same now, ultimately the Lords can request amendments or delay it, but they can’t stop The Commons doing anything, I suspect this might be a red herring, perhaps they’ve building an excuse so they can blame the Lords if they have to U-Turn.

As others have said, this isn’t going to be an easy ride for the Government, they’ll have a tough job whipping their own MPs unto line with it, the rest of the Commons won’t support it and neither will the Lords by the sounds of it.

I suspect it won’t pass in it’s current format and will possibly be passed in an amended form delaying the cuts until the rise in the minimum wage which will soften the blow for people, but it probably mean they’ll miss their target on running a surplus and that stupid law to govern it.

Pity there isn’t an objective debate about tax credits – crap idea through history and again now, that grew well beyond original plans (again historical trend?) and needs addressing (ditto).

We agree on something.

Tax credits are an absurd idea. Remove tax credits, change tax rates and bands, introduce fair wages that people can live on without benefits, and ensure that out of work benefits are enough for people who need to live off those – do it all at the same time, not cuts first. The losers will be the people who have been doing best out of the current system – I have no problem with that. I doubt we agree on that bit though.

mu3266 – Member

Binners, a simple reverse image search shows that that image is Iain Duncan Smith celebrating the announcement of the National Living Wage. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this the second time you’ve looked to mis-represent that image in the last week or so?

Assuming of course that he didn’t already know every aspect of the budget before it was announced, do you think there’s a another picture showing him solemnly holding his head in his hands weeping as he worries how poor people are going to feed themselves now after that bit was read?

You can split hairs all you link about the exact moment IDS was doing his little dance, he was cheering the very budget changes that are falling around their ears at the moment.

P-Jay – Member
As others have said, this isn’t going to be an easy ride for the Government, they’ll have a tough job whipping their own MPs unto line with it, the rest of the Commons won’t support it and neither will the Lords by the sounds of it.

It’s already been passed by the Commons – two (2) Tories voted against it.

The Lords powers where repeatedly watered down not least by Labour and now people want them to come to “the rescue”. The Lords role today is to tweak or revise legislation and send it back to the commons., it is listed first items nit their role to interfere on financial and budget matters.a

@Northwind, that’s a fair point as the manifesto pledge was to reduce the deficit and having explicitly ruled out cuts to education, nhs (increased spending) etc it was a clear inference it would be cuts to welfare.

it was a clear inference it would be cuts to welfare.

With a clear and definitive statement that those cuts would not be directed at tax credits.

pjt201 – Member

P-Jay – Member
As others have said, this isn’t going to be an easy ride for the Government, they’ll have a tough job whipping their own MPs unto line with it, the rest of the Commons won’t support it and neither will the Lords by the sounds of it.

It’s already been passed by the Commons – two (2) Tories voted against it.

Don’t they have to vote again if the Lords knock it back?

Don’t they have to vote again if the Lords knock it back?

Depends which motion knocks it back.

The Lords powers where repeatedly watered down not least by Labour and now people want them to come to “the rescue”.

that’s a fair point as the manifesto pledge was to reduce the deficit and having explicitly ruled out cuts to education, nhs (increased spending) etc it was a clear inference it would be cuts to welfare.

What we could really do with is for the Prime Minister, while electioneering, to repeatedly make a catagoric pledge that if re-elected his party would not be cutting tax credits, then doing precisely that about 5 minutes after winning that election

Then there would be no need for any of this. The Lords is holding the Prime Minister to account. So in my eyes, they’re simply doing their job.

Come on Jammers. Even for a Tory apologist like your good self, you can see the real issue here? 😉

it was a clear inference it would be cuts to welfare.

And they (the Tories) refused to specifically say where those cuts were going to fall, and Cameron made it clear it wasn’t going to be on tax credits and child credit for “hard working Families”

Come on Jammers. Even for a Tory apologist like your good self, you can see the real issue here?

They’re a Tory – what do you think?

The absurd thing here is the focus – the most dramatic rise in welfare spending has come (unsurprisingly) from pensions, specifically the state pension. Nothing party political here, just straight facts.

And yet, on this topic, deafening silence. Wonder why?

Dave said one solution would be to flood the House of Lords with Tory Peers. Yeah… you’ve already done that a few times Dave. Where would the next lot actually go?

And yet, on this topic, deafening silence. Wonder why?

Do you really need to ask?

No 😉

But for the non-grey generation, the writing is on the wall, but heads remain in the sand.

The non-grey generation is screwed anyway. We’ll all be in the Matrix within 50 years. 😀

The current generation of pensioners is better off than ever before, and for the first time have incomes higher on average than the rest of the population

IFS this month

For all the frothing on this topic, tax credits will still be 50% more (as a percentage of GDP) after Osborne’s cuts than they were when Balls and Brown introduced them *

Austerity, what austerity?

Those nasty Tories handing out more than the cuddly B&B duo!! Who would believe it??

[* health warning over source, I mistakenly read Peston article on BBC website over lunch, so could be bllx!!]

Sounds like bollox to me.

A good article by Andrew Rawnsley on the subject in the Observer

The First Law of Holes – Stop digging!

Saying that all the threats to the Lords are all complete cobblers

And on the Tax Credit cuts themselves. As we all knew anyway….

One certain sign that a politician has dug himself into a deep hole is when he keeps changing the justification for what he is doing. First it was insisted that the cuts to tax credits would be offset by other measures, a claim that has collapsed under the scrutiny of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which declare that it is “mathematically impossible” for this to be the case.

George Osborne changed tack last week when he argued that he had a mandate to do this because the Tories won the election on a platform of further welfare cuts. Trouble is you can read the Tory manifesto as many times as you like – and I have been through it more times than is healthy for the sanity of any human being – and you will find not a sentence about taking more than £4bn out of the household budgets of the working poor. Tories congratulated themselves on getting through the election campaign without being forced to specify where the cuts would fall. That tactic doesn’t look so Einstein now.

eamhurtmore – Member

The absurd thing here is the focus – the most dramatic rise in welfare spending has come (unsurprisingly) from pensions, specifically the state pension. Nothing party political here, just straight facts.

And yet, on this topic, deafening silence. Wonder why?

Changes to Pension Rules and Amounts is universally unpopular, and always will be because they’re messing with plans people have had in place for decades – I personally think they should be means tested, but even that would come up against huge resistance – most people made their retirement plans based on a state pension topped up with private pension.

How long it can all go on for who knows, it’s a massive amount of money, pretty much 50% of all ‘Benefits’ are state pension – £74bn a year and their some terrifying stats about how much it will increase in the decades to come.

I think the new(ish) legal requirement for workplace pensions is a move towards it removal – but I think to make it palatable to stick (I.E. so voters will elect anyone who calls for it’s reduction or doesn’t out them the first time they can to be replaced by someone who won’t) it needs a lot of work – firstly sbolishment of NI, not the paying bit, just the name – it’s almost meaningless now, I personally think it’s a PR stunt – for low earners they say “ah yes, I know you’re skint, but those who earn more pay 40% tax!”. whereas people who actually pay higher rate tax know that whilst the tax element goes from 20% to 40% on the bit they earn over the threshold, the NI drops from 12% to 2% so really it’s 32% v 42% deductions. Anyway, you have to do that, because lots of people (probably rightly) say “I’ve paid in for my whole life for this”, it’s not their fault that successive governments haven’t kept NI fit for purpose.

I personally think it’ll never completely go, but it will become means tested and start at 70.