Tax Credits

MFW_ASAP

Mistermeaner wrote: »

Time for constitutional review I think.

Or fill the Lord's with tories

Get rid of the house of Lords. It's an anachronism left over from the days when we had landed gentry and it's completely undemocratic. Waste of money.

Did you know that there are 26 bishops who have a permanent seat on the house of lords. These are all from the Church of England. Why do we have these representing us? Why not priests from other faiths? Why have religion in our politics at all?

In 2015 we should have a secular democracy. Tiem to get rid ofthese bits and bobs from a bygone age.

Moto2

It's a bit rich of the Tories to complain about the HoL

It was a big chunk of them last time that killed any chance of reform, I guess it suited then?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/jul/10/house-of-lords-reform-halted

andrewmp

cells wrote: »

the solution could be to pay the unemployed even less not necessarily to pay those earning low wages even more benefits

If you paid the unemployed less there would surely be more of an incentive to not become unemployed in the first place and to find a job if you are unemployed.

Had they done that, I think the working low paid would have been able to stomach being worse off more, that's the impression I've got from speaking to those effected.

I realise that makes it somewhat a race to the bottom, but that's human nature.

MFW_ASAP

andrewmp wrote: »

Had they done that, I think the working low paid would have been able to stomach being worse off more, that's the impression I've got from speaking to those effected.

I realise that makes it somewhat a race to the bottom, but that's human nature.

It was the same with pensions credit. An anomaly was created where people were better off having no private pension savings than those who did put a little bit by for their old age. With the advent of a fixed state mortgage, hopefully we'll see the back of this.

People who are sensible with their money and people who are prepared to earn money should never be worse off than those who don't.

martinsurrey

Moto2 wrote: »

It's a bit rich of the Tories to complain about the HoL

It was a big chunk of them last time that killed any chance of reform, I guess it suited then?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/jul/10/house-of-lords-reform-halted

the HoL not interfering in financial matters is a 600 year old part of the relationship between HoC and HoL.

Given that the Tories only have 249 peers they had significant support of the cross benches.

This bill was struck down on a party basis, by an un elected house, something the HoL was never meant to do.

Already talk of a significant influx of new peers on the Tory side, which is reasonable seeing as the PM has the final say in that, just like the HoL has the final say on how it votes (despite convention), the apple cart has been upset!

Graham_Devon

martinsurrey wrote: »

the HoL not interfering in financial matters is a 600 year old part of the relationship between HoC and HoL.

This was specifically not a financial matter though. It was a statuary instrument.

A statuary instrument is a piece of delegated legislation.

The house of lords hold a veto over delegated legislation.

It is annoying for the tories, and a rather absurd way of going about things. BUT it has suited the tories in the past too. As Moby points out above, the tory peers voted against reform of this stuff.

martinsurrey

Graham_Devon wrote: »

This is specifically a welfare matter though. It's specifically NOT a financial - that was the way the tories chose to set it up.

Whether through SI or Finance Act its been convention to treat the substance in the Lords, this has still be approved by the HoC.

We can use technicalities as much as we want, but its still playing with fire.

Would you defend this as much as you would defend Cameron's right as PM to appoint 200 new Tory peers if he did it tomorrow? or would you be saying he is running rough shot over the HoL?

Graham_Devon

martinsurrey wrote: »

Whether through SI or Finance Act its been convention to treat the substance in the Lords, this has still be approved by the HoC.

We can use technicalities as much as we want, but its still playing with fire.

Would you defend this as much as you would defend Cameron's right as PM to appoint 200 new Tory peers if he did it tomorrow? or would you be saying he is running rough shot over the HoL?

I think the whole thing is absurd.

However, from the start on this tax credits thing technicalities have been used for political advantage. The whole reason for it being an SI is for political advantage.

I think it's simply hypocritical for the tories to now be furiously claiming something must be done when they themselves voted against house of lords reform. To slam fists down regarding unelected individuals when they themselves voted against elected individuals is poor form.

What I'm saying is, you can't have your cake every which way and eat it.

As for filling the house with lords, I'd simply look at it as a desperate act. It would also be very dificult to justify considering his recent view on "unelected individuals". I'd ask what the justification is. At least there was justification for the lords.

andrewmp

martinsurrey wrote: »

Whether through SI or Finance Act its been convention to treat the substance in the Lords, this has still be approved by the HoC.

We can use technicalities as much as we want, but its still playing with fire.

Would you defend this as much as you would defend Cameron's right as PM to appoint 200 new Tory peers if he did it tomorrow? or would you be saying he is running rough shot over the HoL?

I'd say he's fully entitled to do that, I imagine it would be costly and these are times of austerity, so could he justify it?

martinsurrey

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I think the whole thing is absurd.

However, from the start on this tax credits thing technicalities have been used for political advantage. The whole reason for it being an SI is for political advantage.

I think it's simply hypocritical for the tories to now be furiously claiming something must be done when they themselves voted against house of lords reform.

What I'm saying is, you can't have your cake every which way and east it.

The vote they voted against was for an 80% elected house of lords, with significant changes to the way it worked, its like saying you voted against the death penalty for murderers so you cant complain when they beat a prisoner because if we'd killed them they couldn't do it...

I'll repeat my question, seeing as you believe it is fine for the HoL to defy convention on this vote (as it has the right to do), do you equally believe it would be okay for DC to flood the HoL with Tories, as is his right as PM?