Tax Credits

Graham_Devon

martinsurrey wrote: »

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?

I edited my post to answer that

martinsurrey

andrewmp wrote: »

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?

he could, it would get this bill thorough, saving billions, as voted on by our elected representatives.

Thrugelmir

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

There's currently a 100 or so Liberal Lords yet only 8 MP's. Is the HoL representative of the electorate?

martinsurrey

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

Voting against a commons motion that has passed 3 times IS a desperate act.

The lords voted on a party basis, the Tories have 249 peers and got 272 votes

Lib Dems and Labour have 325 peers and got 289 votes.

Its clear to see which way the cross bench support went. Remove the political peers and it would be a different picture.

"In 1999, there were 172 Conservative and 160 Labour life peers in the House of Lords, and by 4 January 2010, there were 141 Conservative and 207 Labour life peers in the House of Lords. "

so Tony did his bit..

martinsurrey

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/business-papers/lords/lords-divisions/?date=2015-Oct-26&itemId=3&session=2015-May-18

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/business-papers/lords/lords-divisions/?date=2015-Oct-26&itemId=2&session=2015-May-18

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/business-papers/lords/lords-divisions/?date=2015-Oct-26&itemId=1&session=2015-May-18

In fact there you go, remove the politics and the cross benchers were in support of the SI in all votes.

Un elected politicians overruling the elected ones.

wotsthat

The Tories must be ruing their woeful opposition during the Hague/ Duncan-Smith/ Howard years when tax credits were being introduced. I think it's got to be bad luck to get the two worst oppositions during a 15 year period.

Graham_Devon

martinsurrey wrote: »

Voting against a commons motion that has passed 3 times IS a desperate act.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

When this motion passed hardly anyone knew the full extent of the changes and how it would effect individuals.

The OBR hadn't even calculated the impact at that stage I don't think?

martinsurrey

Graham_Devon wrote: »

We'll have to agree to disagree.

When this motion passed hardly anyone knew the full extent of the changes and how it would effect individuals.

The OBR hadn't even calculated the impact at that stage I don't think?

http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2015/october/mps-debate-tax-credits-20-october-2015/

The Commons voted against a rethink on 20th October 2015, 7 days ago.

MFW_ASAP

The Libdems are simply trying to scrabble their way back into politics after the complete drubbing in the election. They can't even buy time on any political programs, on the news or even on Question Time. I bet most people don't even know who their new leader is. Blocking this legislation in the HOL is their desperate gambit to get back into politics and to raise their profile with the electorate.

I'm hoping it backfires and puts HOL reofrms back on the agenda. A 100% elected house with no free places for our 'moral guardians', the bishops (AKA kiddy fiddlers)

andrewmp

martinsurrey wrote: »

he could, it would get this bill thorough, saving billions, as voted on by our elected representatives.

He'd be ripped to shreds and you know it.