Tax Credits

martinsurrey

andrewmp wrote: »

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

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/tonys-cronies-to-give-labour-lords-majority-7169941.html

Seemed to work for Tony, giving Labour 3 times as many new peers as the Tories and the Lib Dems the same number as the Tories.

Moto2

I would bet my house that the Tories have had many more parliaments where they massively outnumbered any other party regardless of the make up of the HoC

andrewmp

martinsurrey wrote: »

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/tonys-cronies-to-give-labour-lords-majority-7169941.html

Seemed to work for Tony, giving Labour 3 times as many new peers as the Tories and the Lib Dems the same number as the Tories.

You can sneak in 16 easier than 100. Do you really think he'll do it?

martinsurrey

Moto2 wrote: »

I would bet my house that the Tories have had many more parliaments where they massively outnumbered any other party regardless of the make up of the HoC

Yes and they voted inline with the 500 year old agreement of not interfering with tax or spending, in the main part, and when they didn't there was reform, or more lords appointed by the Monarch to get over the issue.

see the Parliament Act of 1911 for the last time there was a brew ha ha following the Lords refusal to agree the budget of the liberal PM.

Sapphire

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

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)

Nice: Labour and the LDs cannot try to get rid of the legally elected government, or cause problems for it, by any other way than by using the House of Lords (which contains a massively unbalanced number of labourites and liberal democrats). This is surely unconstitutional and undemocratic? I hope it is stopped forthwith.

michaels

I very much dislike playing the man not the ball but...

...currently there is a poster who on one thread is bemoaning the 'usurping of democracy' in Portugal where it apears that an elected head of state has not actually overturned the will of the people whilst simultaneously in another thread applauding unelected placemen for overturning the the will of the democratically elected representatives.

Graham_Devon

michaels wrote: »

I very much dislike playing the man not the ball but...

...currently there is a poster who on one thread is bemoaning the 'usurping of democracy' in Portugal where it apears that an elected head of state has not actually overturned the will of the people whilst simultaneously in another thread applauding unelected placemen for overturning the the will of the democratically elected representatives.

Theres also a poster who doesn't take issue with the portugal lack of democracy thing but takes issue with this....It's just you won't play that particular person.

So silly point to make really.

markharding557

Sapphire wrote: »

Nice: Labour and the LDs cannot try to get rid of the legally elected government, or cause problems for it, by any other way than by using the House of Lords (which contains a massively unbalanced number of labourites and liberal democrats). This is surely unconstitutional and undemocratic? I hope it is stopped forthwith.

Ironically the HOL is closer to to what the HOC would be under PR and so is more representative of the votes cast in the GE.

ProudDad

The vote last night shows two things;

Britain like a lot of democracies has a second House of Parliament, this parliament should be an elected senate, case closed. This would ensure they are representative of the will of people, it may be an idea to use a different voting system from FPTP such as PR. This would eliminate the conversation that is being had now where an unelected body has gone against the will of an elected one.

The second point it does highlight however is that the elected house is completely out of touch with reality at the moment, on one side we have a rather fractured conservative government who have a perverse obsession with austerity and on the other we have an even more fractured Labour opposition which doesn't know if it is coming or going. Personally I think the whole system needs a bit of a shake up and possibly the introduction of PR here would be an answer. Yes it will mean smaller majorities if at all, more parties will be able to participate, there will be more likeliness of coalitions being formed which in my eyes isn't a bad thing as it leads to compromise and policies being scrutinised before they are even put into the public domain.

I am one of those who claims tax credits, I am well educated, I have what people would see to be a reasonably good job that is paid accordingly(only starting out in my career), I am married and my wife is a student(studying to be a primary teacher) and I have two wonderful children who you might guess I love very much and very proud of. Currently we receive £453 every four weeks in tax credits. After the cuts this is anticipated to reduce to about £230 that's a cut of £2990 per year slightly over the average £1000 loss that keeps getting thrown around.

Yes I know I won't be claiming for ever and in principle I agree that they should be cut as we should be moving towards a society which is low tax/ low welfare however I feel the cuts should be implemented differently. This £220 per month I lose is just shy of 10% of our monthly household income which you would all agree is quite a bit to lose by any standard. My thoughts would be he should go for one or the other and gradually introduce the other over a period of time. This reduction will also disproportionately affect the areas of the UK which don't traditionally vote for the conservatives(ie. Scotland, Wales and the North East). So although it would harm the majority overall the conservatives probably won't lose out by implementing this policy.

Sorry rant over feel so much better now though.

CLAPTON

ProudDad wrote: »

The vote last night shows two things;

Britain like a lot of democracies has a second House of Parliament, this parliament should be an elected senate, case closed. This would ensure they are representative of the will of people, it may be an idea to use a different voting system from FPTP such as PR. This would eliminate the conversation that is being had now where an unelected body has gone against the will of an elected one.

The second point it does highlight however is that the elected house is completely out of touch with reality at the moment, on one side we have a rather fractured conservative government who have a perverse obsession with austerity and on the other we have an even more fractured Labour opposition which doesn't know if it is coming or going. Personally I think the whole system needs a bit of a shake up and possibly the introduction of PR here would be an answer. Yes it will mean smaller majorities if at all, more parties will be able to participate, there will be more likeliness of coalitions being formed which in my eyes isn't a bad thing as it leads to compromise and policies being scrutinised before they are even put into the public domain.

I am one of those who claims tax credits, I am well educated, I have what people would see to be a reasonably good job that is paid accordingly(only starting out in my career), I am married and my wife is a student(studying to be a primary teacher) and I have two wonderful children who you might guess I love very much and very proud of. Currently we receive £453 every four weeks in tax credits. After the cuts this is anticipated to reduce to about £230 that's a cut of £2990 per year slightly over the average £1000 loss that keeps getting thrown around.

Yes I know I won't be claiming for ever and in principle I agree that they should be cut as we should be moving towards a society which is low tax/ low welfare however I feel the cuts should be implemented differently. This £220 per month I lose is just shy of 10% of our monthly household income which you would all agree is quite a bit to lose by any standard. My thoughts would be he should go for one or the other and gradually introduce the other over a period of time. This reduction will also disproportionately affect the areas of the UK which don't traditionally vote for the conservatives(ie. Scotland, Wales and the North East). So although it would harm the majority overall the conservatives probably won't lose out by implementing this policy.

Sorry rant over feel so much better now though.

actually the case for two elected houses is very debatable and in by no means is 'case closed'.

a form of PR may or may not improve matters but what is undoubtedly true is that if we had only one house then it couldn't be over-ruled

because you have a personal interest is gaining undeserved benefits doesn't make it right.

you should never been given the benefits in the first place so be grateful for what you have been given at some-one else's expense.