http://media.skynews.com/media/image...-1-563x750.jpg

http://media.skynews.com/media/image...-1-563x750.jpg

http://media.skynews.com/media/image...-1-442x589.jpg


OK Hog

Talked to my Dad about this last night, he reminded me of the past when the Lords repeatedly held up Labour legislation while the Conservatives applauded and supported same in doing so.
He is ashamed of the Conservative party's hypocrisy on this.

Good move by the Lords, this has been probably now held up for 3 years now and if his plans are near in tatters, then Osborne should have been more decent, fair and just in the first place and not try to abuse power.

Thing is Joey, there is nothing democratic about the lords, it never has been. Its just a like minded gentlemen's club type of thing. The Tories and Labour have been using and abusing it for years as it takes their fancy.

It needs to be an elected house, then it can actually perform a meaningful function.

On the subject at hand, the tax credits, if the government don't realise by now that its a mistake then they deserve all they get. Its one thing to make a bad judgement call, its another to persist down the same road with head in sand.

well said bitontheside - it will be interesting to see the proposed changes.

halving the Lords did that in 1999, 'life peers' can be bought, how democratic is that and how can you elect a judiciary?

No Joey
The Poxy Labour Peer Snorting Coke
with Hookers

The Fecking Lords
need to be Dealt With
HARD

Isn't there a pic of George Osborne doing this too?

I am not interested in his College Days
He is trying to sort our money out.

The House Of Lords will be Hand Cuffed
in some way forward

being discussed live now

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...-politics-live

'@JohnmcdonnellMP identified how @George_Osborne will dig out of hole: go for less excessive surplus target, currently £10bn 1/2'

Hang on... the surplus target is 10 billion? So of the 12 billion of cuts he 'needs' to make only 2 billion is to be ploughed back into the economy?

obviously the working tax credits needed revision. this business of only being able to work 15 hours or face losing some benefits is crazy. osbourne failed to find a middle ground. the working tax credit is a great idea for the millions living in poorer areas on low wages. low wages depend on the hourly wage and the hours available.

in many non contract jobs the hours are limited. osbourne must understand the enormous wealth gap between London and the north and wales and n Ireland. the difference is staggering at over £25,000 per person difference in the average gdp per head. that's the difference between the 3rd richest economy per head (London) and wales the poorest per head in Europe.

back to the drawing board George Gideon osbourne

working people need money in their pockets , they are the highest spenders as a proportion of their income and its spending that stimulates an economy. known as the accelator effect. hes already raised vat on the poor so they have less to spend. hes given more to the mega rich and they spend less as a proportion, as most of that goes into savings pensions etc

'John Bercow, the Commons speaker, has dismissed suggestions that there was anything inappropriate about the way peers voted to delay the government’s planned tax credit cuts last night. Ministers have argued that this was unconstitutional, and Downing Street is launching a review of relations between the Lords and the Commons. But, in response to points of order about this from several MP, Bercow said that there was “no procedural impropriety”.

Exactly. He could probably have gotten away with slightly increasing the taper rate (to go hand in hand with tax threshold increases) and even even perhaps dropping the threshold to what he wanted to for child tax credits, but only for children born after April 2016. I don't think he'd have had any problem getting that through. It also has "transitional protection" built-in.

But he overplayed his hand, was over-confident, under the mistaken belief that the Tories getting into majority government is a sign that people are ready to accept "pretty much anything".

I've always argued this; people who only have a "reasonable amount" to live on spend what they earn. Spend the bulk on essentials and then whatever's left over on the luxuries that make working life bearable. Money in the hands of normal working people is FAR better for the economy than anything else.

Money that goes to the rich sits in savings for years, goes into global investments, or is simply spent on large one-off luxuries - USUALLY OUT OF THE COUNTRY - or in the UK purchased as a tax write-off. It's dead money.

I maintain that this is a fundamental flaw in much of the discussion regarding benefits as a whole, when it comes down the the statistics and figures. People talk about "X Billion £ in benefits" like that money goes into the accounts of claimants and then magically evapourates never to be seen again. Money doesn't just "disappear". The largest chunk of those X billions spent on benefits is being injected straight back into the active economy as quickly as it's paid into claimants accounts. Compare this to the money being stolen by large corps. through tax avoidance: dead money. It's never spent. They don't even often use it to expand and create jobs. It floats right to the top and into the pockets of people who will simply watch their balances inflate and never actually spend.

osbourne got it wrong on working tax credits....Im not so sure on child tax credits as I don't know exactly what people with children get altogether.....I assume its family allowance, housing benefits and income support? is that right?
its NEVER explained clearly on any show exactly how much people get

found this so far

Child benefit: You should be able to claim £20.30 a week for your first child and £13.40 a week for subsequent children

Single person
Aged 16 to 24 £57.90
Aged 25 or over £73.10
Lone parent
Aged 16 to 17 £57.90
Aged 18 or over £73.10
Couple
With both people under 18 £57.90
With one person under 18 and the other aged 18 to 24 £57.90
With one person under 18 and the other aged 25 or over £73.10
With both people aged 18 or over £114.85

housing benefits

The only differences between Child Tax Credits and WTC is that you A) Need to have kids to get them and B) still get them (at full rate) even if not working.

Other than that, it was all still going to be subject to the same cuts for working people (increased taper rates, lowered threshold) so actually if you were getting both CTC and WTC and working, your income could drop even MORE with the cuts. i.e. if the drop was enough to take you out of WTC entitlement completely - it would then also start eating into CTC entitlement. It's one of the worst parts, really. Working families were (are, this will still happen eventually) going to be the worst affected.

John McDonnell said; Can I remind the House, the 3m people out there, who have done everything asked of them, bringing up their children, going to work, this is not a constitutional matter. They will lose £1,300 a year. Given what happened in the other place last night, can I reassure the chancellor that if he brings forward proposals to reverse the cuts to tax credits fairly and in full, he will not be attacked by this side of the House. Indeed he will be applauded. But can he assure us that whatever proposals he brings forward, he will not support any that an independent assessment demonstrates will cause any child to be forced to live below the poverty line.

Osborne responded "I’m of course happy to[listen to] any proposals that he puts forward. But let me make this point; there is a difference between those who say ‘We want to make no savings to welfare at all, we want to abolish things like the benefits cap, we’re not prepared to make savings at all to the tax credit system’; and those who have said, ‘Yes, we do want to move to a lower welfare society, but we want help in the transition.’ Now, if he has proposals to help in the transition, of course I will listen to them. But if he is again promoting uncapped welfare and unlimited borrowing, then I’m afraid I don’t think the British people are going to listen to him."

In other words, Osborne refused to give that assurance.

I totally agree again TS.

So what now? Will the government abandon its deficit reduction target or will it start implementing large cuts on public services? It can't touch pensions and it can only make minimal changes to child benefits. The only logical move is to cut spending on public services and that's already at an all time low.

For all those who supported the government deficit targets, they also supported cuts on tax credit and cuts on public services or maybe they just didn't understand how this deficit was going to be paid off.

If i were the government, I would reduce the cuts, say that they listened to the people, and then when they don't make their targets, they now have a get out of jail free card ... job done

Andrew Lloyd Webber flew over from NY to support the tax credit cuts vote. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015...tml?1445935617

Despicable man.

'The United Nations has launched an investigation into whether welfare cuts have disproportionally hit marginalised groups in Britain such as single parents, ethnic minorities and children.

It follows a separate confidential human rights inquiry by the UN into alleged violations of disability rights following welfare reforms, though this second investigation will be held in public and is more akin to a routine checkup rather than a response to an emergency situation.
The UN’s committee on the covenant on economic, social and cultural rights (CESCR) announced on Wednesday that it planned to ask the government how it has “ensured austerity measures ... do not disproportionately affect, in particular, disadvantaged and marginalised individuals and groups”.'

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...able-uk-groups

Good one Kizzy! thanks for the link.

the tories had the publics backing at first to reduce the breed for benefits culture.....I think they are right to try and amend the whole sorry business of people only working 15 hours a week.,...but to attack the sickest the disabled is farking unforgivable....incidentally this business of the lords...Cameron has put in over 200 new peers and is now getting an unelected peer to investigate why unelected peers should have no powers....the irony is unreal

Because he wants a peerage to mean nothing, he has created peers from people he has used to further the conservatives, thanks for the donations here is your cloak.
It could too be argued that he has created a 'Trojan horse', they are plants, as long as they toe the party line they're ok.
If not the govt will do their best to remove them.