politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Lords vote to delay, not kill, Osborne’s tax credits pl

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Lords vote to delay, not kill, Osborne’s tax credits plan

The motion to delay the tax credits changes which has been agreed pic.twitter.com/fpOjbsHnxU

Read the full story here

foxinsoxuk

First!

not_on_fire

Great news for aspiring Tory peers

TheKrakenAwakes

Would the fatal motion have passed with Labour support - if so there'll be repurcussions

felix

looks like the LDs have been outflanked by Labour this time

The_Apocalypse

Arguably, the problem is not a desire to make people less dependent on tax-credits, and to stop corporate welfare, but rather the way this government is doing it. The common sense way, was always, in assisting those who do work, to phase out tax credits.

In any case, if the Tories decide they won't reform their plans at all, then as per Fraser Nelson's article in The Spectator, it looks grim in the long-term for the government.

Big_G_NorthWales

TheKrakenAwakes said:

Would the fatal motion have passed with Labour support - if so there'll be repurcussions

I don't think they like each other !!!

The_Apocalypse

I think the lack of Labour support for the LD motion is by and large because of Labour resentment towards them re the coalition more than anything else. It's incredibly petty.

david_herdson

TheKrakenAwakes said:

Would the fatal motion have passed with Labour support - if so there'll be repurcussions

On the basis that the second motion passed then yes, in theory. But of course we'll never know whether (1) Labour could have marshalled all their peers present into the lobby and (2) whether those bishops and crossbenchers who voted for the Lib Dems would have stood firm were there actually a chance of it succeeding rather than just making a point.

Not that is would have been fatal. Osborne could have brought the measure back in the Budget.

Jonathan

Good politics from Labour.

TheKrakenAwakes

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

Would the fatal motion have passed with Labour support - if so there'll be repurcussions

I don't think they like each other !!!

Indeed...if it's the case that the fatal motion would have passed with Labour support then it's a shame 3 million working families will lose out because of Labour's reluctance to vote in favour

HYUFD

Osborne can live with a delay at the beginning of a five year parliament, then make some token concessions and pass the proposals, crucially he has avoided the total block the LDs proposed

isam

Carswell/UKIP view on tax credits

http://www.talkcarswell.com/

Big_G_NorthWales

TheKrakenAwakes said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

Would the fatal motion have passed with Labour support - if so there'll be repurcussions

I don't think they like each other !!!

Indeed...if it's the case that the fatal motion would have passed with Labour support then it's a shame 3 million working families will lose out because of Labour's reluctance to vote in favour

It seems to me that mitigation towards the problem will be put in place, probably in the Autumn Statement

Roger

The story isn't Labour tactics but Osborne's humiliation. Even Tory Lords couldn't bring themselves to support his complete disregard for the poor.

MikeL

HYUFD said:

Osborne can live with a delay at the beginning of a five year parliament, then make some token concessions and pass the proposals, crucially he has avoided the total block the LDs proposed

It may not make any difference in practice - I suspect they will just completely abandon the Statutory Instrument anyway and put whatever they decide to do in a Welfare Bill / Finance Bill.

foxinsoxuk

isam said:

Carswell/UKIP view on tax credits

"Where does UKIP stand on tax credit reform?

I'm supporting Frank Field's proposals on tax credit reform. Why?

Firstly, because Frank's proposals mean that we still get the changes to the tax credit system that we need.

Tax credits were introduced as a way of topping up the income of those on low pay. But it has ended up as an excuse for employers to pay people low wages – in the knowledge public money will be used to top it up. What started as a way of trying to help those on low incomes has become a system of corporate welfare. Big business gets the taxpayer to subsidise their payroll.


http://www.talkcarswell.com/

Has Carswell discussed the issue with Farage or has he made up his own policy?

isam

foxinsoxuk said:

isam said:

Carswell/UKIP view on tax credits

"Where does UKIP stand on tax credit reform?

I'm supporting Frank Field's proposals on tax credit reform. Why?

Firstly, because Frank's proposals mean that we still get the changes to the tax credit system that we need.

Tax credits were introduced as a way of topping up the income of those on low pay. But it has ended up as an excuse for employers to pay people low wages – in the knowledge public money will be used to top it up. What started as a way of trying to help those on low incomes has become a system of corporate welfare. Big business gets the taxpayer to subsidise their payroll.


http://www.talkcarswell.com/

Has Carswell discussed the issue with Farage or has he made up his own policy?

Oh he text me last night to say....

How the fuck would I know??!!

foxinsoxuk

isam said:

foxinsoxuk said:

isam said:

Carswell/UKIP view on tax credits

"Where does UKIP stand on tax credit reform?

I'm supporting Frank Field's proposals on tax credit reform. Why?

Firstly, because Frank's proposals mean that we still get the changes to the tax credit system that we need.

Tax credits were introduced as a way of topping up the income of those on low pay. But it has ended up as an excuse for employers to pay people low wages – in the knowledge public money will be used to top it up. What started as a way of trying to help those on low incomes has become a system of corporate welfare. Big business gets the taxpayer to subsidise their payroll.


http://www.talkcarswell.com/

Has Carswell discussed the issue with Farage or has he made up his own policy?

Oh he text me last night to say....

How the fuck would I know??!!

Just that Carswell is not always following the party line!

MikeL

Roger said:

The story isn't Labour tactics but Osborne's humiliation. Even Tory Lords couldn't bring themselves to support his complete disregard for the poor.

Not sure how you know that given that the Division results aren't yet out.

The total turnout was very high on all sides - I doubt any (or hardly any) Con Peers voted against.

Lab + LD have 75 Peers more than Con.

So for Con to lose by 30 on Meacher and 17 on Hollis implies they got way over 50% of Crossbenchers who voted.

Razedabode

What an idiot Osborne is. Should have had transitional controls from the start. GOICWNBPM

TheKrakenAwakes

isam said:

Carswell/UKIP view on tax credits

"Where does UKIP stand on tax credit reform?

I'm supporting Frank Field's proposals on tax credit reform. Why?

Firstly, because Frank's proposals mean that we still get the changes to the tax credit system that we need.

Tax credits were introduced as a way of topping up the income of those on low pay. But it has ended up as an excuse for employers to pay people low wages – in the knowledge public money will be used to top it up. What started as a way of trying to help those on low incomes has become a system of corporate welfare. Big business gets the taxpayer to subsidise their payroll.


http://www.talkcarswell.com/

Judging from the absolute ignorance of 90% of people on tax credits I simply don't believe this rubbish. I first heard it from my local MP a few months ago.

Do you really think that a care-worker's wages are so low because of tax credits? Of course not...they're low because firstly councils have squeezed the care worker's employers so tight as a result of Central Government's funding cuts and secondly because if the care worker asks for more then the employer will soon find someone else to take on their role.

MikeL

What this also shows is that Con don't need another 100+ Con Peers - if they can get another 30 to 40 they'll be competitive in the Lords.

Cameron should be able to do that over the next 18 to 24 months in a low key way without any big bang announcement.

Big_G_NorthWales

TheKrakenAwakes said:

isam said:

Carswell/UKIP view on tax credits

"Where does UKIP stand on tax credit reform?

I'm supporting Frank Field's proposals on tax credit reform. Why?

Firstly, because Frank's proposals mean that we still get the changes to the tax credit system that we need.

Tax credits were introduced as a way of topping up the income of those on low pay. But it has ended up as an excuse for employers to pay people low wages – in the knowledge public money will be used to top it up. What started as a way of trying to help those on low incomes has become a system of corporate welfare. Big business gets the taxpayer to subsidise their payroll.


http://www.talkcarswell.com/

Judging from the absolute ignorance of 90% of people on tax credits I simply don't believe this rubbish. I first heard it from my local MP a few months ago.

Do you really think that a care-worker's wages are so low because of tax credits? Of course not...they're low because firstly councils have squeezed the care worker's employers so tight as a result of Central Government's funding cuts and secondly because if the care worker asks for more then the employer will soon find someone else to take on their role.

Care workers will be big gainers over the next five years with the new national living wage

HYUFD

MikeL said:

HYUFD said:

Osborne can live with a delay at the beginning of a five year parliament, then make some token concessions and pass the proposals, crucially he has avoided the total block the LDs proposed

It may not make any difference in practice - I suspect they will just completely abandon the Statutory Instrument anyway and put whatever they decide to do in a Welfare Bill / Finance Bill.

Indeed and with the Lords just looking to delay anyway once in Statute it will pass eventually

foxinsoxuk

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

isam said:

Carswell/UKIP view on tax credits

"Where does UKIP stand on tax credit reform?

I'm supporting Frank Field's proposals on tax credit reform. Why?

Firstly, because Frank's proposals mean that we still get the changes to the tax credit system that we need.

Tax credits were introduced as a way of topping up the income of those on low pay. But it has ended up as an excuse for employers to pay people low wages – in the knowledge public money will be used to top it up. What started as a way of trying to help those on low incomes has become a system of corporate welfare. Big business gets the taxpayer to subsidise their payroll.


http://www.talkcarswell.com/

Judging from the absolute ignorance of 90% of people on tax credits I simply don't believe this rubbish. I first heard it from my local MP a few months ago.

Do you really think that a care-worker's wages are so low because of tax credits? Of course not...they're low because firstly councils have squeezed the care worker's employers so tight as a result of Central Government's funding cuts and secondly because if the care worker asks for more then the employer will soon find someone else to take on their role.

Care workers will be big gainers over the next five years with the new national living wage

Care homes will be the big losers as they go bust.

chestnut

There must be a reasonable chance that the benefit cap exemption that kicks in at 16 hours will be raised to require a higher minimum work threshold.

MaxPB

Jonathan said:

Good politics from Labour.

Not really, they could be seen as supporting the measure but playing politics with it.

notme

foxinsoxuk said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

isam said:

Carswell/UKIP view on tax credits

"Where does UKIP stand on tax credit reform?

I'm supporting Frank Field's proposals on tax credit reform. Why?

Firstly, because Frank's proposals mean that we still get the changes to the tax credit system that we need.

Tax credits were introduced as a way of topping up the income of those on low pay. But it has ended up as an excuse for employers to pay people low wages – in the knowledge public money will be used to top it up. What started as a way of trying to help those on low incomes has become a system of corporate welfare. Big business gets the taxpayer to subsidise their payroll.


http://www.talkcarswell.com/

Judging from the absolute ignorance of 90% of people on tax credits I simply don't believe this rubbish. I first heard it from my local MP a few months ago.

Do you really think that a care-worker's wages are so low because of tax credits? Of course not...they're low because firstly councils have squeezed the care worker's employers so tight as a result of Central Government's funding cuts and secondly because if the care worker asks for more then the employer will soon find someone else to take on their role.

Care workers will be big gainers over the next five years with the new national living wage

Care homes will be the big losers as they go bust.

This is a major issue, ive been told that the cost is over an extra £100 per bed per week... This isnt by some big bad corporate private care provider, but a small trust that is not for profit.

TheKrakenAwakes

foxinsoxuk said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

isam said:

Carswell/UKIP view on tax credits

"Where does UKIP stand on tax credit reform?

I'm supporting Frank Field's proposals on tax credit reform. Why?

Firstly, because Frank's proposals mean that we still get the changes to the tax credit system that we need.

Tax credits were introduced as a way of topping up the income of those on low pay. But it has ended up as an excuse for employers to pay people low wages – in the knowledge public money will be used to top it up. What started as a way of trying to help those on low incomes has become a system of corporate welfare. Big business gets the taxpayer to subsidise their payroll.


http://www.talkcarswell.com/

Judging from the absolute ignorance of 90% of people on tax credits I simply don't believe this rubbish. I first heard it from my local MP a few months ago.

Do you really think that a care-worker's wages are so low because of tax credits? Of course not...they're low because firstly councils have squeezed the care worker's employers so tight as a result of Central Government's funding cuts and secondly because if the care worker asks for more then the employer will soon find someone else to take on their role.

Care workers will be big gainers over the next five years with the new national living wage

Care homes will be the big losers as they go bust.

I agree...there is no way that council funding is going to increase...it's a perfect storm approaching on that front

Big_G_NorthWales

MikeL said:

What this also shows is that Con don't need another 100+ Con Peers - if they can get another 30 to 40 they'll be competitive in the Lords.

Cameron should be able to do that over the next 18 to 24 months in a low key way without any big bang announcement.

And it has been suggested that the House of Commons will pass legislation to prevent the Lords ever being able to pass judgement on any finance or welfare matters in the future

isam

foxinsoxuk said:

isam said:

foxinsoxuk said:

isam said:

Carswell/UKIP view on tax credits

"Where does UKIP stand on tax credit reform?

I'm supporting Frank Field's proposals on tax credit reform. Why?

Firstly, because Frank's proposals mean that we still get the changes to the tax credit system that we need.

Tax credits were introduced as a way of topping up the income of those on low pay. But it has ended up as an excuse for employers to pay people low wages – in the knowledge public money will be used to top it up. What started as a way of trying to help those on low incomes has become a system of corporate welfare. Big business gets the taxpayer to subsidise their payroll.


http://www.talkcarswell.com/

Has Carswell discussed the issue with Farage or has he made up his own policy?

Oh he text me last night to say....

How the fuck would I know??!!

Just that Carswell is not always following the party line!

Haha yes I know just kidding

He is a thoughtful, independent minded person, I say UKIP should pretty much let him do as he pleases

TheKrakenAwakes

notme said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

isam said:

Carswell/UKIP view on tax credits

"Where does UKIP stand on tax credit reform?

I'm supporting Frank Field's proposals on tax credit reform. Why?

Firstly, because Frank's proposals mean that we still get the changes to the tax credit system that we need.

Tax credits were introduced as a way of topping up the income of those on low pay. But it has ended up as an excuse for employers to pay people low wages – in the knowledge public money will be used to top it up. What started as a way of trying to help those on low incomes has become a system of corporate welfare. Big business gets the taxpayer to subsidise their payroll.


http://www.talkcarswell.com/

Judging from the absolute ignorance of 90% of people on tax credits I simply don't believe this rubbish. I first heard it from my local MP a few months ago.

Do you really think that a care-worker's wages are so low because of tax credits? Of course not...they're low because firstly councils have squeezed the care worker's employers so tight as a result of Central Government's funding cuts and secondly because if the care worker asks for more then the employer will soon find someone else to take on their role.

Care workers will be big gainers over the next five years with the new national living wage

Care homes will be the big losers as they go bust.

This is a major issue, ive been told that the cost is over an extra £100 per bed per week... This isnt by some big bad corporate private care provider, but a small trust that is not for profit.

It's the home care businesses that will suffer...already being squeezed by local authorities.

foxinsoxuk

notme said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

isam said:

Carswell/UKIP view on tax credits

"Where does UKIP stand on tax credit reform?

I'm supporting Frank Field's proposals on tax credit reform. Why?

Firstly, because Frank's proposals mean that we still get the changes to the tax credit system that we need.

Tax credits were introduced as a way of topping up the income of those on low pay. But it has ended up as an excuse for employers to pay people low wages – in the knowledge public money will be used to top it up. What started as a way of trying to help those on low incomes has become a system of corporate welfare. Big business gets the taxpayer to subsidise their payroll.


http://www.talkcarswell.com/

Judging from the absolute ignorance of 90% of people on tax credits I simply don't believe this rubbish. I first heard it from my local MP a few months ago.

Do you really think that a care-worker's wages are so low because of tax credits? Of course not...they're low because firstly councils have squeezed the care worker's employers so tight as a result of Central Government's funding cuts and secondly because if the care worker asks for more then the employer will soon find someone else to take on their role.

Care workers will be big gainers over the next five years with the new national living wage

Care homes will be the big losers as they go bust.

This is a major issue, ive been told that the cost is over an extra £100 per bed per week... This isnt by some big bad corporate private care provider, but a small trust that is not for profit.

notme

TheKrakenAwakes said:

isam said:

Carswell/UKIP view on tax credits

"Where does UKIP stand on tax credit reform?

I'm supporting Frank Field's proposals on tax credit reform. Why?

Firstly, because Frank's proposals mean that we still get the changes to the tax credit system that we need.

Tax credits were introduced as a way of topping up the income of those on low pay. But it has ended up as an excuse for employers to pay people low wages – in the knowledge public money will be used to top it up. What started as a way of trying to help those on low incomes has become a system of corporate welfare. Big business gets the taxpayer to subsidise their payroll.


http://www.talkcarswell.com/

Judging from the absolute ignorance of 90% of people on tax credits I simply don't believe this rubbish. I first heard it from my local MP a few months ago.

Do you really think that a care-worker's wages are so low because of tax credits? Of course not...they're low because firstly councils have squeezed the care worker's employers so tight as a result of Central Government's funding cuts and secondly because if the care worker asks for more then the employer will soon find someone else to take on their role.

Are "funding cuts" the new reason for everything? Care workers pay has been very low for a long time before the coalition. It is low because there is no shortage of people willing to do it.

My local social services (adult services) is blaming the fact that is has been told it is pretty much inadequate in every possible metric, on 'funding cuts', but it has been awful for more than a generation. It was awful before the big public sector largesse, and it was awful during it, and not unsurprisingly, in a period of consolidation and reductions, it is still crap.

slade

I was very impressed by Farida Manzoor - a new Lib Dem star? An interesting women - came to Britain and trained as a nurse. Ended up as chair of the Bradford Health Authority and regional director of the NHS. Also found time to be the Legal Services Ombudsman.

Dadge

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MikeL said:

What this also shows is that Con don't need another 100+ Con Peers - if they can get another 30 to 40 they'll be competitive in the Lords.

Cameron should be able to do that over the next 18 to 24 months in a low key way without any big bang announcement.

And it has been suggested that the House of Commons will pass legislation to prevent the Lords ever being able to pass judgement on any finance or welfare matters in the future

What about legislation to stop governments in their first year going back on the policy platform they presented to the electorate? Saying one thing and doing another is hypocritical of course, but it's also electoral fraud.

notme

Razedabode said:

What an idiot Osborne is. Should have had transitional controls from the start. GOICWNBPM

We tried to warn him at conference. I had numerous conversations with ministers, whips, backbenchers, my own mp (who is a minister) and a neighbouring MP i campaigned to get re-elected. You cant take £1,300 off people in one go. It's the equivalent of knocking up the income tax basic rate form 20% to 30% in one year for the average salary. You wouldnt do it.

Danny565

Tom Newton Dunn ‏@tnewtondunn 8m8 minutes ago
George Osborne's #taxcredits defeat tonight was long coming, but he refused to see it. Flawed personal judgement, a serious reputation blow.

Big_G_NorthWales

TheKrakenAwakes said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

isam said:

Carswell/UKIP view on tax credits

"Where does UKIP stand on tax credit reform?

I'm supporting Frank Field's proposals on tax credit reform. Why?

Firstly, because Frank's proposals mean that we still get the changes to the tax credit system that we need.

Tax credits were introduced as a way of topping up the income of those on low pay. But it has ended up as an excuse for employers to pay people low wages – in the knowledge public money will be used to top it up. What started as a way of trying to help those on low incomes has become a system of corporate welfare. Big business gets the taxpayer to subsidise their payroll.


http://www.talkcarswell.com/

Judging from the absolute ignorance of 90% of people on tax credits I simply don't believe this rubbish. I first heard it from my local MP a few months ago.

Do you really think that a care-worker's wages are so low because of tax credits? Of course not...they're low because firstly councils have squeezed the care worker's employers so tight as a result of Central Government's funding cuts and secondly because if the care worker asks for more then the employer will soon find someone else to take on their role.

Care workers will be big gainers over the next five years with the new national living wage

Care homes will be the big losers as they go bust.

I agree...there is no way that council funding is going to increase...it's a perfect storm approaching on that front

My sister's nursing home closed last year suddenly notwithstanding the £695 per week the Wales CHC were paying. Private patients were paying upto £300 extra a week and it still closed. Indeed care homes are closing weekly and it is a very serious problem. I have no idea how this problem is solved and in my opinion neither do any of the politicians of all parties

Dadge

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

isam said:

Carswell/UKIP view on tax credits

"Where does UKIP stand on tax credit reform?

I'm supporting Frank Field's proposals on tax credit reform. Why?

Firstly, because Frank's proposals mean that we still get the changes to the tax credit system that we need.

Tax credits were introduced as a way of topping up the income of those on low pay. But it has ended up as an excuse for employers to pay people low wages – in the knowledge public money will be used to top it up. What started as a way of trying to help those on low incomes has become a system of corporate welfare. Big business gets the taxpayer to subsidise their payroll.


http://www.talkcarswell.com/

Judging from the absolute ignorance of 90% of people on tax credits I simply don't believe this rubbish. I first heard it from my local MP a few months ago.

Do you really think that a care-worker's wages are so low because of tax credits? Of course not...they're low because firstly councils have squeezed the care worker's employers so tight as a result of Central Government's funding cuts and secondly because if the care worker asks for more then the employer will soon find someone else to take on their role.

Care workers will be big gainers over the next five years with the new national living wage

with the *increase in the minimum wage* (to a level well below what is generally accepted to be the living wage).

MikeL

chestnut said:

There must be a reasonable chance that the benefit cap exemption that kicks in at 16 hours will be raised to require a higher minimum work threshold.

Which is itself a crazy provision.

If there is a benefit cap of £23,000 why should anyone be able to earn a salary AND then ON TOP claim benefits of more than £23,000?

The benefit cap should apply to everyone.

OchEye

I have to disagree with OGH, to completely oppose the cuts by Fatally Blocking the bill would have played into Osborne's hands. This way the Labour party are seen to be trying to be helpful while the Tories are seen to be a pack of wolverines.

TheKrakenAwakes

notme said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

isam said:

Carswell/UKIP view on tax credits

"Where does UKIP stand on tax credit reform?

I'm supporting Frank Field's proposals on tax credit reform. Why?

Firstly, because Frank's proposals mean that we still get the changes to the tax credit system that we need.

Tax credits were introduced as a way of topping up the income of those on low pay. But it has ended up as an excuse for employers to pay people low wages – in the knowledge public money will be used to top it up. What started as a way of trying to help those on low incomes has become a system of corporate welfare. Big business gets the taxpayer to subsidise their payroll.


http://www.talkcarswell.com/

Judging from the absolute ignorance of 90% of people on tax credits I simply don't believe this rubbish. I first heard it from my local MP a few months ago.

Do you really think that a care-worker's wages are so low because of tax credits? Of course not...they're low because firstly councils have squeezed the care worker's employers so tight as a result of Central Government's funding cuts and secondly because if the care worker asks for more then the employer will soon find someone else to take on their role.

Are "funding cuts" the new reason for everything? Care workers pay has been very low for a long time before the coalition. It is low because there is no shortage of people willing to do it.

My local social services (adult services) is blaming the fact that is has been told it is pretty much inadequate in every possible metric, on 'funding cuts', but it has been awful for more than a generation. It was awful before the big public sector largesse, and it was awful during it, and not unsurprisingly, in a period of consolidation and reductions, it is still crap.

Having worked in the sector I can assure you that you are absolutely wrong. There is a shortage of people willing to do it...to the extent that one company I was involved in was obliged to look to Bulgaria for workers...not by choice but by necessity. They simply could not recruit and there wages were well above minimum wage. Council contracts are so tight now that most home care companies are concentrating on private clients - the whole sector is in danger of going "tits up" in the not too distant future

Pulpstar

notme said:

It is low because there is no shortage of people willing to do it.

I guess that's true - I find it surprising that so many people wish to literally clear up other people's shit though. I'd much rather be an anonymous shelf stacker in Tesco if I had to choose a low wage job.

Big_G_NorthWales

Dadge said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MikeL said:

What this also shows is that Con don't need another 100+ Con Peers - if they can get another 30 to 40 they'll be competitive in the Lords.

Cameron should be able to do that over the next 18 to 24 months in a low key way without any big bang announcement.

And it has been suggested that the House of Commons will pass legislation to prevent the Lords ever being able to pass judgement on any finance or welfare matters in the future

What about legislation to stop governments in their first year going back on the policy platform they presented to the electorate? Saying one thing and doing another is hypocritical of course, but it's also electoral fraud.

Well if you carry that to it's logical conclusion there will be no governments in power as they all do it

Moses_

Dadge said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MikeL said:

What this also shows is that Con don't need another 100+ Con Peers - if they can get another 30 to 40 they'll be competitive in the Lords.

Cameron should be able to do that over the next 18 to 24 months in a low key way without any big bang announcement.

And it has been suggested that the House of Commons will pass legislation to prevent the Lords ever being able to pass judgement on any finance or welfare matters in the future

What about legislation to stop governments in their first year going back on the policy platform they presented to the electorate? Saying one thing and doing another is hypocritical of course, but it's also electoral fraud.

You missed the reduction of 12 billion in welfare then. Ok

MP_SE

notme said:

Razedabode said:

What an idiot Osborne is. Should have had transitional controls from the start. GOICWNBPM

We tried to warn him at conference. I had numerous conversations with ministers, whips, backbenchers, my own mp (who is a minister) and a neighbouring MP i campaigned to get re-elected. You cant take £1,300 off people in one go. It's the equivalent of knocking up the income tax basic rate form 20% to 30% in one year for the average salary. You wouldnt do it.

They do not see it that way. All losing £1,300 means to the likes of George Osborne is having a few less bottles of Chateau Lafite in the wine cellar.

MikeL

Result of key Hollis vote:

For Hollis:
Bishops - 1
Crossbench - 33
Lab - 160
LD - 80
Other - 14
TOTAL - 289

Against Hollis:
Bishops - 1
Con - 214
Crossbench - 51
Lab - 1
Others - 4
TOTAL - 272

That was a massive Con turnout- much, much better than Lab.

Lab only won because they got fair number of Crossbench.

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

foxinsoxuk

Pulpstar said:

notme said:

It is low because there is no shortage of people willing to do it.

I guess that's true - I find it surprising that so many people wish to literally clear up other people's shit though. I'd much rather be an anonymous shelf stacker in Tesco if I had to choose a low wage job.

Which is why so many care home workers come from Eastern Europe. Looking after the elderly is more valued in socially conservative societies.

TheKrakenAwakes

notme said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

isam said:

Carswell/UKIP view on tax credits

"Where does UKIP stand on tax credit reform?

I'm supporting Frank Field's proposals on tax credit reform. Why?

Firstly, because Frank's proposals mean that we still get the changes to the tax credit system that we need.

Tax credits were introduced as a way of topping up the income of those on low pay. But it has ended up as an excuse for employers to pay people low wages – in the knowledge public money will be used to top it up. What started as a way of trying to help those on low incomes has become a system of corporate welfare. Big business gets the taxpayer to subsidise their payroll.


http://www.talkcarswell.com/

Judging from the absolute ignorance of 90% of people on tax credits I simply don't believe this rubbish. I first heard it from my local MP a few months ago.

Do you really think that a care-worker's wages are so low because of tax credits? Of course not...they're low because firstly councils have squeezed the care worker's employers so tight as a result of Central Government's funding cuts and secondly because if the care worker asks for more then the employer will soon find someone else to take on their role.

Are "funding cuts" the new reason for everything? Care workers pay has been very low for a long time before the coalition. It is low because there is no shortage of people willing to do it.

My local social services (adult services) is blaming the fact that is has been told it is pretty much inadequate in every possible metric, on 'funding cuts', but it has been awful for more than a generation. It was awful before the big public sector largesse, and it was awful during it, and not unsurprisingly, in a period of consolidation and reductions, it is still crap.

Back in 2013 councils were paying around £12.50 per hour...what sort of margin is going to be attainable for employers on that sort of figure

Big_G_NorthWales

Dadge said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

isam said:

Carswell/UKIP view on tax credits

"Where does UKIP stand on tax credit reform?

I'm supporting Frank Field's proposals on tax credit reform. Why?

Firstly, because Frank's proposals mean that we still get the changes to the tax credit system that we need.

Tax credits were introduced as a way of topping up the income of those on low pay. But it has ended up as an excuse for employers to pay people low wages – in the knowledge public money will be used to top it up. What started as a way of trying to help those on low incomes has become a system of corporate welfare. Big business gets the taxpayer to subsidise their payroll.


http://www.talkcarswell.com/

Judging from the absolute ignorance of 90% of people on tax credits I simply don't believe this rubbish. I first heard it from my local MP a few months ago.

Do you really think that a care-worker's wages are so low because of tax credits? Of course not...they're low because firstly councils have squeezed the care worker's employers so tight as a result of Central Government's funding cuts and secondly because if the care worker asks for more then the employer will soon find someone else to take on their role.

Care workers will be big gainers over the next five years with the new national living wage

with the *increase in the minimum wage* (to a level well below what is generally accepted to be the living wage).

The living wage is an aspiration that hopefully more employers will adopt and towards the end of this Parliament I can see the Chancellor merging the national living wage with the aspirational living wage

MikeL

Meacher vote:

For Meacher:
Bishops - 3
Crossbench - 41
Lab - 164
LD - 83
Other - 16
TOTAL - 307

Against Meacher:
Con - 217
Crossbench - 51
Lab - 4
Others - 5
TOTAL - 277

So 8 Crossbench who voted for Meacher then abstained on Hollis.

4 Lab, 3 LD and 3 Con went home after the Meacher vote!

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

Roger

TKA makes a very good point. All this talk of subsidizing poor employers is bullshit. Most claimants seem to be either self employed or public service workers or women with children who can only work part time.

More soup kitchens needed

MikeL

I suspect the vote tonight was an all time record for attendance of Con Peers (at least since abolition of most hereditaries).

The Con attendance was quite extraordinary - but not enough as they needed more Crossbenchers.

chestnut

MikeL said:

chestnut said:

There must be a reasonable chance that the benefit cap exemption that kicks in at 16 hours will be raised to require a higher minimum work threshold.

Which is itself a crazy provision.

If there is a benefit cap of £23,000 why should anyone be able to earn a salary AND then ON TOP claim benefits of more than £23,000?

The benefit cap should apply to everyone.

I suspect that is coming, and has probably been accelerated by tonight.

When the public get wind of 276,000 families with four or more children drawing an average of £14,000 a year in tax credits in addition to housing benefit, child benefit etc, sympathy will soon run dry.

notme

Roger said:

TKA makes a very good point. All this talk of subsidizing poor employers is bullshit. Most seem to be either self employed or public service workers. Or women who have children and can only work part time.

More soup kitchens needed

"more soup kitchens"? The local churches together organised a soup kitchen and soup run last year. There was no shortage of volunteers, however, they couldnt actually find anyone to give soup to.

There seems to be some strange vision of Britain that some on the left have, that it is some Dickensian nightmare with women and children in dirt poverty regularly sleeping on the streets. Total nonsense.

TheKrakenAwakes

notme said:

Roger said:

TKA makes a very good point. All this talk of subsidizing poor employers is bullshit. Most seem to be either self employed or public service workers. Or women who have children and can only work part time.

More soup kitchens needed

"more soup kitchens"? The local churches together organised a soup kitchen and soup run last year. There was no shortage of volunteers, however, they couldnt actually find anyone to give soup to.

There seems to be some strange vision of Britain that some on the left have, that it is some Dickensian nightmare with women and children in dirt poverty regularly sleeping on the streets. Total nonsense.

Depends where you live...where do you live?

Pulpstar

chestnut said:

MikeL said:

chestnut said:

There must be a reasonable chance that the benefit cap exemption that kicks in at 16 hours will be raised to require a higher minimum work threshold.

Which is itself a crazy provision.

If there is a benefit cap of £23,000 why should anyone be able to earn a salary AND then ON TOP claim benefits of more than £23,000?

The benefit cap should apply to everyone.

I suspect that is coming, and has probably been accelerated by tonight.

When the public get wind of 276,000 families with four or more children drawing an average of £14,000 a year in tax credits in addition to housing benefit, child benefit etc, sympathy will soon run dry.

Ah so that's how my neighbours afforded their caravan and extension !

rottenborough

Danny565 said:

Tom Newton Dunn ‏@tnewtondunn 8m8 minutes ago
George Osborne's #taxcredits defeat tonight was long coming, but he refused to see it. Flawed personal judgement, a serious reputation blow.

It's the Sun Wot Won It!

notme

MP_SE said:

notme said:

Razedabode said:

What an idiot Osborne is. Should have had transitional controls from the start. GOICWNBPM

We tried to warn him at conference. I had numerous conversations with ministers, whips, backbenchers, my own mp (who is a minister) and a neighbouring MP i campaigned to get re-elected. You cant take £1,300 off people in one go. It's the equivalent of knocking up the income tax basic rate form 20% to 30% in one year for the average salary. You wouldnt do it.

They do not see it that way. All losing £1,300 means to the likes of George Osborne is having a few less bottles of Chateau Lafite in the wine cellar.

I think there can be a disconnect, but all MPs hold surgeries which keep them in touch with many of the problems people have. It seems to me that someone like IDS does actually understand. It is unusual to be so rich that you'll never have to worry about having a roof over your head.

notme

Pulpstar said:

chestnut said:

MikeL said:

chestnut said:

There must be a reasonable chance that the benefit cap exemption that kicks in at 16 hours will be raised to require a higher minimum work threshold.

Which is itself a crazy provision.

If there is a benefit cap of £23,000 why should anyone be able to earn a salary AND then ON TOP claim benefits of more than £23,000?

The benefit cap should apply to everyone.

I suspect that is coming, and has probably been accelerated by tonight.

When the public get wind of 276,000 families with four or more children drawing an average of £14,000 a year in tax credits in addition to housing benefit, child benefit etc, sympathy will soon run dry.

Ah so that's how my neighbours afforded their caravan and extension !

When my wife was at university, tax credits came in very handy for our extension.

runnymede

Lib Dem stunt fails miserably...irrelevance continues

notme

TheKrakenAwakes said:

notme said:

Roger said:

TKA makes a very good point. All this talk of subsidizing poor employers is bullshit. Most seem to be either self employed or public service workers. Or women who have children and can only work part time.

More soup kitchens needed

"more soup kitchens"? The local churches together organised a soup kitchen and soup run last year. There was no shortage of volunteers, however, they couldnt actually find anyone to give soup to.

There seems to be some strange vision of Britain that some on the left have, that it is some Dickensian nightmare with women and children in dirt poverty regularly sleeping on the streets. Total nonsense.

Depends where you live...where do you live?

The area I live is bang on the national average.

Dair

The wonderful comedy and hysterical irony of a Tory Chancellor bleating about "unelected Lords" undermining his bills is just TREMENDOUS.

This is pure genius, you could not make up.

TheKrakenAwakes

notme said:

MP_SE said:

notme said:

Razedabode said:

What an idiot Osborne is. Should have had transitional controls from the start. GOICWNBPM

We tried to warn him at conference. I had numerous conversations with ministers, whips, backbenchers, my own mp (who is a minister) and a neighbouring MP i campaigned to get re-elected. You cant take £1,300 off people in one go. It's the equivalent of knocking up the income tax basic rate form 20% to 30% in one year for the average salary. You wouldnt do it.

They do not see it that way. All losing £1,300 means to the likes of George Osborne is having a few less bottles of Chateau Lafite in the wine cellar.

I think there can be a disconnect, but all MPs hold surgeries which keep them in touch with many of the problems people have. It seems to me that someone like IDS does actually understand. It is unusual to be so rich that you'll never have to worry about having a roof over your head.

Of course IDS's family are used to claiming support from the state having sucked up over a million pounds in farm subsidies to add to their enormous wealth

TheKrakenAwakes

notme said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

notme said:

Roger said:

TKA makes a very good point. All this talk of subsidizing poor employers is bullshit. Most seem to be either self employed or public service workers. Or women who have children and can only work part time.

More soup kitchens needed

"more soup kitchens"? The local churches together organised a soup kitchen and soup run last year. There was no shortage of volunteers, however, they couldnt actually find anyone to give soup to.

There seems to be some strange vision of Britain that some on the left have, that it is some Dickensian nightmare with women and children in dirt poverty regularly sleeping on the streets. Total nonsense.

Depends where you live...where do you live?

The area I live is bang on the national average.

Where's that?

notme

TheKrakenAwakes said:

notme said:

MP_SE said:

notme said:

Razedabode said:

What an idiot Osborne is. Should have had transitional controls from the start. GOICWNBPM

We tried to warn him at conference. I had numerous conversations with ministers, whips, backbenchers, my own mp (who is a minister) and a neighbouring MP i campaigned to get re-elected. You cant take £1,300 off people in one go. It's the equivalent of knocking up the income tax basic rate form 20% to 30% in one year for the average salary. You wouldnt do it.

They do not see it that way. All losing £1,300 means to the likes of George Osborne is having a few less bottles of Chateau Lafite in the wine cellar.

I think there can be a disconnect, but all MPs hold surgeries which keep them in touch with many of the problems people have. It seems to me that someone like IDS does actually understand. It is unusual to be so rich that you'll never have to worry about having a roof over your head.

Of course IDS's family are used to claiming support from the state having sucked up over a million pounds in farm subsidies to add to their enormous wealth

And? Its good to see you are a 'better off out'.

Pulpstar

notme said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

notme said:

MP_SE said:

notme said:

Razedabode said:

What an idiot Osborne is. Should have had transitional controls from the start. GOICWNBPM

We tried to warn him at conference. I had numerous conversations with ministers, whips, backbenchers, my own mp (who is a minister) and a neighbouring MP i campaigned to get re-elected. You cant take £1,300 off people in one go. It's the equivalent of knocking up the income tax basic rate form 20% to 30% in one year for the average salary. You wouldnt do it.

They do not see it that way. All losing £1,300 means to the likes of George Osborne is having a few less bottles of Chateau Lafite in the wine cellar.

I think there can be a disconnect, but all MPs hold surgeries which keep them in touch with many of the problems people have. It seems to me that someone like IDS does actually understand. It is unusual to be so rich that you'll never have to worry about having a roof over your head.

Of course IDS's family are used to claiming support from the state having sucked up over a million pounds in farm subsidies to add to their enormous wealth

And? Its good to see you are a 'better off out'.

No wonder we're in so much debt, seems everyone got alot of handouts in recent years !

TheKrakenAwakes

notme said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

notme said:

MP_SE said:

notme said:

Razedabode said:

What an idiot Osborne is. Should have had transitional controls from the start. GOICWNBPM

We tried to warn him at conference. I had numerous conversations with ministers, whips, backbenchers, my own mp (who is a minister) and a neighbouring MP i campaigned to get re-elected. You cant take £1,300 off people in one go. It's the equivalent of knocking up the income tax basic rate form 20% to 30% in one year for the average salary. You wouldnt do it.

They do not see it that way. All losing £1,300 means to the likes of George Osborne is having a few less bottles of Chateau Lafite in the wine cellar.

I think there can be a disconnect, but all MPs hold surgeries which keep them in touch with many of the problems people have. It seems to me that someone like IDS does actually understand. It is unusual to be so rich that you'll never have to worry about having a roof over your head.

Of course IDS's family are used to claiming support from the state having sucked up over a million pounds in farm subsidies to add to their enormous wealth

And? Its good to see you are a 'better off out'.

Honestly say that I am a "Don't Know"

chestnut

Roger said:

Most claimants seem to be either self employed or public service workers or women with children who can only work part time.

Yes Roger. Many are single women who can only work part time.

That's why they are doubling free childcare, so that they can work longer and end up with more money.

Does the reform - when you add in the extra free childcare - now make some sense?

It is designed to tackle under-employment and incentivise longer hours for a better net return.

A single mum on minimum wage working 16 hours is worse off under these changes if she stays on 16 hours. She hits green if she goes up to 19, and is £2,000 a year better off at 30.

Not only that, a single mum working 30 hours is more likely to achieve career progression than one working 16.

Voting against this is condemning these women to a trap where they are locked into a certain amount of work, welfare dependency and career stagnation.

notme

Pulpstar said:

notme said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

notme said:

MP_SE said:

notme said:

Razedabode said:

What an idiot Osborne is. Should have had transitional controls from the start. GOICWNBPM

We tried to warn him at conference. I had numerous conversations with ministers, whips, backbenchers, my own mp (who is a minister) and a neighbouring MP i campaigned to get re-elected. You cant take £1,300 off people in one go. It's the equivalent of knocking up the income tax basic rate form 20% to 30% in one year for the average salary. You wouldnt do it.

They do not see it that way. All losing £1,300 means to the likes of George Osborne is having a few less bottles of Chateau Lafite in the wine cellar.

I think there can be a disconnect, but all MPs hold surgeries which keep them in touch with many of the problems people have. It seems to me that someone like IDS does actually understand. It is unusual to be so rich that you'll never have to worry about having a roof over your head.

Of course IDS's family are used to claiming support from the state having sucked up over a million pounds in farm subsidies to add to their enormous wealth

And? Its good to see you are a 'better off out'.

No wonder we're in so much debt, seems everyone got alot of handouts in recent years !

And its hard as hell to roll it back. In fact pre Osborne, I kind of thought it was not possible.

Moses_

TheKrakenAwakes said:

notme said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

notme said:

Roger said:

TKA makes a very good point. All this talk of subsidizing poor employers is bullshit. Most seem to be either self employed or public service workers. Or women who have children and can only work part time.

More soup kitchens needed

"more soup kitchens"? The local churches together organised a soup kitchen and soup run last year. There was no shortage of volunteers, however, they couldnt actually find anyone to give soup to.

There seems to be some strange vision of Britain that some on the left have, that it is some Dickensian nightmare with women and children in dirt poverty regularly sleeping on the streets. Total nonsense.

Depends where you live...where do you live?

The area I live is bang on the national average.

Where's that?

National Average so obviously Just of the A 50/50

TheKrakenAwakes

Moses_ said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

notme said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

notme said:

Roger said:

TKA makes a very good point. All this talk of subsidizing poor employers is bullshit. Most seem to be either self employed or public service workers. Or women who have children and can only work part time.

More soup kitchens needed

"more soup kitchens"? The local churches together organised a soup kitchen and soup run last year. There was no shortage of volunteers, however, they couldnt actually find anyone to give soup to.

There seems to be some strange vision of Britain that some on the left have, that it is some Dickensian nightmare with women and children in dirt poverty regularly sleeping on the streets. Total nonsense.

Depends where you live...where do you live?

The area I live is bang on the national average.

Where's that?

National Average so obviously Just of the A 50/50

geographically

TheKrakenAwakes

chestnut said:

Roger said:

Most claimants seem to be either self employed or public service workers or women with children who can only work part time.

Yes Roger. Many are single women who can only work part time.

That's why they are doubling free childcare, so that they can work longer and end up with more money.

Does the reform - when you add in the extra free childcare - now make some sense?

It is designed to tackle under-employment and incentivise longer hours for a better net return.

A single mum on minimum wage working 16 hours is worse off under these changes if she stays on 16 hours. She hits green if she goes up to 19, and is £2,000 a year better off at 30.

Not only that, a single mum working 30 hours is more likely to achieve career progression than one working 16.

Voting against this is condemning these women to a trap where they are locked into a certain amount of work, welfare dependency and career stagnation.

Tell me...when is the doubling of free childcare coming in?

chestnut

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-brings-forward-plans-to-double-free-childcare-for-working-families

MaxPB

I also think this is a trap for Labour, I now expect the government to make 100 or so Tory peers. Young ones as well.

Pulpstar

MaxPB said:

I also think this is a trap for Labour, I now expect the government to make 100 or so Tory peers. Young ones as well.

Then when Labour gets in they just stuff another 120 in on their side.

It is the most ridiculous game.

MaxPB

TheKrakenAwakes said:

chestnut said:

Roger said:

Most claimants seem to be either self employed or public service workers or women with children who can only work part time.

Yes Roger. Many are single women who can only work part time.

That's why they are doubling free childcare, so that they can work longer and end up with more money.

Does the reform - when you add in the extra free childcare - now make some sense?

It is designed to tackle under-employment and incentivise longer hours for a better net return.

A single mum on minimum wage working 16 hours is worse off under these changes if she stays on 16 hours. She hits green if she goes up to 19, and is £2,000 a year better off at 30.

Not only that, a single mum working 30 hours is more likely to achieve career progression than one working 16.

Voting against this is condemning these women to a trap where they are locked into a certain amount of work, welfare dependency and career stagnation.

Tell me...when is the doubling of free childcare coming in?

April 2016.

Moses_

I

TheKrakenAwakes said:

Moses_ said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

notme said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

notme said:

Roger said:

TKA makes a very good point. All this talk of subsidizing poor employers is bullshit. Most seem to be either self employed or public service workers. Or women who have children and can only work part time.

More soup kitchens needed

"more soup kitchens"? The local churches together organised a soup kitchen and soup run last year. There was no shortage of volunteers, however, they couldnt actually find anyone to give soup to.

There seems to be some strange vision of Britain that some on the left have, that it is some Dickensian nightmare with women and children in dirt poverty regularly sleeping on the streets. Total nonsense.

Depends where you live...where do you live?

The area I live is bang on the national average.

Where's that?

National Average so obviously Just of the A 50/50

geographically

If national average then could be Little Middling? Could even be Par ....? It's a mystery..

TheKrakenAwakes

chestnut said:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-brings-forward-plans-to-double-free-childcare-for-working-families

Yes...it's been announced they will do it...but when. Last I heard the funding hadn't been worked out and the trade body were warning that it would be unlikely that nurseries could afford to provide the care.

Of course it only refers to 3 and 4 year olds...so no good if your child is under 3

SandyRentool

So now Osborne can make his u-turn, but blame it all on unelected Lords.

Master strategist, or what?

foxinsoxuk

Pulpstar said:

MaxPB said:

I also think this is a trap for Labour, I now expect the government to make 100 or so Tory peers. Young ones as well.

Then when Labour gets in they just stuff another 120 in on their side.

It is the most ridiculous game.

We should shrink the Lords with a Big Brother type vote on a weekly basis. Vote out the duds!

TheKrakenAwakes

MaxPB said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

chestnut said:

Roger said:

Most claimants seem to be either self employed or public service workers or women with children who can only work part time.

Yes Roger. Many are single women who can only work part time.

That's why they are doubling free childcare, so that they can work longer and end up with more money.

Does the reform - when you add in the extra free childcare - now make some sense?

It is designed to tackle under-employment and incentivise longer hours for a better net return.

A single mum on minimum wage working 16 hours is worse off under these changes if she stays on 16 hours. She hits green if she goes up to 19, and is £2,000 a year better off at 30.

Not only that, a single mum working 30 hours is more likely to achieve career progression than one working 16.

Voting against this is condemning these women to a trap where they are locked into a certain amount of work, welfare dependency and career stagnation.

Tell me...when is the doubling of free childcare coming in?

April 2016.

http://www.itv.com/news/2015-08-26/doubling-free-child-care-is-unaffordable-nurseries-say/

bigjohnowls

Danny565 said:

Tom Newton Dunn ‏@tnewtondunn 8m8 minutes ago
George Osborne's #taxcredits defeat tonight was long coming, but he refused to see it. Flawed personal judgement, a serious reputation blow.

I am in Bond but
OICWNBPM

Jonathan

Tories really missing the LDs. Would have avoided this defeat during coalition.

foxinsoxuk

TheKrakenAwakes said:

MaxPB said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

chestnut said:

Roger said:

Most claimants seem to be either self employed or public service workers or women with children who can only work part time.

Yes Roger. Many are single women who can only work part time.

That's why they are doubling free childcare, so that they can work longer and end up with more money.

Does the reform - when you add in the extra free childcare - now make some sense?

It is designed to tackle under-employment and incentivise longer hours for a better net return.

A single mum on minimum wage working 16 hours is worse off under these changes if she stays on 16 hours. She hits green if she goes up to 19, and is £2,000 a year better off at 30.

Not only that, a single mum working 30 hours is more likely to achieve career progression than one working 16.

Voting against this is condemning these women to a trap where they are locked into a certain amount of work, welfare dependency and career stagnation.

Tell me...when is the doubling of free childcare coming in?

April 2016.

http://www.itv.com/news/2015-08-26/doubling-free-child-care-is-unaffordable-nurseries-say/

Cut the CTC then spend the taxpayers money paying someone else on minimum wage to look after the children of the first person. Genius!

TheKrakenAwakes

MaxPB said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

chestnut said:

Roger said:

Most claimants seem to be either self employed or public service workers or women with children who can only work part time.

Yes Roger. Many are single women who can only work part time.

That's why they are doubling free childcare, so that they can work longer and end up with more money.

Does the reform - when you add in the extra free childcare - now make some sense?

It is designed to tackle under-employment and incentivise longer hours for a better net return.

A single mum on minimum wage working 16 hours is worse off under these changes if she stays on 16 hours. She hits green if she goes up to 19, and is £2,000 a year better off at 30.

Not only that, a single mum working 30 hours is more likely to achieve career progression than one working 16.

Voting against this is condemning these women to a trap where they are locked into a certain amount of work, welfare dependency and career stagnation.

Tell me...when is the doubling of free childcare coming in?

April 2016.

It's another measure that isn't quite what it makes out to be...as there's only funding for 38 weeks of the year..

Charles

TheKrakenAwakes said:

notme said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

isam said:

Carswell/UKIP view on tax credits

"Where does UKIP stand on tax credit reform?

I'm supporting Frank Field's proposals on tax credit reform. Why?

Firstly, because Frank's proposals mean that we still get the changes to the tax credit system that we need.

Tax credits were introduced as a way of topping up the income of those on low pay. But it has ended up as an excuse for employers to pay people low wages – in the knowledge public money will be used to top it up. What started as a way of trying to help those on low incomes has become a system of corporate welfare. Big business gets the taxpayer to subsidise their payroll.


http://www.talkcarswell.com/

Judging from the absolute ignorance of 90% of people on tax credits I simply don't believe this rubbish. I first heard it from my local MP a few months ago.

Do you really think that a care-worker's wages are so low because of tax credits? Of course not...they're low because firstly councils have squeezed the care worker's employers so tight as a result of Central Government's funding cuts and secondly because if the care worker asks for more then the employer will soon find someone else to take on their role.

Are "funding cuts" the new reason for everything? Care workers pay has been very low for a long time before the coalition. It is low because there is no shortage of people willing to do it.

My local social services (adult services) is blaming the fact that is has been told it is pretty much inadequate in every possible metric, on 'funding cuts', but it has been awful for more than a generation. It was awful before the big public sector largesse, and it was awful during it, and not unsurprisingly, in a period of consolidation and reductions, it is still crap.

Having worked in the sector I can assure you that you are absolutely wrong. There is a shortage of people willing to do it...to the extent that one company I was involved in was obliged to look to Bulgaria for workers...not by choice but by necessity. They simply could not recruit and there wages were well above minimum wage. Council contracts are so tight now that most home care companies are concentrating on private clients - the whole sector is in danger of going "tits up" in the not too distant future

That's true - I have a stake in a small foster care company and these days the councils are outsourcing the difficult cases to the private sector and putting the simpler cases on short-term contracts and bring them back in house as soon as they are established and the carers trained. Result is that everyone if focusing on the private sector.

In the care sector, Four Seasons about to go belly up again. Not that Guy Hands deserves any sympathy.

Moses_

TheKrakenAwakes said:

chestnut said:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-brings-forward-plans-to-double-free-childcare-for-working-families

Yes...it's been announced they will do it...but when. Last I heard the funding hadn't been worked out and the trade body were warning that it would be unlikely that nurseries could afford to provide the care.

Of course it only refers to 3 and 4 year olds...so no good if your child is under 3

"No good it your child is under three".

I Am now convinced it doesn't mater what they do you will find a way to complain about it. How about having the baby when you can afford it and not expecting the rest of the population to constantly finance your life style choices from vagina to Varsity?

TheKrakenAwakes

foxinsoxuk said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

MaxPB said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

chestnut said:

Roger said:

Most claimants seem to be either self employed or public service workers or women with children who can only work part time.

Yes Roger. Many are single women who can only work part time.

That's why they are doubling free childcare, so that they can work longer and end up with more money.

Does the reform - when you add in the extra free childcare - now make some sense?

It is designed to tackle under-employment and incentivise longer hours for a better net return.

A single mum on minimum wage working 16 hours is worse off under these changes if she stays on 16 hours. She hits green if she goes up to 19, and is £2,000 a year better off at 30.

Not only that, a single mum working 30 hours is more likely to achieve career progression than one working 16.

Voting against this is condemning these women to a trap where they are locked into a certain amount of work, welfare dependency and career stagnation.

Tell me...when is the doubling of free childcare coming in?

April 2016.

http://www.itv.com/news/2015-08-26/doubling-free-child-care-is-unaffordable-nurseries-say/

Cut the CTC then spend the taxpayers money paying someone else on minimum wage to look after the children of the first wown. Genius!

The whole justification of the CTC cuts was to reduce spending...incidentally, my wife was a childminder once - the bureaucracy was crippling then and apparently far worse now

MikeL

The Tax Credit cuts can just be brought back in another form - so tonight doesn't actually decide anything on that front.

But what does matter is the effect on the Lords - remember the most important vote of this whole Parliament is the Lords vote on the Statutory Instrument for the Boundary changes in October 2018 - what has happened tonight must increase the chances of the Government winning that vote - either by appointing more Peers (not 100+ "Big Bang" but a few here and there "under the radar") or a change to Lords powers re Statutory Instruments.

Pulpstar

£50 million/year on debt of £500 million. Crikey... I'm guessing institutions are playing pass the bomb with his debts xD

TheKrakenAwakes

Moses_ said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

chestnut said:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-brings-forward-plans-to-double-free-childcare-for-working-families

Yes...it's been announced they will do it...but when. Last I heard the funding hadn't been worked out and the trade body were warning that it would be unlikely that nurseries could afford to provide the care.

Of course it only refers to 3 and 4 year olds...so no good if your child is under 3

"No good it your child is under three".

I Am now convinced it doesn't mater what they do you will find a way to complain about it. How about having the baby when you can afford it and not expecting the rest of the population to constantly finance your life style choices from vagina to Varsity?

It's really not my fault if this out of touch, cynical government keeps putting up ridiculous and unworkable policies under the guise of something else. It happens over and over...it's all about presentation and nothing about substance...all short term gimmicks that unravel when examined. Like the tax credits debacle. It was an unsubtle attack on the hard working poor...nothing else and they've been found out.

MikeL

The other thing to note from tonight is the much, much higher turnout of Con Peers than Lab or LD. On the Meacher vote (which had highest turnout):

Con 217 out of 234 (93%)
Lab 164 out of 207 (79%)
LD 83 out of 102 (81%)

That's encouraging for Con re future Lords votes as implies much greater discipline and enthusiasm - if Cameron can bump the Con numbers up even to a moderate degree then he'll be well placed.

Moses_

Upset for the Argies

Cristina Kirchner's hand-picked successor, Daniel Scioli, has been forced into a second round by centre-Right challenger Mauricio Macri - meaning that a run-off will now be held on November 22

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/argentina/11954412/Argentina-elections-Shock-as-Mauricio-Macri-defeats-Daniel-Scioli-and-forces-second-round.html

blackburn63

isam said:

Carswell/UKIP view on tax credits

http://www.talkcarswell.com/

What a decent, sensible man he is.

MikeSmithson

Reminder - see above. PB drinks London Thursday from 6.30pm.

Moses_

TheKrakenAwakes said:

Moses_ said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

chestnut said:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-brings-forward-plans-to-double-free-childcare-for-working-families

Yes...it's been announced they will do it...but when. Last I heard the funding hadn't been worked out and the trade body were warning that it would be unlikely that nurseries could afford to provide the care.

Of course it only refers to 3 and 4 year olds...so no good if your child is under 3

"No good it your child is under three".

I Am now convinced it doesn't mater what they do you will find a way to complain about it. How about having the baby when you can afford it and not expecting the rest of the population to constantly finance your life style choices from vagina to Varsity?

It's really not my fault if this out of touch, cynical government keeps putting up ridiculous and unworkable policies under the guise of something else. It happens over and over...it's all about presentation and nothing about substance...all short term gimmicks that unravel when examined. Like the tax credits debacle. It was an unsubtle attack on the hard working poor...nothing else and they've been found out.

Maybe so. The issue was created by the arch nemesis Brown. Just another mine in an ever expanding minefield this vicious man left for his successors. The situation is being addressed but it's not easy but welfare dependency in this country has been nothing short of ludicrous. People were trapped on welfare even those that wanted out of welfare. Someone has to break that circle and I thought Frank Field would have done that by thinking the unthinkable. All he got was the sack.

This can has been kicked down the road for too long and whenever a change comes about someone tends to suffer. We just have to ensure there are enough caring people around to help them through the transition. I would be in favour of a transition period though it seems sensible in the circumstances but it's never ever going to be easy but it has to be done. The present situation just cannot sustain itself in the longer term.

Mortimer

TheKrakenAwakes said:

Moses_ said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

chestnut said:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-brings-forward-plans-to-double-free-childcare-for-working-families

Yes...it's been announced they will do it...but when. Last I heard the funding hadn't been worked out and the trade body were warning that it would be unlikely that nurseries could afford to provide the care.

Of course it only refers to 3 and 4 year olds...so no good if your child is under 3

"No good it your child is under three".

I Am now convinced it doesn't mater what they do you will find a way to complain about it. How about having the baby when you can afford it and not expecting the rest of the population to constantly finance your life style choices from vagina to Varsity?

It's really not my fault if this out of touch, cynical government keeps putting up ridiculous and unworkable policies under the guise of something else. It happens over and over...it's all about presentation and nothing about substance...all short term gimmicks that unravel when examined. Like the tax credits debacle. It was an unsubtle attack on the hard working poor...nothing else and they've been found out.

Can you explain why people should be incentivised to work only 16-18 hours per week?

surbiton

I agree with Mike. Labour should have voted for the Lib Dem amendment and killed the tax credit changes.

It could also have brought about, as a bonus, a serious constitutional issue regarding the Lords.