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 taking the unthinkable. All he got we 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.
I would disagree with very little of that...a transitional period is what is required in order to allow those who have become dependent (through no fault of their own) to cope. Whatever people say on here I do not believe that low pay is a lifestyle choice - it's often a consequence of a poor educational background and /or misfortune. For example to penalise those who cannot work due to being a carer of a disabled child is frankly criminal. Likewise to condemn a generation of children to a childhood of poverty and hardship is both unfair and in the long term, economically self-defeating
In Scotland, despite the money being there and a fairly strong intention to deliver, the industry has found it very difficult to expand anywhere near fast enough. From memory, there is still a considerable shortfall in the level that has been delivered by the industry compared to what the Scottish Government has funded and wants to deliver.
As an industry with fairly low wages and very stiff Disclosure requirements it is not particularly ready to expand quickly.
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.
However, that clause will then be scrutinised by the House of Commons. I am not sure there is a majority for that in the Commons, as it stands.
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.
An interesting point from Mike L in previous thread was that it of the 45 new Conservative Lords 33 were not yet qualified to vote in tonight's divisions. If that is the case then surely in view of the majorities tonight the Conservatives have a good chance of winning in the Lords with the present number of peers once they are qualified
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?
Part time workers, I guess do it for reasons best known to themselves. Maybe they work when their kids are a school...or in the evening when their partners are home. I doubt when many are sophisticated enough to manage their hours in order to maximise their tax credits awards. The calculations are so bloody complicated it's virtually impossible
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?
Part time workers, I guess do it for reasons best known to themselves. Maybe they work when their kids are a school...or in the evening when their partners are home. I doubt when many are sophisticated enough to manage their hours in order to maximise their tax credits awards. The calculations are so bloody complicated it's virtually impossible
It is a way of dodging the benefit cap. It's prevalent in London.
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
You missed Cameron's and Gove's denial that the Tax Credit will be cut then. Ok.
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 ...nd 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 taking ...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.
I would disagree with very little of that...a transitional period is what is required in order to allow those who have become dependent (through no fault of their own) to cope. Whatever people say on here I do not believe that low pay is a lifestyle choice - it's often a consequence of a poor educational background and /or misfortune. For example to penalise those who cannot work due to being a carer of a disabled child is frankly criminal. Likewise to condemn a generation of children to a childhood of poverty and hardship is both unfair and in the long term, economically self-defeating
Condemning individuals to a lifetime of poverty and hardship via artificial caps on their productivity is actively unfair and self defeating.
I can't wait for the tax credit cuts to be passed in the next finance bill. Maybe you can go back to your somnolent state then...
An interesting point from Mike L in previous thread was that it of the 45 new Conservative Lords 33 were not yet qualified to vote in tonight's divisions. If that is the case then surely in view of the majorities tonight the Conservatives have a good chance of winning in the Lords with the present number of peers once they are qualified
No - the 45 new Peers are across all Parties:
26 Con 11 LD 8 Lab
12 could vote today:
10 Con 1 LD 1 Lab
So when all can vote the net position remains almost identical to tonight; ie
An interesting point from Mike L in previous thread was that it of the 45 new Conservative Lords 33 were not yet qualified to vote in tonight's divisions. If that is the case then surely in view of the majorities tonight the Conservatives have a good chance of winning in the Lords with the present number of peers once they are qualified
No - the 45 new Peers are across all Parties:
26 Con 11 LD 8 Lab
12 could vote today:
10 Con 1 LD 1 Lab
So when all can vote the net position remains almost identical to tonight; ie
26-19 is almost identical to 10-2.
Sorry I misunderstood you - thank you for clarifying the position
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 ...nd 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.
out of welfare. Someone has to break that circle and I thought Frank Field would have done that by taking ...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.
I would disagree with very little of that...a transitional period is what is required in order to allow those who have become dependent (through no fault of their own) to cope. Whatever people say on here I do not believe that low pay is a lifestyle choice - it's often a consequence of a poor educational background and /or misfortune. For example to penalise those who cannot work due to being a carer of a disabled child is frankly criminal. Likewise to condemn a generation of children to a childhood of poverty and hardship is both unfair and in the long term, economically self-defeating
Condemning individuals to a lifetime of poverty and hardship via artificial caps on their productivity is actively unfair and self defeating.
I can't wait for the tax credit cuts to be passed in the next finance bill. Maybe you can go back to your somnolent state then...
You're advocating stronger unions powers to force employers to increase wages are you?
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.
That was not what the vote was about. It is about people earning 10 grand and less. Some as little as £3k.
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?
Part time workers, I guess do it for reasons best known to themselves. Maybe they work when their kids are a school...or in the evening when their partners are home. I doubt when many are sophisticated enough to manage their hours in order to maximise their tax credits awards. The calculations are so bloody complicated it's virtually impossible
Hahahaha. It is common knowledge that 16 hour cap - or as I know it as a self employed small business owner 'one days work' - is the most tax credit efficient set up. You cannot defend the state subsidy of low pay and 40-hour-shy.
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 ...nd 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.
out of welfare. Someone has to break that circle and I thought Frank Field would have done that by taking ...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.
I would disagree with very little of that...a transitional period is what is required in order to allow those who have become dependent (through no fault of their own) to cope. Whatever people say on here I do not believe that low pay is a lifestyle choice - it's often a consequence of a poor educational background and /or misfortune. For example to penalise those who cannot work due to being a carer of a disabled child is frankly criminal. Likewise to condemn a generation of children to a childhood of poverty and hardship is both unfair and in the long term, economically self-defeating
Condemning individuals to a lifetime of poverty and hardship via artificial caps on their productivity is actively unfair and self defeating.
I can't wait for the tax credit cuts to be passed in the next finance bill. Maybe you can go back to your somnolent state then...
You're advocating stronger unions powers to force employers to increase wages are you?
No - I'm advocating that people who don't understand the way people on low incomes react to state handouts stop posting about them. And the reduction of state subsidised idleness.
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.
That was not what the vote was about. It is about people earning 10 grand and less. Some as little as £3k.
Same people, same benefit.
Some of them may be among the 320,000 EU recipients, others among the 400,000 plus who come from outside the EU.
1m partners in the 1.7m couple households who don't do any work.
If the truth spills out on this, the whole thing is going to fall into massive disrepute.
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?
Part time workers, I guess do it for reasons best known to themselves. Maybe they work when their kids are a school...or in the evening when their partners are home. I doubt when many are sophisticated enough to manage their hours in order to maximise their tax credits awards. The calculations are so bloody complicated it's virtually impossible
Hahahaha. It is common knowledge that 16 hour cap - or as I know it as a self employed small business owner 'one days work' - is the most tax credit efficient set up. You cannot defend the state subsidy of low pay and 40-hour-shy.
I'm self employed too. So you think ALL part-timers are tax credit fiddlers. What an extraordinary world you operate in.
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?
Part time workers, I guess do it for reasons best known to themselves. Maybe they work when their kids are a school...or in the evening when their partners are home. I doubt when many are sophisticated enough to manage their hours in order to maximise their tax credits awards. The calculations are so bloody complicated it's virtually impossible
Hahahaha. It is common knowledge that 16 hour cap - or as I know it as a self employed small business owner 'one days work' - is the most tax credit efficient set up. You cannot defend the state subsidy of low pay and 40-hour-shy.
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?
Part time workers, I guess do it for reasons best known to themselves. Maybe they work when their kids are a school...or in the evening when their partners are home. I doubt when many are sophisticated enough to manage their hours in order to maximise their tax credits awards. The calculations are so bloody complicated it's virtually impossible
Hahahaha. It is common knowledge that 16 hour cap - or as I know it as a self employed small business owner 'one days work' - is the most tax credit efficient set up. You cannot defend the state subsidy of low pay and 40-hour-shy.
I'm self employed too. So you think ALL part-timers are tax credit fiddlers. What an extraordinary world you operate in.
No - just people who work part time and rely on the hard work of those working full time to top up their pay. Not fair, won't last. Why are you so keen to defend the work shy?
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?
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
my wife was a childminder once
Was that until she thought you had grown up? How long before she changes her mind again? You're good on u-turns?
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 ..nothing else and they've been found out.
out of welfare. Someone has to break that circle and I thought Frank Field would have done that by taking ...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.
. For example to penalise those who cannot work due to being a carer of a disabled child is frankly criminal. Likewise to condemn a generation of children to a childhood of poverty and hardship is both unfair and in the long term, economically self-defeating
Condemning individuals to a lifetime of poverty and hardship via artificial caps on their productivity is actively unfair and self defeating.
I can't wait for the tax credit cuts to be passed in the next finance bill. Maybe you can go back to your somnolent state then...
You're advocating stronger unions powers to force employers to increase wages are you?
No - I'm advocating that people who don't understand the way people on low incomes react to state handouts stop posting about them. And the reduction of state subsidised idleness.
And let me guess...you know a lot about tax credits and those who claim them don't you?You're a snobby little Tory who resents state handouts...unless, of course, you're in receipt of child benefit , or you're a wealthy pensioner receiving winter fuel payments, or inheritance cuts for millionaires who's wealth has been accumulated from sitting on their fat arses during a thirty year property boom
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?
Part time workers, I guess do it for reasons best known to themselves. Maybe they work when their kids are a school...or in the evening when their partners are home. I doubt when many are sophisticated enough to manage their hours in order to maximise their tax credits awards. The calculations are so bloody complicated it's virtually impossible
Hahahaha. It is common knowledge that 16 hour cap - or as I know it as a self employed small business owner 'one days work' - is the most tax credit efficient set up. You cannot defend the state subsidy of low pay and 40-hour-shy.
I'm self employed too. So you think ALL part-timers are tax credit fiddlers. What an extraordinary world you operate in.
Not surprising to hear that you are self employed. You've done well to locate the one person who'd give someone like you a job.
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?
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
my wife was a childminder once
Was that until she thought you had grown up? How long before she changes her mind again? You're good on u-turns?
Oh, I've split my sides...You are soooo funny. What u-turns?
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 ..nothing else and they've been found out.
ever going to be easy but it has to be done. The present situation just cannot sustain itself in the longer term.
. For example to penalise those who cannot work due to being a carer of a disabled child is frankly criminal. Likewise to condemn a generation of children to a childhood of poverty and hardship is both unfair and in the long term, economically self-defeating
Condemning individuals to a lifetime of poverty and hardship via artificial caps on their productivity is actively unfair and self defeating.
I can't wait for the tax credit cuts to be passed in the next finance bill. Maybe you can go back to your somnolent state then...
You're advocating stronger unions powers to force employers to increase wages are you?
No - I'm advocating that people who don't understand the way people on low incomes react to state handouts stop posting about them. And the reduction of state subsidised idleness.
And let me guess...you know a lot about tax credits and those who claim them don't you?You're a snobby little Tory who resents state handouts...unless, of course, you're in receipt of child benefit , or you're a wealthy pensioner receiving winter fuel payments, or inheritance cuts for millionaires who's wealth has been accumulated from sitting on their fat arses during a thirty year property boom
I agree. Fuelling the housing market bubble in such an abject and dangerous way is one of the greater crimes committed by Lab during their 13 years in office.
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?
Part time workers, I guess do it for reasons best known to themselves. Maybe they work when their kids are a school...or in the evening when their partners are home. I doubt when many are sophisticated enough to manage their hours in order to maximise their tax credits awards. The calculations are so bloody complicated it's virtually impossible
Hahahaha. It is common knowledge that 16 hour cap - or as I know it as a self employed small business owner 'one days work' - is the most tax credit efficient set up. You cannot defend the state subsidy of low pay and 40-hour-shy.
I'm self employed too. So you think ALL part-timers are tax credit fiddlers. What an extraordinary world you operate in.
Let me guess; you work 16 hours a week, and milk the system.
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?
Part time workers, I guess do it for reasons best known to themselves. Maybe they work when their kids are a school...or in the evening when their partners are home. I doubt when many are sophisticated enough to manage their hours in order to maximise their tax credits awards. The calculations are so bloody complicated it's virtually impossible
Hahahaha. It is common knowledge that 16 hour cap - or as I know it as a self employed small business owner 'one days work' - is the most tax credit efficient set up. You cannot defend the state subsidy of low pay and 40-hour-shy.
I'm self employed too. So you think ALL part-timers are tax credit fiddlers. What an extraordinary world you operate in.
Not surprising to hear that you are self employed. You've done well to locate the one person who'd give someone like you a job.
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 ..nothing else and they've been found out.
ever going to be easy but it has to be done. The present situation just cannot sustain itself in the longer term.
. For example to penalise those who cannot work due to being a carer of a disabled child is frankly criminal. Likewise to condemn a generation of children to a childhood of poverty and hardship is both unfair and in the long term, economically self-defeating
I can't wait for the tax credit cuts to be passed in the next finance bill. Maybe you can go back to your somnolent state then...
You're advocating stronger unions powers to force employers to increase wages are you?
No - I'm advocating that people who don't understand the way people on low incomes react to state handouts stop posting about them. And the reduction of state subsidised idleness.
And let me guess...you know a lot about tax credits and those who claim them don't you?You're a snobby little Tory who resents state handouts...unless, of course, you're in receipt of child benefit , or you're a wealthy pensioner receiving winter fuel payments, or inheritance cuts for millionaires who's wealth has been accumulated from sitting on their fat arses during a thirty year property boom
I agree. Fuelling the housing market bubble in such an abject and dangerous way is one of the greater crimes committed by Lab during their 13 years in office.
I agree..but then again they didn;t give away £140,000 inheritance tax cuts to millionaires when at the same time as trying to reduce the deficit, did they?
Osborne walked straight into this. It's a (minor) personal humiliation for him but it will damage his leadership chances because a chunk of the parliamentary party will now have a question mark over his judgement.
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".
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?
Part time workers, I guess do it for reasons best known to themselves. Maybe they work when their kids are a school...or in the evening when their partners are home. I doubt when many are sophisticated enough to manage their hours in order to maximise their tax credits awards. The calculations are so bloody complicated it's virtually impossible
Hahahaha. It is common knowledge that 16 hour cap - or as I know it as a self employed small business owner 'one days work' - is the most tax credit efficient set up. You cannot defend the state subsidy of low pay and 40-hour-shy.
I'm self employed too. So you think ALL part-timers are tax credit fiddlers. What an extraordinary world you operate in.
Let me guess; you work 16 hours a week, and milk the system.
Master Strategist George, who spends all his days chortling in his bunker, so proud of himself, commits the schoolboy error of not listening and ends up losing a major vote less than six months into the Parliament. Overrated
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?
Part time workers, I guess do it for reasons best known to themselves. Maybe they work when their kids are a school...or in the evening when their partners are home. I doubt when many are sophisticated enough to manage their hours in order to maximise their tax credits awards. The calculations are so bloody complicated it's virtually impossible
Hahahaha. It is common knowledge that 16 hour cap - or as I know it as a self employed small business owner 'one days work' - is the most tax credit efficient set up. You cannot defend the state subsidy of low pay and 40-hour-shy.
I'm self employed too. So you think ALL part-timers are tax credit fiddlers. What an extraordinary world you operate in.
Remind us again - what financial sector did you say you worked in?
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 ..nothing else and they've been found out.
ever going to be easy but it has to be done. The present situation just cannot sustain itself in the longer term.
.
I can't wait for the tax credit cuts to be passed in the next finance bill. Maybe you can go back to your somnolent state then...
You're advocating stronger unions powers to force employers to increase wages are you?
No - I'm advocating that people who don't understand the way people on low incomes react to state handouts stop posting about them. And the reduction of state subsidised idleness.
And let me guess...you know a lot about tax credits and those who claim them don't you?You're a snobby little Tory who resents state handouts...unless, of course, you're in receipt of child benefit , or you're a wealthy pensioner receiving winter fuel payments, or inheritance cuts for millionaires who's wealth has been accumulated from sitting on their fat arses during a thirty year property boom
I agree. Fuelling the housing market bubble in such an abject and dangerous way is one of the greater crimes committed by Lab during their 13 years in office.
I agree..but then again they didn;t give away £140,000 inheritance tax cuts to millionaires when at the same time as trying to reduce the deficit, did they?
You are forgetting the aspiration that motivates millions of working people who, with the exception of the Cons and minor, fiscally inconsequential measures such as this, have no one giving them a sight of the sunlit uplands.
resents state handouts...unless, of course, you're in receipt of. ... inheritance cuts for millionaires who's wealth has been accumulated from sitting on their fat arses during a thirty year property boom
Does that mean you are ok with inheritance tax* cuts for millionaries whose wealth has been accumulated by hard work and judicious investment?
* you missed this out, but I inferred you meant it...
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 ..nothing else and they've been found out.
ever going to be easy but it has to be done. The present situation just cannot sustain itself in the longer term.
.
I can't wait for the tax credit cuts to be passed in the next finance bill. Maybe you can go back to your somnolent state then...
You're advocating stronger unions powers to force employers to increase wages are you?
No - I'm advocating that people who don't understand the way people on low incomes react to state handouts stop posting about them. And the reduction of state subsidised idleness.
nsioner receiving winter fuel payments, or inheritance cuts for millionaires who's wealth has been accumulated from sitting on their fat arses during a thirty year property boom
I agree. Fuelling the housing market bubble in such an abject and dangerous way is one of the greater crimes committed by Lab during their 13 years in office.
I agree..but then again they didn;t give away £140,000 inheritance tax cuts to millionaires when at the same time as trying to reduce the deficit, did they?
You are forgetting the aspiration that motivates millions of working people who, with the exception of the Cons and minor, fiscally inconsequential measures such as this, have no one giving them a sight of the sunlit uplands.
"fiscally inconsequential"...it's just under £1 billion.
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?
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
my wife was a childminder once
Was that until she thought you had grown up? How long before she changes her mind again? You're good on u-turns?
Oh, I've split my sides...You are soooo funny. What u-turns?
Got a baby sitter. Not got a baby sitter. Evidently in need of one again.
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 ..nothing else and they've been found out.
ever going to be easy but it has to be done. The present situation just cannot sustain itself in the longer term.
.
I can't wait for the tax credit cuts to be passed in the next finance bill. Maybe you can go back to your somnolent state then...
You're advocating stronger unions powers to force employers to increase wages are you?
No - I'm advocating that people who don't understand the way people on low incomes react to state handouts stop posting about them. And the reduction of state subsidised idleness.
nsioner receiving winter fuel payments, or inheritance cuts for millionaires who's wealth has been accumulated from sitting on their fat arses during a thirty year property boom
I agree. Fuelling the housing market bubble in such an abject and dangerous way is one of the greater crimes committed by Lab during their 13 years in office.
I agree..but then again they didn;t give away £140,000 inheritance tax cuts to millionaires when at the same time as trying to reduce the deficit, did they?
You are forgetting the aspiration that motivates millions of working people who, with the exception of the Cons and minor, fiscally inconsequential measures such as this, have no one giving them a sight of the sunlit uplands.
"fiscally inconsequential"...it's just under £1 billion.
resents state handouts...unless, of course, you're in receipt of. ... inheritance cuts for millionaires who's wealth has been accumulated from sitting on their fat arses during a thirty year property boom
Does that mean you are ok with inheritance tax* cuts for millionaries whose wealth has been accumulated by hard work and judicious investment?
* you missed this out, but I inferred you meant it...
Inheritance Tax is a justifiable tax to levy...gifting your wealth to a relative when you're alive attracts a CGT charge. Why should a £2 million family home be excluded from IHT
In Scotland, despite the money being there and a fairly strong intention to deliver, the industry has found it very difficult to expand anywhere near fast enough. From memory, there is still a considerable shortfall in the level that has been delivered by the industry compared to what the Scottish Government has funded and wants to deliver.
As an industry with fairly low wages and very stiff Disclosure requirements it is not particularly ready to expand quickly.
One of the major problems is lack of suitable property for nursery care. Private nurseries fight tooth and nail to secure locations when they become available.
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 ..nothing else and they've been found out.
ever going to be easy but it has to be done. The present situation just cannot sustain itself in the longer term.
.
I can't wait for the tax credit cuts to be passed in the next finance bill. Maybe you can go back to your somnolent state then...
You're advocating stronger unions powers to force employers to increase wages are you?
No - I'm advocating that people who don't understand the way people on low incomes react to state handouts stop posting about them. And the reduction of state subsidised idleness.
nsioner receiving winter fuel payments, or inheritance cuts for millionaires who's wealth has been accumulated from sitting on their fat arses during a thirty year property boom
I agree. Fuelling the housing market bubble in such an abject and dangerous way is one of the greater crimes committed by Lab during their 13 years in office.
I agree..but then again they didn;t give away £140,000 inheritance tax cuts to millionaires when at the same time as trying to reduce the deficit, did they?
You are forgetting the aspiration that motivates millions of working people who, with the exception of the Cons and minor, fiscally inconsequential measures such as this, have no one giving them a sight of the sunlit uplands.
"fiscally inconsequential"...it's just under £1 billion.
Tonight unelected Labour and Liberal lords have defeated a financial matter passed by the elected House of Commons and David Cameron and I are clear that this raises constitutional issues that need to be dealt with.
However, it has happened and now we must address the consequences of that. I said I would listen and that is precisely what I intend to do. I believe we can achieve the same goal of reforming tax credits, saving the money we need to save to secure our economy, while at the same time helping in the transition. That is what I intend to do at the autumn statement. I’m determined to deliver that lower welfare, higher wage economy that we were elected to deliver and that the British people want to see.
He's turned the story from a minor one of being delayed to a slightly less minor one of his sour grapes.
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 ..nothing else and they've been found out.
ever going to be easy but it has to be done. The present situation just cannot sustain itself in the longer term.
.
I can't wait for the tax credit cuts to be passed in the next finance bill. Maybe you can go back to your somnolent state then...
You're advocating stronger unions powers to force employers to increase wages are you?
No - I'm advocating that people who don't understand the way people on low incomes react to state handouts stop posting about them. And the reduction of state subsidised idleness.
nsioner receiving winter fuel payments, or inheritance cuts for millionaires who's wealth has been accumulated from sitting on their fat arses during a thirty year property boom
I agree. Fuelling the housing market bubble in such an abject and dangerous way is one of the greater crimes committed by Lab during their 13 years in office.
I agree..but then again they didn;t give away £140,000 inheritance tax cuts to millionaires when at the same time as trying to reduce the deficit, did they?
You are forgetting the aspiration that motivates millions of working people who, with the exception of the Cons and minor, fiscally inconsequential measures such as this, have no one giving them a sight of the sunlit uplands.
"fiscally inconsequential"...it's just under £1 billion.
The House of Lords have helped George Osborne enormously. He can now modify his plans and present it as a necessary response without u-turning.
@BBCAllegra: Yes... Senior Tories don't regard Hollis wording as binding. They will come forward with changes to tax credit plans, but their own changes
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.
Surely any change to the Lords' powers will have to be approved by the Lords themselves (which brings to mind turkeys and Christmas).
And I doubt the Queen's handlers would put her in the position of fixing the Lords by flooding it with unwarranted Tory peers - now that really WOULD be a constitutional crisis.
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 ..nothing else and they've been found out.
ever going to be easy but it has to be done. The present situation just cannot sustain itself in the longer term.
.
I can't wait for the tax credit cuts to be passed in the next finance bill. Maybe you can go back to your somnolent state then...
You're advocating stronger unions powers to force employers to increase wages are you?
No - I'm advocating that people who don't understand the way people on low incomes react to state handouts stop posting about them. And the reduction of state subsidised idleness.
nsioner receiving winter fuel payments, or inheritance cuts for millionaires who's wealth has been accumulated from sitting on their fat arses during a thirty year property boom
I agree. Fuelling the housing market bubble in such an abject and dangerous way is one of the greater crimes committed by Lab during their 13 years in office.
I agree..but then again they didn;t give away £140,000 inheritance tax cuts to millionaires when at the same time as trying to reduce the deficit, did they?
You are forgetting the aspiration that motivates millions of working people who, with the exception of the Cons and minor, fiscally inconsequential measures such as this, have no one giving them a sight of the sunlit uplands.
"fiscally inconsequential"...it's just under £1 billion.
The House of Lords have helped George Osborne enormously. He can now modify his plans and present it as a necessary response without u-turning.
Disagree. Osborne has totally lost control of the presentation of the message on this.
He's a great political strategist and a fine mind but this is precisely why he'd make such a poor leader: he doesn't do human and just has a tin ear for empathy.
resents state handouts...unless, of course, you're in receipt of. ... inheritance cuts for millionaires who's wealth has been accumulated from sitting on their fat arses during a thirty year property boom
Does that mean you are ok with inheritance tax* cuts for millionaries whose wealth has been accumulated by hard work and judicious investment?
* you missed this out, but I inferred you meant it...
Inheritance Tax is a justifiable tax to levy...gifting your wealth to a relative when you're alive attracts a CGT charge. Why should a £2 million family home be excluded from IHT
Because (a) it is double taxation and (b) because it can force the sale of family homes and businesses.
(For a bit of context, my family was forced to surrender our home and garden because of inheritance tax, so it's a rather sore topic)
The inference of the news programmes is that No10 and No 11 see this as a serious rift and having been a convention there is no longer one. They also inferred that something will be done.
The House of Lords have helped George Osborne enormously. He can now modify his plans and present it as a necessary response without u-turning.
Disagree. Osborne has totally lost control of the presentation of the message on this.
He's a great political strategist and a fine mind but this is precisely why he'd make such a poor leader: he doesn't do human and just has a tin ear for empathy.
There is a case to make that Cons tried to implement the cuts as per their electoral mandate, they then realised in so doing the harm it would cause, and therefore will agree to amend.
Cons look ok here but it is a very tortured argument.
We don't have the senior, sensible tier of opposition to say that whatever the bill actually contained the same response would have resulted, but some pretty sensible Lab folk were pretty shocked by the contents. Some pretty sensible Cons also.
So I am forced to agree with you that it was a mis-step. I have long since believed GO will never be PM, it's just not his thing, and this further confirms me in my belief of that. Was he greedy? Did he think no one would notice? Does he not care (the most damaging of charges, ofc)?
(He also fails by a country mile the "politician you'd be happy to go to the pub with" test.)
resents state handouts...unless, of course, you're in receipt of. ... inheritance cuts for millionaires who's wealth has been accumulated from sitting on their fat arses during a thirty year property boom
Does that mean you are ok with inheritance tax* cuts for millionaries whose wealth has been accumulated by hard work and judicious investment?
* you missed this out, but I inferred you meant it...
Inheritance Tax is a justifiable tax to levy...gifting your wealth to a relative when you're alive attracts a CGT charge. Why should a £2 million family home be excluded from IHT
Because (a) it is double taxation and (b) because it can force the sale of family homes and businesses.
(For a bit of context, my family was forced to surrender our home and garden because of inheritance tax, so it's a rather sore topic)
The inference of the news programmes is that No10 and No 11 see this as a serious rift and having been a convention there is no longer one. They also inferred that something will be done.
That theres fightin' talk.......
But again, no matter how much "fighting talk" the Tories put out, they can't clip the Lords' wings unless the Lords vote for it.
The House of Lords have helped George Osborne enormously. He can now modify his plans and present it as a necessary response without u-turning.
Disagree. Osborne has totally lost control of the presentation of the message on this.
He's a great political strategist and a fine mind but this is precisely why he'd make such a poor leader: he doesn't do human and just has a tin ear for empathy.
He'd lost control of the message before now. Given where he is now, this was helpful.
I agree about the tin ear. I think he might too. I don't think he wants to be leader. He looks trapped into running by David Cameron's decision to stand down.
resents state handouts...unless, of course, you're in receipt of. ... inheritance cuts for millionaires who's wealth has been accumulated from sitting on their fat arses during a thirty year property boom
Does that mean you are ok with inheritance tax* cuts for millionaries whose wealth has been accumulated by hard work and judicious investment?
* you missed this out, but I inferred you meant it...
Inheritance Tax is a justifiable tax to levy...gifting your wealth to a relative when you're alive attracts a CGT charge. Why should a £2 million family home be excluded from IHT
Because (a) it is double taxation and (b) because it can force the sale of family homes and businesses.
(For a bit of context, my family was forced to surrender our home and garden because of inheritance tax, so it's a rather sore topic)
Double taxation? Are you using the phrase in some exciting new way?
The inference of the news programmes is that No10 and No 11 see this as a serious rift and having been a convention there is no longer one. They also inferred that something will be done.
That theres fightin' talk.......
But again, no matter how much "fighting talk" the Tories put out, they can't clip the Lords' wings unless the Lords vote for it.
The inference of the news programmes is that No10 and No 11 see this as a serious rift and having been a convention there is no longer one. They also inferred that something will be done.
That theres fightin' talk.......
But again, no matter how much "fighting talk" the Tories put out, they can't clip the Lords' wings unless the Lords vote for it.
The inference of the news programmes is that No10 and No 11 see this as a serious rift and having been a convention there is no longer one. They also inferred that something will be done.
That theres fightin' talk.......
But again, no matter how much "fighting talk" the Tories put out, they can't clip the Lords' wings unless the Lords vote for it.
Angela Rayner MPVerified account @AngelaRayner 28 mins28 minutes ago Tories wanted to get Tax Credits Cuts through the Lords that much they flew Andrew LIoyd Webber back from the states to vote, what a sham!
The inference of the news programmes is that No10 and No 11 see this as a serious rift and having been a convention there is no longer one. They also inferred that something will be done.
That theres fightin' talk.......
But again, no matter how much "fighting talk" the Tories put out, they can't clip the Lords' wings unless the Lords vote for it.
Yes they can - may take a while but they will use the Parliament Act if necessary
The inference of the news programmes is that No10 and No 11 see this as a serious rift and having been a convention there is no longer one. They also inferred that something will be done.
That theres fightin' talk.......
But again, no matter how much "fighting talk" the Tories put out, they can't clip the Lords' wings unless the Lords vote for it.
Cameron can go down the route of appointing more Con peers - that doesn't require anyone's vote.
Remember he doesn't need that many - he only lost the Hollis vote by 17 votes.
Forget all the talk of appointing 100+. He doesn't need anything like that many.
The inference of the news programmes is that No10 and No 11 see this as a serious rift and having been a convention there is no longer one. They also inferred that something will be done.
That theres fightin' talk.......
But again, no matter how much "fighting talk" the Tories put out, they can't clip the Lords' wings unless the Lords vote for it.
That's not exactly true.
Go on.
Parliament Act 1949 is the precedent.
Did the Act itself not have to be passed by the Lords? (Genuine question)
The inference of the news programmes is that No10 and No 11 see this as a serious rift and having been a convention there is no longer one. They also inferred that something will be done.
That theres fightin' talk.......
But again, no matter how much "fighting talk" the Tories put out, they can't clip the Lords' wings unless the Lords vote for it.
The inference of the news programmes is that No10 and No 11 see this as a serious rift and having been a convention there is no longer one. They also inferred that something will be done.
That theres fightin' talk.......
But again, no matter how much "fighting talk" the Tories put out, they can't clip the Lords' wings unless the Lords vote for it.
That's not exactly true.
Go on.
Parliament Act 1949 is the precedent.
Did the Act itself not have to be passed by the Lords? (Genuine question)
No - it is used to demonstrate the Commons ultimately has democratic power over the unelected House of Lords
The inference of the news programmes is that No10 and No 11 see this as a serious rift and having been a convention there is no longer one. They also inferred that something will be done.
That theres fightin' talk.......
But again, no matter how much "fighting talk" the Tories put out, they can't clip the Lords' wings unless the Lords vote for it.
That's not exactly true.
Go on.
Parliament Act 1949 is the precedent.
Did the Act itself not have to be passed by the Lords? (Genuine question)
Osborne becoming Con leader is how Labour will get back in the game - He'll be a disaster (Course they have to rid themselves of Jezza as well)
You write Osborne off at your peril. He rebounded from the pasty tax and if, and I agree it's a big if, he succeeds in devolving power to the regions and is
Osborne becoming Con leader is how Labour will get back in the game - He'll be a disaster (Course they have to rid themselves of Jezza as well)
You write Osborne off at your peril. He rebounded from the pasty tax and if, and I agree it's a big if, he succeeds in devolving power to the regions and is successful in improving everyone's incomes he will still have a chance of being PM. However post the referendum and circa 2019 there will be several candidates, some of whom are still developing their careers. Also if Corbyn's still labour leader it doesn't really matter because voters will not elect a hard left party
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.
That's those Bulgarians and Romanians who are disrupting our culture by flooding in with their alien values, right?
So the parties that lost the election, stop the elected government from reducing the deficit that the electorate asked it to do.
Hmmmmm.
But the Tories were elected on the basis that they would protect "hard workers", not on the basis that they'd cut poor workers' incomes.
Is 16 hours a week 'hard work'?
Can of worms.
That's the main issue here. We have reached the insane point where a welfare payment is now regarded as legitimate "income" . It's not what welfare is for and in present form is completely unsustainable.
I'm not really certain that Osborne has 'lost control of the message' here. I don't think he's that stupid. The Tories have never softened the PR blow of their 'cuts', in fact they've more often than not overstated them. It's not Osborne is some miserly Victorian who is so parsimonious with tax payers money that he really wants to save that £3.5billion it would take to phases these measures in (mores the pity). This Government is one of the most profligate in history.
resents state handouts...unless, of course, you're in receipt of. ... inheritance cuts for millionaires who's wealth has been accumulated from sitting on their fat arses during a thirty year property boom
Does that mean you are ok with inheritance tax* cuts for millionaries whose wealth has been accumulated by hard work and judicious investment?
* you missed this out, but I inferred you meant it...
Inheritance Tax is a justifiable tax to levy...gifting your wealth to a relative when you're alive attracts a CGT charge. Why should a £2 million family home be excluded from IHT
Because (a) it is double taxation and (b) because it can force the sale of family homes and businesses.
(For a bit of context, my family was forced to surrender our home and garden because of inheritance tax, so it's a rather sore topic)
In what way is it double taxation?
Because the assets have been accumulated out of income (taxed) and are transferred not through choice, but as a result of death.
A 24-year-old who claimed benefits for two years said it was the government's fault he remained unemployed. Daniel Shaw from Manchester said it's 'ridiculous' how much money he was getting in handouts - £16,000 a year - and it made him less inclined to seek full-time work. He was even forced to survive on food banks after he gambled his entire handout away in a casino. 'As it stands I am earning more now than someone on minimum wage in a shop,' he told Channel 5 documentary Benefits, which airs this evening.
resents state handouts...unless, of course, you're in receipt of. ... inheritance cuts for millionaires who's wealth has been accumulated from sitting on their fat arses during a thirty year property boom
Does that mean you are ok with inheritance tax* cuts for millionaries whose wealth has been accumulated by hard work and judicious investment?
* you missed this out, but I inferred you meant it...
Inheritance Tax is a justifiable tax to levy...gifting your wealth to a relative when you're alive attracts a CGT charge. Why should a £2 million family home be excluded from IHT
Because (a) it is double taxation and (b) because it can force the sale of family homes and businesses.
(For a bit of context, my family was forced to surrender our home and garden because of inheritance tax, so it's a rather sore topic)
In what way is it double taxation?
Because the assets have been accumulated out of income (taxed) and are transferred not through choice, but as a result of death.
It's double taxation even if it's transferred through choice. My (already taxed) money - I should be free to give it away if I wish.
Why would I possibly want to stalk someone who separately represents himself as both a financial engineer and self employed, and who constantly rants against those wicked individuals who present representative views emanating from such posters? Answers on a postcard please.
So the parties that lost the election, stop the elected government from reducing the deficit that the electorate asked it to do.
Hmmmmm.
But the Tories were elected on the basis that they would protect "hard workers", not on the basis that they'd cut poor workers' incomes.
Is 16 hours a week 'hard work'?
Can of worms.
That's the main issue here. We have reached the insane point where a welfare payment is now regarded as legitimate "income" . It's not what welfare is for and in present form is completely unsustainable.
Osborne becoming Con leader is how Labour will get back in the game - He'll be a disaster (Course they have to rid themselves of Jezza as well)
I feel this is the nub of the issue. Labour will get rid of Jezza and get back in the game. Same old Tory Labour Tory Labour metronome will get back on track. The debate will focus on whether to grossly overspend or overspend grossly. No real choice, country will continue to circle the plughole.
'The Tories were elected as a result of our broken voting system. So they came into office. OK.
But they could not even attract the support of even 25% of the registered electorate, so they have no mandate to do anything.'
Strange that less than 5 years ago the electorate voted overwhelmingly to keep 'our broken voting system'
Odd also that those making the most noise about this now seemed very quiet in the Blair / Brown years in similar situations. Brown indeed never actually stood and won an election so had zero mandate. The Tories had Major of course in a similar position but at least he stood and won an election on his own merit so had full legitimacy.
Chewbacca Arrested During Ukraine Elections The Wookiee is handcuffed and detained after supporting Darth Vader's bid to be elected as Mayor of Odessa.
resents state handouts...unless, of course, you're in receipt of. ... inheritance cuts for millionaires who's wealth has been accumulated from sitting on their fat arses during a thirty year property boom
Does that mean you are ok with inheritance tax* cuts for millionaries whose wealth has been accumulated by hard work and judicious investment?
* you missed this out, but I inferred you meant it...
Inheritance Tax is a justifiable tax to levy...gifting your wealth to a relative when you're alive attracts a CGT charge. Why should a £2 million family home be excluded from IHT
Because (a) it is double taxation and (b) because it can force the sale of family homes and businesses.
(For a bit of context, my family was forced to surrender our home and garden because of inheritance tax, so it's a rather sore topic)
In what way is it double taxation?
Because the assets have been accumulated out of income (taxed) and are transferred not through choice, but as a result of death.
It's double taxation even if it's transferred through choice. My (already taxed) money - I should be free to give it away if I wish.
Ironically, as a Tory and as a believer of capitalism, you should argue for the opposite. Tax on earned income [ the one you work for ] should be less and tax on unearned income should be high.
Osborne becoming Con leader is how Labour will get back in the game - He'll be a disaster (Course they have to rid themselves of Jezza as well)
I feel this is the nub of the issue. Labour will get rid of Jezza and get back in the game. Same old Tory Labour Tory Labour metronome will get back on track. The debate will focus on whether to grossly overspend or overspend grossly. No real choice, country will continue to circle the plughole.
A valid observation but what is the alternative? Please don't say LibDem.
Angela Rayner MPVerified account @AngelaRayner 28 mins28 minutes ago Tories wanted to get Tax Credits Cuts through the Lords that much they flew Andrew LIoyd Webber back from the states to vote, what a sham!
Multi-millionaire votes to deny £1300 to working single mum. What a bar[steward].
Comments
As an industry with fairly low wages and very stiff Disclosure requirements it is not particularly ready to expand quickly.
It would have killed the Statutory Instrument.
The Govt will probably abandon the SI anyway and instead bring the Tax Credit changes back in a Welfare Bill / Finance Bill.
So it makes no difference.
I can't wait for the tax credit cuts to be passed in the next finance bill. Maybe you can go back to your somnolent state then...
26 Con
11 LD
8 Lab
12 could vote today:
10 Con
1 LD
1 Lab
So when all can vote the net position remains almost identical to tonight; ie
26-19 is almost identical to 10-2.
Some of them may be among the 320,000 EU recipients, others among the 400,000 plus who come from outside the EU.
1m partners in the 1.7m couple households who don't do any work.
If the truth spills out on this, the whole thing is going to fall into massive disrepute.
Never heard the BBC describe the HoL in those terms....Cons narrative quite successful already.
my wife was a childminder once
Was that until she thought you had grown up? How long before she changes her mind again? You're good on u-turns?
You've done well to locate the one person who'd give someone like you a job.
Do you run a loss making nail bar?
I'm now a layer of him on Betfair.
Overrated
* you missed this out, but I inferred you meant it...
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 ..nothing else and they've been found out.
ever going to be easy but it has to be done. The present situation just cannot sustain itself in the longer term.
.
I can't wait for the tax credit cuts to be passed in the next finance bill. Maybe you can go back to your somnolent state then...
You're advocating stronger unions powers to force employers to increase wages are you?
No - I'm advocating that people who don't understand the way people on low incomes react to state handouts stop posting about them. And the reduction of state subsidised idleness.
nsioner receiving winter fuel payments, or inheritance cuts for millionaires who's wealth has been accumulated from sitting on their fat arses during a thirty year property boom
I agree. Fuelling the housing market bubble in such an abject and dangerous way is one of the greater crimes committed by Lab during their 13 years in office.
I agree..but then again they didn;t give away £140,000 inheritance tax cuts to millionaires when at the same time as trying to reduce the deficit, did they?
You are forgetting the aspiration that motivates millions of working people who, with the exception of the Cons and minor, fiscally inconsequential measures such as this, have no one giving them a sight of the sunlit uplands.
"fiscally inconsequential"...it's just under £1 billion.
You've got to have a dream.
Captain Sensible!
And I doubt the Queen's handlers would put her in the position of fixing the Lords by flooding it with unwarranted Tory peers - now that really WOULD be a constitutional crisis.
ever going to be easy but it has to be done. The present situation just cannot sustain itself in the longer term.
.
I can't wait for the tax credit cuts to be passed in the next finance bill. Maybe you can go back to your somnolent state then...
You're advocating stronger unions powers to force employers to increase wages are you?
No - I'm advocating that people who don't understand the way people on low incomes react to state handouts stop posting about them. And the reduction of state subsidised idleness.
nsioner receiving winter fuel payments, or inheritance cuts for millionaires who's wealth has been accumulated from sitting on their fat arses during a thirty year property boom
I agree. Fuelling the housing market bubble in such an abject and dangerous way is one of the greater crimes committed by Lab during their 13 years in office.
I agree..but then again they didn;t give away £140,000 inheritance tax cuts to millionaires when at the same time as trying to reduce the deficit, did they?
You are forgetting the aspiration that motivates millions of working people who, with the exception of the Cons and minor, fiscally inconsequential measures such as this, have no one giving them a sight of the sunlit uplands.
"fiscally inconsequential"...it's just under £1 billion.
You've got to have a dream.
Captain Sensible!
Are you stalking me Reggie? That's a bit weird...
He's a great political strategist and a fine mind but this is precisely why he'd make such a poor leader: he doesn't do human and just has a tin ear for empathy.
So the parties that lost the election, stop the elected government from reducing the deficit that the electorate asked it to do.
Hmmmmm.
(For a bit of context, my family was forced to surrender our home and garden because of inheritance tax, so it's a rather sore topic)
That theres fightin' talk.......
But they could not even attract the support of even 25% of the registered electorate, so they have no mandate to do anything.
Cons look ok here but it is a very tortured argument.
We don't have the senior, sensible tier of opposition to say that whatever the bill actually contained the same response would have resulted, but some pretty sensible Lab folk were pretty shocked by the contents. Some pretty sensible Cons also.
So I am forced to agree with you that it was a mis-step. I have long since believed GO will never be PM, it's just not his thing, and this further confirms me in my belief of that. Was he greedy? Did he think no one would notice? Does he not care (the most damaging of charges, ofc)?
(He also fails by a country mile the "politician you'd be happy to go to the pub with" test.)
Can of worms.
I agree about the tin ear. I think he might too. I don't think he wants to be leader. He looks trapped into running by David Cameron's decision to stand down.
@stephenkb Isn't 'constitutional crisis' code of 'I'm having a strop coz I didn't get my way'?
http://metro.co.uk/2015/10/26/girl-in-the-napalm-picture-during-vietnam-war-gets-free-laser-surgery-5461899/
Tories wanted to get Tax Credits Cuts through the Lords that much they flew Andrew LIoyd Webber back from the states to vote, what a sham!
Remember he doesn't need that many - he only lost the Hollis vote by 17 votes.
Forget all the talk of appointing 100+. He doesn't need anything like that many.
Osborne becoming Con leader is how Labour will get back in the game - He'll be a disaster (Course they have to rid themselves of Jezza as well)
Gidiot is in the altogether now.
Daniel Shaw from Manchester said it's 'ridiculous' how much money he was getting in handouts - £16,000 a year - and it made him less inclined to seek full-time work.
He was even forced to survive on food banks after he gambled his entire handout away in a casino.
'As it stands I am earning more now than someone on minimum wage in a shop,' he told Channel 5 documentary Benefits, which airs this evening.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3286037/Jobless-man-used-food-bank-blowing-benefits-casino-blames-government-giving-ridiculous-money-one-go.html#ixzz3pifj6F6c
My (already taxed) money - I should be free to give it away if I wish.
Captain Sensible!
Are you stalking me Reggie? That's a bit weird...
Why would I possibly want to stalk someone who separately represents himself as both a financial engineer and self employed, and who constantly rants against those wicked individuals who present representative views emanating from such posters? Answers on a postcard please.
'The Tories were elected as a result of our broken voting system. So they came into office. OK.
But they could not even attract the support of even 25% of the registered electorate, so they have no mandate to do anything.'
Strange that less than 5 years ago the electorate voted overwhelmingly to keep 'our broken voting system'
Brown indeed never actually stood and won an election so had zero mandate. The Tories had Major of course in a similar position but at least he stood and won an election on his own merit so had full legitimacy.
Chewbacca Arrested During Ukraine Elections
The Wookiee is handcuffed and detained after supporting Darth Vader's bid to be elected as Mayor of Odessa.
http://news.sky.com/story/1576229/chewbacca-arrested-during-ukraine-elections
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/6710966/Wolverhampton-the-unhappiest-place-in-Britain.html
They don't have smart [overpaid] accountants either.