I believe that it is at the discretion of the Speaker of the HoC to certify whether legislation going to the Lords is a "Money Bill" in the terms of the 1911 and 1949 Parliament Act and thereby open to only a maximum of a month's delay by the HoL.
The issue last night was a Statutory Instrument which is clearly defined in the Statutory Instruments Act of 1946 as "subordinate legislation". Was it a "Money Bill"? It was clearly concerned with the supply of finance but was it a "Bill". Does the term "Bill" refer only to primary legislation (debated and amendable in the HoC) or does it also include statutory instruments which bypass that process (because they are subordinate to primary legislation).
The Statutory Instruments Act of 1946 in its definition of "Statutory Instrument" does not refer to it as a "Bill" but a "document".
It will be fascinating if Speaker Bercow decides to adjudicate on this! It is at his discretion.
Statutory Instruments are used to speed up the process because it involves very little scrutiny. If the TC cuts were put in the Finance Bill, this element would not have passed even through the committee stage. Osborne knew that. Hence, trying to smuggle it.
A lot of credit goes to the IFS for making it clear to all of us.
Mr. W, I have some sympathy with that view, but that's also a criticism of every party (all were too vague) and the weakness/shallowness of the media (to be fair, some did point this out, including Tom Bradby [a better political editor than news anchor, though hopefully he'll improve], but not enough was made of it).
Indeed.
One of the strengths of the Coalition was that policy had to more carefully thought through. Both parties almost acting as a HoL revising element within government.
The Conservative principle of increasing the minimum wage at the expense of tax credits is sound in the long term but this short sharp shock approach is cack handed and has damaged the sound case for reform.
State intervention in housing is only distorting the market, labour mobility within the UK needs to be encouraged rather than unskilled and semi-skilled immigration. More housing needs to be build where there is demand for it, but again this is politically difficult to do as the middle-class NIMBYs also vote.
Alternatively, housing needs to be built (or refurbished) where there is no demand for it, and sold off cheap. The idea being to reinvigorate dying communities, and have the benefits of "new towns" at less expense since most of the infrastructure is already there.
That's already the case: try looking at Hull or Merthyr Tydfil where you can buy a house for a pittance.
EC in UK @EUlondonrep · 14m14 minutes ago President @JunckerEU on #RefugeeCrisis: European budget is too small to deal with problems we are facing. We need exceptional financing
IMHO it is an absolute disgrace that the Tories were not forced to explain more details of the £12b welfare cut during the campaign. It doesn't matter whether one agrees with the cut or not, the issue is that voters had a huge gap in their knowledge of what the party planned. The media do not come out well on this front.
Whatever. I doubt you've ever whined about the details of manifesto commitments in previous elections.
£12 billion of Welfare cuts is exactly what is says. £12 billion of welfare cuts. Voters can, and should do their own research.
What were you expecting?
Twaddle of the first order.
If a political party proposes a specific figure of £12bn of cuts it should be in a position to detail the nature of the cuts.
The electorate might also reasonably be able to trust the PM and cabinet ministers to keep their word months after an election. It shouldn't be too much to ask.
The Conservatives would have done well to continue the Coalition policy of incentivising the working poor rather drastic cuts to tax credits in one fell swoop.
Jack, you are a gentleman and a scholar !
Clearly the post of the day .... or indeed any day this month ....
As you know, I'm not much of a cinema-goer, but I haven't warmed to Craig as Bond.
Mr. W, I have some sympathy with that view, but that's also a criticism of every party (all were too vague) and the weakness/shallowness of the media (to be fair, some did point this out, including Tom Bradby [a better political editor than news anchor, though hopefully he'll improve], but not enough was made of it).
I consider Mr Craig to be the finest Bond ever.
I'm going to see it tomorrow night. Be nervous: I wasn't a huge fan of Skyfall, but loved Casino Royale (hence the name) and this has been the most shamelessly commercialised Bond film ever.
On last night's votes, Labour got their tactics right. The fatal motion would indeed have been an unambiguous outrage. A democratic party which seeks to be a party of government couldn't support it. The motions which did pass were sufficiently nuanced for Labour to be able to claim, with at least some justification, that they were in the spirit of the Lords being a revising chamber and giving the opportunity to the Commons to improve the proposals.
It was bad policy. The Lords did its job. Labour got it right.
IMHO it is an absolute disgrace that the Tories were not forced to explain more details of the £12b welfare cut during the campaign. It doesn't matter whether one agrees with the cut or not, the issue is that voters had a huge gap in their knowledge of what the party planned. The media do not come out well on this front.
Whatever. I doubt you've ever whined about the details of manifesto commitments in previous elections.
£12 billion of Welfare cuts is exactly what is says. £12 billion of welfare cuts. Voters can, and should do their own research.
What were you expecting?
Twaddle of the first order.
If a political party proposes a specific figure of £12bn of cuts it should be in a position to detail the nature of the cuts.
The electorate might also reasonably be able to trust the PM and cabinet ministers to keep their word months after an election. It shouldn't be too much to ask.
The Conservatives would have done well to continue the Coalition policy of incentivising the working poor rather drastic cuts to tax credits in one fell swoop.
Jack, you are a gentleman and a scholar !
How would the electorate do their "research" if the cuts in Tax credits were not even mentioned and, in fact, explicitly denied. Cameron does say things sometimes on the hoof. I think in 2010 he said something about pensioners winter fuel support.
@watford30 Actually I enjoy a good whine about the contents of manifestos down at my local! All the parties get up to these kinds of tricks, but this seems to me to be a particularly bad case.
As to what I was expecting. Personally, exactly what we are getting plus a harder hit on ESA, DLA and so on. I was pretty sure all these disability and carer benefits would be made taxable (and I still see that one coming at some point). Also ESA being cut to the same level as JSA (at the moment the long term sick and disabled get a slight up rate on the standard JSA level of around £30 a week).
There was no arithmetical way to raise £12b without hitting working tax credit unless pensions benefits got thrown into the mix, something that Cameron has ruled completely out.
So now all the unionist parties rant (though not usually at the same time) about the "unelected" House of Lords, Osborne just being the latest chancer.
I hope you have all recognised that the House of Lords is likely to remain without major reform because of that rather than in spite of it.
The last thing the London parties want is to be unable to chunter about the lack of real political legitimacy of the Lords which would be the case if they did have their own electoral mandate.
On last night's votes, Labour got their tactics right. The fatal motion would indeed have been an unambiguous outrage. A democratic party which seeks to be a party of government couldn't support it. The motions which did pass were sufficiently nuanced for Labour to be able to claim, with at least some justification, that they were in the spirit of the Lords being a revising chamber and giving the opportunity to the Commons to improve the proposals.
More interesting in electoral terms are the implications for the boundaries changes. I expect some action from the government on that.
A win for the new leadership. I thought McDonnell was good on TV before and afterwards. Tried not to gloat and succeeded.
As you know, I'm not much of a cinema-goer, but I haven't warmed to Craig as Bond.
Mr. W, I have some sympathy with that view, but that's also a criticism of every party (all were too vague) and the weakness/shallowness of the media (to be fair, some did point this out, including Tom Bradby [a better political editor than news anchor, though hopefully he'll improve], but not enough was made of it).
I consider Mr Craig to be the finest Bond ever.
I'm going to see it tomorrow night. Be nervous: I wasn't a huge fan of Skyfall, but loved Casino Royale (hence the name) and this has been the most shamelessly commercialised Bond film ever.
Not only is processed meat apparently really bad for you, it also could be making us cannibalistic.
A study of both meat and vegetarian hot dogs showed that they contain unadvertised ingredients - including human DNA. Clear Food Labs, a food analytics start-up found that 10% of vegetarian hot dog products contain meat.
More worryingly - unless you are a hardcore vegetarian who would rather eat people than pigs - the company found human DNA in 2% of its hot dog samples, and in two-thirds of the vegetarian samples...the human DNA most likely came from hygeine issues, so saliva and other bodily fluids along the production line. .
I'm tempted to write to the Advertising Standards Authority about something that's really got my goat. All the photos of Linda McCartney showed her as being an almost waiflike figure, yet they're still making 'Linda McCartney' sausages over fifteen years after she died.
Obviously they don't really contain any Linda McCartney, and so is false advertising.
Unless there is a homoeopathic equivalent for pop stars' wives?
On last night's votes, Labour got their tactics right. The fatal motion would indeed have been an unambiguous outrage. A democratic party which seeks to be a party of government couldn't support it. The motions which did pass were sufficiently nuanced for Labour to be able to claim, with at least some justification, that they were in the spirit of the Lords being a revising chamber and giving the opportunity to the Commons to improve the proposals.
More interesting in electoral terms are the implications for the boundaries changes. I expect some action from the government on that.
A win for the new leadership. I thought McDonnell was good on TV before and afterwards. Tried not to gloat and succeeded.
Yes, McDonnell is turning out to be a better performer than predicted.
Incidentally, on the apparent neutrality of the IFS, I saw a clip on the news last night where its spokesman claimed the tax credits defeat meant that the Chancellor would need to find someone else to 'hurt'.
It's worth bearing in mind that had the Conservatives appointed UKIP peers to the same share of the vote as they did Lib Dem peers, they would not face this problem. It's just another way we suffer from failing to co-operate with another conservative party.
Why would UKIP have been raised to the same level as the Lib Dem when the Lib Dems secured a factor more votes than them in 2010? Which is when the appointments were based on.
I think he meant elect ukip peers based on their 2015 share not to the Lib Dems 2010 share
There's only been a few months since 2015. The LD appointments happened over a 5 year period. Though since there's a majority government now there's no agreement to placate a third party anymore.
Would it be possible to legislate for the withdrawal (or significant reduction) of the daily allowance paid to peers without them having to vote for it? It would be hugely popular with the electorate and it would be interesting to see what objections the peers raised, particularly the bishops. It might not reduce the deficit by much but my old Mum used to say "every little bit helps". The Lords is largely an amateur institution as most of the peers readily demonstrate when they emerge blinking into public view so there should be no objection on that front.
Just as an aside, even though I'm in favour of the Gov't changes - Why did Dave come out with this pre-election:
DD: “Clearly there are some people who are worried that you have a plan to cut child credit and tax credits. Are you saying absolutely as a guarantee, it will never happen?”
DC: “First of all, child tax credit, we increased by £450..”
DD: “And it’s not going to fall?”
DC: “It’s not going to fall. Child benefit, to me, is one of the most important benefits there is. It goes directly to the family, normally to the mother, £20 for the first child, £14 for the second. It is the key part of families’ budgets in this country. That’s not what we need to change.”
As you know, I'm not much of a cinema-goer, but I haven't warmed to Craig as Bond.
Mr. W, I have some sympathy with that view, but that's also a criticism of every party (all were too vague) and the weakness/shallowness of the media (to be fair, some did point this out, including Tom Bradby [a better political editor than news anchor, though hopefully he'll improve], but not enough was made of it).
I consider Mr Craig to be the finest Bond ever.
I'm going to see it tomorrow night. Be nervous: I wasn't a huge fan of Skyfall, but loved Casino Royale (hence the name) and this has been the most shamelessly commercialised Bond film ever.
Mrs JackW is keen to see the film.
However I advised her that "Spectre" would surely be a tremendous disappointment for her after being married to the inspiration for James Bond ....
Her laughter was long, loud and a tad disconcerting to me. I shall re-box my Corgi Aston Martin DB5 for another day ....
State intervention in housing is only distorting the market, labour mobility within the UK needs to be encouraged rather than unskilled and semi-skilled immigration. More housing needs to be build where there is demand for it, but again this is politically difficult to do as the middle-class NIMBYs also vote.
Alternatively, housing needs to be built (or refurbished) where there is no demand for it, and sold off cheap. The idea being to reinvigorate dying communities, and have the benefits of "new towns" at less expense since most of the infrastructure is already there.
That's already the case: try looking at Hull or Merthyr Tydfil where you can buy a house for a pittance.
It's not exactly an unambiguous success.
Yes, and what I suggest is the government buys them up, does them up, and knocks them out cheaply to incomers, and does the same with commercial premises, as if it were a new town, with the aim of (a) stimulating the economy just through building works, and (b) attracting entrepreneurial outsiders. The government should set out to stimulate these economies. They could call it the [insert region name] powerhouse, if they like.
Incidentally, on the apparent neutrality of the IFS, I saw a clip on the news last night where its spokesman claimed the tax credits defeat meant that the Chancellor would need to find someone else to 'hurt'.
That's hardly the epitome of neutrality.
£12bn of cuts will certainly "hurt". The who and when is the issue.
As you know, I'm not much of a cinema-goer, but I haven't warmed to Craig as Bond.
Mr. W, I have some sympathy with that view, but that's also a criticism of every party (all were too vague) and the weakness/shallowness of the media (to be fair, some did point this out, including Tom Bradby [a better political editor than news anchor, though hopefully he'll improve], but not enough was made of it).
I consider Mr Craig to be the finest Bond ever.
I'm going to see it tomorrow night. Be nervous: I wasn't a huge fan of Skyfall, but loved Casino Royale (hence the name) and this has been the most shamelessly commercialised Bond film ever.
They have to be commercialised to be made.
But do they? I mean, really? There are plenty of Hollywood blockbusters that get made without anything like the same level of corporate prostitution.
I think a lot of it is profiting from Bond because they can.
On last night's votes, Labour got their tactics right. The fatal motion would indeed have been an unambiguous outrage. A democratic party which seeks to be a party of government couldn't support it. The motions which did pass were sufficiently nuanced for Labour to be able to claim, with at least some justification, that they were in the spirit of the Lords being a revising chamber and giving the opportunity to the Commons to improve the proposals.
More interesting in electoral terms are the implications for the boundaries changes. I expect some action from the government on that.
A win for the new leadership. I thought McDonnell was good on TV before and afterwards. Tried not to gloat and succeeded.
Yes, McDonnell is turning out to be a better performer than predicted.
Do you think that indicates that he has changed his spots? Even he must realise that his historical persona would not go down well with the general public. His "look I'm not a bad bloke" performances make him infinitely more not less dangerous but the difficult shouts are still to come - tax credits were a gift for him. We must hope that the electorate is not fooled.
Just as an aside, even though I'm in favour of the Gov't changes - Why did Dave come out with this pre-election:
DD: “Clearly there are some people who are worried that you have a plan to cut child credit and tax credits. Are you saying absolutely as a guarantee, it will never happen?”
DC: “First of all, child tax credit, we increased by £450..”
DD: “And it’s not going to fall?”
DC: “It’s not going to fall. Child benefit, to me, is one of the most important benefits there is. It goes directly to the family, normally to the mother, £20 for the first child, £14 for the second. It is the key part of families’ budgets in this country. That’s not what we need to change.”
He's talking about Child Benefit not tax credits. The two are different things.
State intervention in housing is only distorting the market, labour mobility within the UK needs to be encouraged rather than unskilled and semi-skilled immigration. More housing needs to be build where there is demand for it, but again this is politically difficult to do as the middle-class NIMBYs also vote.
Alternatively, housing needs to be built (or refurbished) where there is no demand for it, and sold off cheap. The idea being to reinvigorate dying communities, and have the benefits of "new towns" at less expense since most of the infrastructure is already there.
That's already the case: try looking at Hull or Merthyr Tydfil where you can buy a house for a pittance.
It's not exactly an unambiguous success.
Yes, and what I suggest is the government buys them up, does them up, and knocks them out cheaply to incomers, and does the same with commercial premises, as if it were a new town, with the aim of (a) stimulating the economy just through building works, and (b) attracting entrepreneurial outsiders. The government should set out to stimulate these economies. They could call it the [insert region name] powerhouse, if they like.
Be imaginative Dave. Don't just go for donors and ex politicians.
Appoint charismatic Tory bloggers. Ahem.
Appoint those whose betting accounts have been shut down by the bookies because they consisently won on political bets, an objective demonstration of good political judgement.
A suggestion that will meet with unanimous support here.
I believe that it is at the discretion of the Speaker of the HoC to certify whether legislation going to the Lords is a "Money Bill" in the terms of the 1911 and 1949 Parliament Act and thereby open to only a maximum of a month's delay by the HoL.
The issue last night was a Statutory Instrument which is clearly defined in the Statutory Instruments Act of 1946 as "subordinate legislation". Was it a "Money Bill"? It was clearly concerned with the supply of finance but was it a "Bill". Does the term "Bill" refer only to primary legislation (debated and amendable in the HoC) or does it also include statutory instruments which bypass that process (because they are subordinate to primary legislation).
The Statutory Instruments Act of 1946 in its definition of "Statutory Instrument" does not refer to it as a "Bill" but a "document".
It will be fascinating if Speaker Bercow decides to adjudicate on this! It is at his discretion.
Statutory Instruments are used to speed up the process because it involves very little scrutiny. If the TC cuts were put in the Finance Bill, this element would not have passed even through the committee stage. Osborne knew that. Hence, trying to smuggle it.
A lot of credit goes to the IFS for making it clear to all of us.
Yes - I understand that Osborne used a Statutory Instrument to bypass the usual scrutiny of primary legislation.
The issue is "Is the Statutory Instrument a Money Bill that cannot be delayed by the HoL or not?"
The Government say Yes. The Opposition say No. Only Speaker Bercow can adjudicate under the 1911/49 Parliament Act. His judgement cannot be challenged according to the Act.
EC in UK @EUlondonrep · 14m14 minutes ago President @JunckerEU on #RefugeeCrisis: European budget is too small to deal with problems we are facing. We need exceptional financing
Another unelected EU functionary demanding more money. How can we give him the reply given in Arkell vs Pressdram?
"Tax credits, which are something of a misnomer as they more closely resemble benefit payments, are a form of income-dependent welfare support for low earners." - Adam Palin, FT, June 26, 2015. They seem to come in at least four varieties. This chart in Palin's article is informative (I don't know how to embed it in a comment): http://im.ft-static.com/content/images/34de899a-021e-4d63-817d-f149dd5189a9.img
As you know, I'm not much of a cinema-goer, but I haven't warmed to Craig as Bond.
Mr. W, I have some sympathy with that view, but that's also a criticism of every party (all were too vague) and the weakness/shallowness of the media (to be fair, some did point this out, including Tom Bradby [a better political editor than news anchor, though hopefully he'll improve], but not enough was made of it).
I consider Mr Craig to be the finest Bond ever.
I'm going to see it tomorrow night. Be nervous: I wasn't a huge fan of Skyfall, but loved Casino Royale (hence the name) and this has been the most shamelessly commercialised Bond film ever.
They have to be commercialised to be made.
A load of guff. They're sweating the asset for all it's worth.
Plenty of films with similar budgets are made with far fewer commercial tie ins, and less obvious product placements.
EC in UK @EUlondonrep · 14m14 minutes ago President @JunckerEU on #RefugeeCrisis: European budget is too small to deal with problems we are facing. We need exceptional financing
Another unelected EU functionary demanding more money. How can we give him the reply given in Arkell vs Pressdram?
I know the British generally ignored that aspect of the election until it was over, but Juncker was elected, albeit indirectly (as was Cameron).
"Tax credits, which are something of a misnomer as they more closely resemble benefit payments, are a form of income-dependent welfare support for low earners." - Adam Palin, FT, June 26, 2015. They seem to come in at least four varieties. This chart in Palin's article is informative (I don't know how to embed it in a comment): http://im.ft-static.com/content/images/34de899a-021e-4d63-817d-f149dd5189a9.img
What happend between 2004 and 2009? Did the rules change or did more people simply fall into the existing eligible categories?
"James Bond today is a security guard, not a gentleman Daniel Craig plays Bond as a burly lout with a chip on his shoulder - which is why the films have lost their Establishment charm"
EC in UK @EUlondonrep · 14m14 minutes ago President @JunckerEU on #RefugeeCrisis: European budget is too small to deal with problems we are facing. We need exceptional financing
Another unelected EU functionary demanding more money. How can we give him the reply given in Arkell vs Pressdram?
I know the British generally ignored that aspect of the election until it was over, but Juncker was elected, albeit indirectly (as was Cameron).
That's an interesting description of a process where more than 90% of the electorate were unable to name him:
State intervention in housing is only distorting the market, labour mobility within the UK needs to be encouraged rather than unskilled and semi-skilled immigration. More housing needs to be build where there is demand for it, but again this is politically difficult to do as the middle-class NIMBYs also vote.
Alternatively, housing needs to be built (or refurbished) where there is no demand for it, and sold off cheap. The idea being to reinvigorate dying communities, and have the benefits of "new towns" at less expense since most of the infrastructure is already there.
That's already the case: try looking at Hull or Merthyr Tydfil where you can buy a house for a pittance.
It's not exactly an unambiguous success.
Yes, and what I suggest is the government buys them up, does them up, and knocks them out cheaply to incomers, and does the same with commercial premises, as if it were a new town, with the aim of (a) stimulating the economy just through building works, and (b) attracting entrepreneurial outsiders. The government should set out to stimulate these economies. They could call it the [insert region name] powerhouse, if they like.
They're already cheap. The supply is great and the demand is low.
The idea of producing more of what is not in demand in the hope of making it more in demand is rather optimistic. Addressing the reasons for low demand there is better, but still a gamble. In the meantime, producing homes where people want them, where demand is high and supply low, and thus housing costs (and therefore living costs) are extremely high would seem to be the best approach to dealing with high cost of living.
As long as we step away from the flawed Green Garotte philosophy, where we effectively subsidise golf and horse-riding at the expense of the average cost of living for everyone, where the vast majority of the land is under less-than-environmentally-friendly intensive agriculture (which could easily be carried out elsewhere) and off-limits to the general public anyway (circa 90% of the Green Belt is inaccessible to the public), we could overcome the supply issues quickly.
We could replace the Green Belt with a more targetted system, where parklands, forests and housing replace intensive agriculture - allowing a massive increase in supply, while placing the people involved closer to nature than they are now.
I think Timothy Dalton's underrated as Bond. It doesn't help that he only did two, and one is rarely shown because it has the Mujahadeen[sp] as good guys.
Just as an aside, even though I'm in favour of the Gov't changes - Why did Dave come out with this pre-election:
DD: “Clearly there are some people who are worried that you have a plan to cut child credit and tax credits. Are you saying absolutely as a guarantee, it will never happen?”
DC: “First of all, child tax credit, we increased by £450..”
DD: “And it’s not going to fall?”
DC: “It’s not going to fall. Child benefit, to me, is one of the most important benefits there is. It goes directly to the family, normally to the mother, £20 for the first child, £14 for the second. It is the key part of families’ budgets in this country. That’s not what we need to change.”
He's talking about Child Benefit not tax credits. The two are different things.
and it (CB) has been frozen not cut, although ofc it is a real terms cut.
Forgive my ignorance but could someone explain please?
If you were on 12k pa in 2009, wouldn't you have been paying 25% tax on anything over about 4k?
And the last govt raised the threshold to 10k or something?
Plus you got tax credits as well???
The personal allowance w as £6,035 in 2008/9 and £6,475 in 2009/10. People would have been paying 10% income tax on the first £2,320 / £2,440 over that, then 20% on anything more.
So, yes, in Brown's mad world low-paid people were paying income tax which was then given back to them via a circuitous, expensive and bureaucratic route.
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.
We happen in this country to have a non racist, non sectarian, moderate right wing populist party, called UKIP. That's a rarity. I think it's the best bet we have to get away from pretend politics.
UKIP are most certainly a racist party. I would expect them to be sectarian as well.
And no matter how much Kippers wish it, Glenn ain't dead.
And you still haven't quite developed the strength of character to admit that a competing party has undergone the same establishment smear campaign (x10) that 'Yes' did. No matter how much we would all wish it.
Forgive my ignorance but could someone explain please?
If you were on 12k pa in 2009, wouldn't you have been paying 25% tax on anything over about 4k?
And the last govt raised the threshold to 10k or something?
Plus you got tax credits as well???
The personal allowance w as £6,035 in 2008/9 and £6,475 in 2009/10. People would have been paying 10% income tax on the first £2,320 / £2,440 over that, then 20% on anything more.
So, yes, in Brown's mad world low-paid people were paying income tax which was then given back to them via a circuitous, expensive and bureaucratic route.
Cheers
So the person no longer paid tax on the 6-10k part of their salary and kept the tax credits under the coalition? And now the tax credits are being stopped so they're where they were under Brown without the nonsense of taking then giving back?
EC in UK @EUlondonrep · 14m14 minutes ago President @JunckerEU on #RefugeeCrisis: European budget is too small to deal with problems we are facing. We need exceptional financing
Another unelected EU functionary demanding more money. How can we give him the reply given in Arkell vs Pressdram?
I know the British generally ignored that aspect of the election until it was over, but Juncker was elected, albeit indirectly (as was Cameron).
We knew we were voting for Cameron before the election, whereas Junker was voted for afterwards. That is a stitch up rather than a democracy, and the reason why PR is unpopular.
I sense a growing gap between the political class and the general population in Europe, which will have to come to a head at some point soon. One imagines some very unpleasant people will be elected before the EU ruling class finally wakes up to what is happening on the ground.
State intervention in housing is only distorting the market, labour mobility within the UK needs to be encouraged rather than unskilled and semi-skilled immigration. More housing needs to be build where there is demand for it, but again this is politically difficult to do as the middle-class NIMBYs also vote.
Alternatively, housing needs to be built (or refurbished) where there is no demand for it, and sold off cheap. The idea being to reinvigorate dying communities, and have the benefits of "new towns" at less expense since most of the infrastructure is already there.
That's already the case: try looking at Hull or Merthyr Tydfil where you can buy a house for a pittance.
It's not exactly an unambiguous success.
Yes, and what I suggest is the government buys them up, does them up, and knocks them out cheaply to incomers, and does the same with commercial premises, as if it were a new town, with the aim of (a) stimulating the economy just through building works, and (b) attracting entrepreneurial outsiders. The government should set out to stimulate these economies. They could call it the [insert region name] powerhouse, if they like.
EC in UK @EUlondonrep · 14m14 minutes ago President @JunckerEU on #RefugeeCrisis: European budget is too small to deal with problems we are facing. We need exceptional financing
Another unelected EU functionary demanding more money. How can we give him the reply given in Arkell vs Pressdram?
I know the British generally ignored that aspect of the election until it was over, but Juncker was elected, albeit indirectly (as was Cameron).
That's an interesting description of a process where more than 90% of the electorate were unable to name him:
Clearly he didn't play the same role that Cameron and Miliband did in the UK general election, but that's a tricksy poll. What it really showed was that the voters don't know the names of the cross-European groupings. It also showed something like 15% of eligible voters having watched the debates, which will be quite a decent chunk of the actual voters.
I believe that it is at the discretion of the Speaker of the HoC to certify whether legislation going to the Lords is a "Money Bill" in the terms of the 1911 and 1949 Parliament Act and thereby open to only a maximum of a month's delay by the HoL.
The issue last night was a Statutory Instrument which is clearly defined in the Statutory Instruments Act of 1946 as "subordinate legislation". Was it a "Money Bill"? It was clearly concerned with the supply of finance but was it a "Bill". Does the term "Bill" refer only to primary legislation (debated and amendable in the HoC) or does it also include statutory instruments which bypass that process (because they are subordinate to primary legislation).
The Statutory Instruments Act of 1946 in its definition of "Statutory Instrument" does not refer to it as a "Bill" but a "document".
It will be fascinating if Speaker Bercow decides to adjudicate on this! It is at his discretion.
Statutory Instruments are used to speed up the process because it involves very little scrutiny. If the TC cuts were put in the Finance Bill, this element would not have passed even through the committee stage. Osborne knew that. Hence, trying to smuggle it.
A lot of credit goes to the IFS for making it clear to all of us.
Yes - I understand that Osborne used a Statutory Instrument to bypass the usual scrutiny of primary legislation.
The issue is "Is the Statutory Instrument a Money Bill that cannot be delayed by the HoL or not?"
The Government say Yes. The Opposition say No. Only Speaker Bercow can adjudicate under the 1911/49 Parliament Act. His judgement cannot be challenged according to the Act.
I am awaiting a pronouncement from him.
"The issue is "Is the Statutory Instrument a Money Bill that cannot be delayed by the HoL or not?"
If it is recognised as a Money Bill, what stops a future government put in a two-line Finance Bill and pass the rest through as SI ?
Osborne/Cameron have promised a "rapid review" of the constitutional arrangement with the HoL, presumably to further limit its power.
The key issue seems to be the power of the HoL to delay Statutory Instruments relating to the supply of finance. (Money Bills).
The obvious approach would be to remove the ambiguity (and reliance on Speaker Bercow to certify) and amend the Parliament Act 1949 to explicitly include Statutory Instruments within the definition of "Money Bill".
This would enable the Government to push through financial legislation without scrutiny or amendment by either House. This is a massive increase in Executive power. Speaker Bercow would have something to say about this. So would many backbench Tory MPs - Heidi, Zac and many others. I doubt if Cameron could get this sort of change through the HoC.
I suspect this rapid review is a lot of bluster. He cannot unilaterally restrict the power of the HoC. He needs the approval of Parliament.
Forgive my ignorance but could someone explain please?
If you were on 12k pa in 2009, wouldn't you have been paying 25% tax on anything over about 4k?
And the last govt raised the threshold to 10k or something?
Plus you got tax credits as well???
The personal allowance w as £6,035 in 2008/9 and £6,475 in 2009/10. People would have been paying 10% income tax on the first £2,320 / £2,440 over that, then 20% on anything more.
So, yes, in Brown's mad world low-paid people were paying income tax which was then given back to them via a circuitous, expensive and bureaucratic route.
Cheers
So the person no longer paid tax on the 6-10k part of their salary and kept the tax credits under the coalition? And now the tax credits are being stopped so they're where they were under Brown without the nonsense of taking then giving back?
Is that right or have i missed something?
It's broadly right. (Correction, my figures were slightly wrong, the 10% band only applied to savings income, so low-paid people were paying 20% tax over £6,035 / £6,475).
Forgive my ignorance but could someone explain please?
If you were on 12k pa in 2009, wouldn't you have been paying 25% tax on anything over about 4k?
And the last govt raised the threshold to 10k or something?
Plus you got tax credits as well???
The personal allowance w as £6,035 in 2008/9 and £6,475 in 2009/10. People would have been paying 10% income tax on the first £2,320 / £2,440 over that, then 20% on anything more.
So, yes, in Brown's mad world low-paid people were paying income tax which was then given back to them via a circuitous, expensive and bureaucratic route.
Cheers
So the person no longer paid tax on the 6-10k part of their salary and kept the tax credits under the coalition? And now the tax credits are being stopped so they're where they were under Brown without the nonsense of taking then giving back?
Is that right or have i missed something?
You are right. Since 2010-11 the personal allowance has risen £5k so anyone earning £11.5k is already a grand better off on that measure alone.
It's why I'm desparate to see real life examples of those who about to lose out from the tax credit changes. The lack of a serious defence of the policy by the govt suggests something more to the whole thing but I can't see what - unless it's just a massive charade for HoL reform!
I believe that it is at the discretion of the Speaker of the HoC to certify whether legislation going to the Lords is a "Money Bill" in the terms of the 1911 and 1949 Parliament Act and thereby open to only a maximum of a month's delay by the HoL.
The issue last night was a Statutory Instrument which is clearly defined in the Statutory Instruments Act of 1946 as "subordinate legislation". Was it a "Money Bill"? It was clearly concerned with the supply of finance but was it a "Bill". Does the term "Bill" refer only to primary legislation (debated and amendable in the HoC) or does it also include statutory instruments which bypass that process (because they are subordinate to primary legislation).
The Statutory Instruments Act of 1946 in its definition of "Statutory Instrument" does not refer to it as a "Bill" but a "document".
It will be fascinating if Speaker Bercow decides to adjudicate on this! It is at his discretion.
Statutory Instruments are used to speed up the process because it involves very little scrutiny. If the TC cuts were put in the Finance Bill, this element would not have passed even through the committee stage. Osborne knew that. Hence, trying to smuggle it.
A lot of credit goes to the IFS for making it clear to all of us.
Yes - I understand that Osborne used a Statutory Instrument to bypass the usual scrutiny of primary legislation.
The issue is "Is the Statutory Instrument a Money Bill that cannot be delayed by the HoL or not?"
The Government say Yes. The Opposition say No. Only Speaker Bercow can adjudicate under the 1911/49 Parliament Act. His judgement cannot be challenged according to the Act.
I am awaiting a pronouncement from him.
"The issue is "Is the Statutory Instrument a Money Bill that cannot be delayed by the HoL or not?"
If it is recognised as a Money Bill, what stops a future government put in a two-line Finance Bill and pass the rest through as SI ?
EC in UK @EUlondonrep · 14m14 minutes ago President @JunckerEU on #RefugeeCrisis: European budget is too small to deal with problems we are facing. We need exceptional financing
Another unelected EU functionary demanding more money. How can we give him the reply given in Arkell vs Pressdram?
I know the British generally ignored that aspect of the election until it was over, but Juncker was elected, albeit indirectly (as was Cameron).
We knew we were voting for Cameron before the election, whereas Junker was voted for afterwards.
Juncker was the declared candidate before the election, represented the right in the televised debates, etc etc.
Mr. Taffys, according to Twitter [so, take with a pinch of salt] Germany is now seeing the return and rise of diminished or absent diseases, as well as German security services being concerned by the extreme views held by many migrants.
I believe that it is at the discretion of the Speaker of the HoC to certify whether legislation going to the Lords is a "Money Bill" in the terms of the 1911 and 1949 Parliament Act and thereby open to only a maximum of a month's delay by the HoL.
The issue last night was a Statutory Instrument which is clearly defined in the Statutory Instruments Act of 1946 as "subordinate legislation". Was it a "Money Bill"? It was clearly concerned with the supply of finance but was it a "Bill". Does the term "Bill" refer only to primary legislation (debated and amendable in the HoC) or does it also include statutory instruments which bypass that process (because they are subordinate to primary legislation).
The Statutory Instruments Act of 1946 in its definition of "Statutory Instrument" does not refer to it as a "Bill" but a "document".
It will be fascinating if Speaker Bercow decides to adjudicate on this! It is at his discretion.
Statutory Instruments are used to speed up the process because it involves very little scrutiny. If the TC cuts were put in the Finance Bill, this element would not have passed even through the committee stage. Osborne knew that. Hence, trying to smuggle it.
A lot of credit goes to the IFS for making it clear to all of us.
Yes - I understand that Osborne used a Statutory Instrument to bypass the usual scrutiny of primary legislation.
The issue is "Is the Statutory Instrument a Money Bill that cannot be delayed by the HoL or not?"
The Government say Yes. The Opposition say No. Only Speaker Bercow can adjudicate under the 1911/49 Parliament Act. His judgement cannot be challenged according to the Act.
I am awaiting a pronouncement from him.
"The issue is "Is the Statutory Instrument a Money Bill that cannot be delayed by the HoL or not?"
If it is recognised as a Money Bill, what stops a future government put in a two-line Finance Bill and pass the rest through as SI ?
If it's an SI it's not a Bill. There was nothing to stop Osborne putting it before Parliament as a Bill, there still isn't.
I think Timothy Dalton's underrated as Bond. It doesn't help that he only did two, and one is rarely shown because it has the Mujahadeen[sp] as good guys.
Licence to Kill wasn't really a Bond film so much as a generic action adventure.
''Mr. Taffys, according to Twitter [so, take with a pinch of salt] Germany is now seeing the return and rise of diminished or absent diseases, as well as German security services being concerned by the extreme views held by many migrants.''
Wait til everybody needs a warm home Mr Morris. Frozen corpses won;t be a good look.
I believe that it is at the discretion of the Speaker of the HoC to certify whether legislation going to the Lords is a "Money Bill" in the terms of the 1911 and 1949 Parliament Act and thereby open to only a maximum of a month's delay by the HoL.
The issue last night was a Statutory Instrument which is clearly defined in the Statutory Instruments Act of 1946 as "subordinate legislation". Was it a "Money Bill"? It was clearly concerned with the supply of finance but was it a "Bill". Does the term "Bill" refer only to primary legislation (debated and amendable in the HoC) or does it also include statutory instruments which bypass that process (because they are subordinate to primary legislation).
The Statutory Instruments Act of 1946 in its definition of "Statutory Instrument" does not refer to it as a "Bill" but a "document".
It will be fascinating if Speaker Bercow decides to adjudicate on this! It is at his discretion.
Statutory Instruments are used to speed up the process because it involves very little scrutiny. If the TC cuts were put in the Finance Bill, this element would not have passed even through the committee stage. Osborne knew that. Hence, trying to smuggle it.
A lot of credit goes to the IFS for making it clear to all of us.
Yes - I understand that Osborne used a Statutory Instrument to bypass the usual scrutiny of primary legislation.
The issue is "Is the Statutory Instrument a Money Bill that cannot be delayed by the HoL or not?"
The Government say Yes. The Opposition say No. Only Speaker Bercow can adjudicate under the 1911/49 Parliament Act. His judgement cannot be challenged according to the Act.
I am awaiting a pronouncement from him.
"The issue is "Is the Statutory Instrument a Money Bill that cannot be delayed by the HoL or not?"
If it is recognised as a Money Bill, what stops a future government put in a two-line Finance Bill and pass the rest through as SI ?
Quite.
"Yes - I understand that Osborne used a Statutory Instrument to bypass the usual scrutiny of primary legislation."
From whence to you get that understanding?
Amendments to rates, thresholds, things of that sort, are often passed as SIs.
I believe that it is at the discretion of the Speaker of the HoC to certify whether legislation going to the Lords is a "Money Bill" in the terms of the 1911 and 1949 Parliament Act and thereby open to only a maximum of a month's delay by the HoL.
The issue last night was a Statutory Instrument which is clearly defined in the Statutory Instruments Act of 1946 as "subordinate legislation". Was it a "Money Bill"? It was clearly concerned with the supply of finance but was it a "Bill". Does the term "Bill" refer only to primary legislation (debated and amendable in the HoC) or does it also include statutory instruments which bypass that process (because they are subordinate to primary legislation).
The Statutory Instruments Act of 1946 in its definition of "Statutory Instrument" does not refer to it as a "Bill" but a "document".
It will be fascinating if Speaker Bercow decides to adjudicate on this! It is at his discretion.
Statutory Instruments are used to speed up the process because it involves very little scrutiny. If the TC cuts were put in the Finance Bill, this element would not have passed even through the committee stage. Osborne knew that. Hence, trying to smuggle it.
A lot of credit goes to the IFS for making it clear to all of us.
Yes - I understand that Osborne used a Statutory Instrument to bypass the usual scrutiny of primary legislation.
The issue is "Is the Statutory Instrument a Money Bill that cannot be delayed by the HoL or not?"
The Government say Yes. The Opposition say No. Only Speaker Bercow can adjudicate under the 1911/49 Parliament Act. His judgement cannot be challenged according to the Act.
I am awaiting a pronouncement from him.
"The issue is "Is the Statutory Instrument a Money Bill that cannot be delayed by the HoL or not?"
If it is recognised as a Money Bill, what stops a future government put in a two-line Finance Bill and pass the rest through as SI ?
If it's an SI it's not a Bill. There was nothing to stop Osborne putting it before Parliament as a Bill, there still isn't.
That's right. He choose not to because he didn't want it debated or amendments taken in the HoC because many Tory MPs would have supported amendments.
He is now trying to extend executive power by using SIs to bypass the Commons and the Lords. It is as much an issue for the power of the HoC as of the HoL in holding the Executive to account.
Just as an aside, even though I'm in favour of the Gov't changes - Why did Dave come out with this pre-election:
DD: “Clearly there are some people who are worried that you have a plan to cut child credit and tax credits. Are you saying absolutely as a guarantee, it will never happen?”
DC: “First of all, child tax credit, we increased by £450..”
DD: “And it’s not going to fall?”
DC: “It’s not going to fall. Child benefit, to me, is one of the most important benefits there is. It goes directly to the family, normally to the mother, £20 for the first child, £14 for the second. It is the key part of families’ budgets in this country. That’s not what we need to change.”
He's talking about Child Benefit not tax credits. The two are different things.
I agree with Pulpstar. The reform is a sensible one, but DC made a clear promise before the election, which he is breaking. Philip you are wrong when you say he was referring to CB. Read the quote again:
DC "First of all, child tax credit, we increased by £450"
DD "And that is not going to fall?"
DC "It is not going to fall"
He then went on to deal with CB.
Seperately the following was said:
Audience member: Will you put to bed rumours that you plan to cut child tax credit and restrict child benefit to two children?
David Cameron [DC]: No I don’t want to do that—this report that was out today is something I rejected at the time as Prime Minister and I reject it again today
[Later] David Dimbleby [DD]: You said you didn’t want to put to bed rumours that you were going to cut child tax credits—you meant you did want to put to bed the rumours?
Nick, that was exactly my favoured solution - except with the caveats Antifrank cites.
I think Bishops do add (aside from my innate conservative preference not to disestablish) a useful moral voice in debates, and the law lords expertise was also helpful. We effectively have big business and industry Lords.
Why not medical Lords, education Lords, small business owner and farmer Lords, as well as geographical representatives?
However, I would not make any of those subject matter Lords coterminous with industry unions like the BMA or NUT or NFA to avoid a conspiracy against the public.
Yes. I'd give the power of appointments to the current independent Commission, scrapping the influence of political parties in putting forward nominees (anyone could write in with a suggestion, of course), with an explicit instruction that they should avoid appointing anyone who has a vested interest as a producer union representative etc.
They could also be asked to include some iconoclasts and people from unpopular groups, which are also a sort of specialism, to counter the antifrank danger - Frank Field, George Galloway, Richard Littlejohn, a pacifist, a hedge fund manager, a tax avoidance consultant, a refugee, an imam, a recently discharged prisoner, a benefits claimant, etc. I'd dislike the likely opinions of some of these and you might dislike others, but among 1000 members they would not be able to cause serious trouble, but it would be useful to have them on a committee considering a Bill touching on their experience.
I apologise to Topping. I'm not used to the quote facility and seem to have put my comments under his name.
These are my comments not his.
Sorry again.
I agree with Pulpstar. The reform is a sensible one, but DC made a clear promise before the election, which he is breaking. Philip you are wrong when you say he was referring to CB. Read the quote again:
DC "First of all, child tax credit, we increased by £450"
DD "And that is not going to fall?"
DC "It is not going to fall"
He then went on to deal with CB.
Seperately the following was said:
Audience member: Will you put to bed rumours that you plan to cut child tax credit and restrict child benefit to two children?
David Cameron [DC]: No I don’t want to do that—this report that was out today is something I rejected at the time as Prime Minister and I reject it again today
[Later] David Dimbleby [DD]: You said you didn’t want to put to bed rumours that you were going to cut child tax credits—you meant you did want to put to bed the rumours?
I apologise to Topping. I'm not used to the quote facility and seem to have put my comments under his name.
These are my comments not his.
Sorry again.
I agree with Pulpstar. The reform is a sensible one, but DC made a clear promise before the election, which he is breaking. Philip you are wrong when you say he was referring to CB. Read the quote again:
DC "First of all, child tax credit, we increased by £450"
DD "And that is not going to fall?"
DC "It is not going to fall"
He then went on to deal with CB.
Seperately the following was said:
Audience member: Will you put to bed rumours that you plan to cut child tax credit and restrict child benefit to two children?
David Cameron [DC]: No I don’t want to do that—this report that was out today is something I rejected at the time as Prime Minister and I reject it again today
[Later] David Dimbleby [DD]: You said you didn’t want to put to bed rumours that you were going to cut child tax credits—you meant you did want to put to bed the rumours?
Forgive my ignorance but could someone explain please?
If you were on 12k pa in 2009, wouldn't you have been paying 25% tax on anything over about 4k?
And the last govt raised the threshold to 10k or something?
Plus you got tax credits as well???
The personal allowance w as £6,035 in 2008/9 and £6,475 in 2009/10. People would have been paying 10% income tax on the first £2,320 / £2,440 over that, then 20% on anything more.
So, yes, in Brown's mad world low-paid people were paying income tax which was then given back to them via a circuitous, expensive and bureaucratic route.
Cheers
So the person no longer paid tax on the 6-10k part of their salary and kept the tax credits under the coalition? And now the tax credits are being stopped so they're where they were under Brown without the nonsense of taking then giving back?
Is that right or have i missed something?
You are right. Since 2010-11 the personal allowance has risen £5k so anyone earning £11.5k is already a grand better off on that measure alone.
It's why I'm desparate to see real life examples of those who about to lose out from the tax credit changes. The lack of a serious defence of the policy by the govt suggests something more to the whole thing but I can't see what - unless it's just a massive charade for HoL reform!
The trouble is that it is not human nature to say, Oh five or six years ago my personal allowance starting changing and so looking back it does seem that I am £1000 better off and so the new tax credit cut is fair enough. Over those five years people have adjusted their lives or indeed have just been hit by the endless rises in energy, food and rent.
As for the issue of taking money and recycling: the problem with just using the personal allowance uprating as a way of helping low paid workers is that it is not a very targeted, cost effective method, as other tax payers also benefit. There's been some tinkering with the 40% threshold to help this, but I doubt it covers all the overall cost of allowance increases.
I believe that it is at the discretion of the Speaker of the HoC to certify whether legislation going to the Lords is a "Money Bill" in the terms of the 1911 and 1949 Parliament Act and thereby open to only a maximum of a month's delay by the HoL.
The issue last night was a Statutory Instrument which is clearly defined in the Statutory Instruments Act of 1946 as "subordinate legislation". Was it a "Money Bill"? It was clearly concerned with the supply of finance but was it a "Bill". Does the term "Bill" refer only to primary legislation (debated and amendable in the HoC) or does it also include statutory instruments which bypass that process (because they are subordinate to primary legislation).
The Statutory Instruments Act of 1946 in its definition of "Statutory Instrument" does not refer to it as a "Bill" but a "document".
It will be fascinating if Speaker Bercow decides to adjudicate on this! It is at his discretion.
Statutory Instruments are used to speed up the process because it involves very little scrutiny. If the TC cuts were put in the Finance Bill, this element would not have passed even through the committee stage. Osborne knew that. Hence, trying to smuggle it.
A lot of credit goes to the IFS for making it clear to all of us.
Yes - I understand that Osborne used a Statutory Instrument to bypass the usual scrutiny of primary legislation.
The issue is "Is the Statutory Instrument a Money Bill that cannot be delayed by the HoL or not?"
The Government say Yes. The Opposition say No. Only Speaker Bercow can adjudicate under the 1911/49 Parliament Act. His judgement cannot be challenged according to the Act.
I am awaiting a pronouncement from him.
"The issue is "Is the Statutory Instrument a Money Bill that cannot be delayed by the HoL or not?"
If it is recognised as a Money Bill, what stops a future government put in a two-line Finance Bill and pass the rest through as SI ?
Quite.
"Yes - I understand that Osborne used a Statutory Instrument to bypass the usual scrutiny of primary legislation."
From whence to you get that understanding?
Amendments to rates, thresholds, things of that sort, are often passed as SIs.
SIs are usually uncontentious and used to declutter Parliament. This wasn't uncontentious. He could have used a Bill but choose an SI. It was deliberate. That is where I get my understanding. What do you think his motive was?
I think Timothy Dalton's underrated as Bond. It doesn't help that he only did two, and one is rarely shown because it has the Mujahadeen[sp] as good guys.
Licence to Kill wasn't really a Bond film so much as a generic action adventure.
Nick, that was exactly my favoured solution - except with the caveats Antifrank cites.
I think Bishops do add (aside from my innate conservative preference not to disestablish) a useful moral voice in debates, and the law lords expertise was also helpful. We effectively have big business and industry Lords.
Why not medical Lords, education Lords, small business owner and farmer Lords, as well as geographical representatives?
However, I would not make any of those subject matter Lords coterminous with industry unions like the BMA or NUT or NFA to avoid a conspiracy against the public.
Yes. I'd give the power of appointments to the current independent Commission, scrapping the influence of political parties in putting forward nominees (anyone could write in with a suggestion, of course), with an explicit instruction that they should avoid appointing anyone who has a vested interest as a producer union representative etc.
They could also be asked to include some iconoclasts and people from unpopular groups, which are also a sort of specialism, to counter the antifrank danger - Frank Field, George Galloway, Richard Littlejohn, a pacifist, a hedge fund manager, a tax avoidance consultant, a refugee, an imam, a recently discharged prisoner, a benefits claimant, etc. I'd dislike the likely opinions of some of these and you might dislike others, but among 1000 members they would not be able to cause serious trouble, but it would be useful to have them on a committee considering a Bill touching on their experience.
Seems like you could get a similar effect without the associated governance issues (who appoints the appointers etc) by picking a bunch of voters at random, and asking them to choose one person each.
Forgive my ignorance but could someone explain please?
If you were on 12k pa in 2009, wouldn't you have been paying 25% tax on anything over about 4k?
And the last govt raised the threshold to 10k or something?
Plus you got tax credits as well???
The personal allowance w as £6,035 in 2008/9 and £6,475 in 2009/10. People would have been paying 10% income tax on the first £2,320 / £2,440 over that, then 20% on anything more.
So, yes, in Brown's mad world low-paid people were paying income tax which was then given back to them via a circuitous, expensive and bureaucratic route.
Cheers
So the person no longer paid tax on the 6-10k part of their salary and kept the tax credits under the coalition? And now the tax credits are being stopped so they're where they were under Brown without the nonsense of taking then giving back?
Is that right or have i missed something?
You are right. Since 2010-11 the personal allowance has risen £5k so anyone earning £11.5k is already a grand better off on that measure alone.
It's why I'm desparate to see real life examples of those who about to lose out from the tax credit changes. The lack of a serious defence of the policy by the govt suggests something more to the whole thing but I can't see what - unless it's just a massive charade for HoL reform!
The trouble is that it is not human nature to say, Oh five or six years ago my personal allowance starting changing and so looking back it does seem that I am £1000 better off and so the new tax credit cut is fair enough. Over those five years people have adjusted their lives or indeed have just been hit by the endless rises in energy, food and rent.
As for the issue of taking money and recycling: the problem with just using the personal allowance uprating as a way of helping low paid workers is that it is not a very targeted, cost effective method, as other tax payers also benefit. There's been some tinkering with the 40% threshold to help this, but I doubt it covers all the overall cost of allowance increases.
Why is it a problem if other tax payers benefit from the raising of the tax threshold too? The lowest paid benefit most proportionally
All of this hullabaloo boils down to one thing... The state is too big
I think Timothy Dalton's underrated as Bond. It doesn't help that he only did two, and one is rarely shown because it has the Mujahadeen[sp] as good guys.
Licence to Kill wasn't really a Bond film so much as a generic action adventure.
EC in UK @EUlondonrep · 14m14 minutes ago President @JunckerEU on #RefugeeCrisis: European budget is too small to deal with problems we are facing. We need exceptional financing
Another unelected EU functionary demanding more money. How can we give him the reply given in Arkell vs Pressdram?
I know the British generally ignored that aspect of the election until it was over, but Juncker was elected, albeit indirectly (as was Cameron).
That's an interesting description of a process where more than 90% of the electorate were unable to name him:
Clearly he didn't play the same role that Cameron and Miliband did in the UK general election, but that's a tricksy poll. What it really showed was that the voters don't know the names of the cross-European groupings. It also showed something like 15% of eligible voters having watched the debates, which will be quite a decent chunk of the actual voters.
See question 5a: "Can you name any of the candidates that have been nominated by the Political Parties at the European Level to replace José Namuel Barroso as President of the European Commission?"
91.8% did not recall Jean-Claude Juncker. Only 13.6% were able to name any candidate.
State intervention in housing is only distorting the market, labour mobility within the UK needs to be encouraged rather than unskilled and semi-skilled immigration. More housing needs to be build where there is demand for it, but again this is politically difficult to do as the middle-class NIMBYs also vote.
Alternatively, housing needs to be built (or refurbished) where there is no demand for it, and sold off cheap. The idea being to reinvigorate dying communities, and have the benefits of "new towns" at less expense since most of the infrastructure is already there.
That's already the case: try looking at Hull or Merthyr Tydfil where you can buy a house for a pittance.
It's not exactly an unambiguous success.
Yes, and what I suggest is the government buys them up, does them up, and knocks them out cheaply to incomers, and does the same with commercial premises, as if it were a new town, with the aim of (a) stimulating the economy just through building works, and (b) attracting entrepreneurial outsiders. The government should set out to stimulate these economies. They could call it the [insert region name] powerhouse, if they like.
You can't polish a turd.
On Hull - an investor's perspective from another forum I frequent:
" However there is a line of land along that road which never seems to be developed, not sure if the issue is flooding (always a Hull issue), pollution costs etc. This road (CSW) is the main arterial for traffic in and out of Hull and more development in this area just makes it worse. Hull struggles to grow and certainly the amount of brown field land is large with very little demand. It's a tough place to make money developing land. "
MD.That would appear to be where the problem lies..no one in Schengen wants to take them...why invite what are obviously disruptive elements into your country..it is a zero gain..and the political party that does it will suffer..
Nick, that was exactly my favoured solution - except with the caveats Antifrank cites.
I think Bishops do add (aside from my innate conservative preference not to disestablish) a useful moral voice in debates, and the law lords expertise was also helpful. We effectively have big business and industry Lords.
Why not medical Lords, education Lords, small business owner and farmer Lords, as well as geographical representatives?
However, I would not make any of those subject matter Lords coterminous with industry unions like the BMA or NUT or NFA to avoid a conspiracy against the public.
Yes. I'd give the power of appointments to the current independent Commission, scrapping the influence of political parties in putting forward nominees (anyone could write in with a suggestion, of course), with an explicit instruction that they should avoid appointing anyone who has a vested interest as a producer union representative etc.
They could also be asked to include some iconoclasts and people from unpopular groups, which are also a sort of specialism, to counter the antifrank danger - Frank Field, George Galloway, Richard Littlejohn, a pacifist, a hedge fund manager, a tax avoidance consultant, a refugee, an imam, a recently discharged prisoner, a benefits claimant, etc. I'd dislike the likely opinions of some of these and you might dislike others, but among 1000 members they would not be able to cause serious trouble, but it would be useful to have them on a committee considering a Bill touching on their experience.
Seems like you could get a similar effect without the associated governance issues (who appoints the appointers etc) by picking a bunch of voters at random, and asking them to choose one person each.
Select Lords for 5 year terms by tbe same means means as selecting for Jury service. Instantly representative!
I apologise to Topping. I'm not used to the quote facility and seem to have put my comments under his name.
These are my comments not his.
Sorry again.
I agree with Pulpstar. The reform is a sensible one, but DC made a clear promise before the election, which he is breaking. Philip you are wrong when you say he was referring to CB. Read the quote again:
DC "First of all, child tax credit, we increased by £450"
DD "And that is not going to fall?"
DC "It is not going to fall"
He then went on to deal with CB.
Seperately the following was said:
Audience member: Will you put to bed rumours that you plan to cut child tax credit and restrict child benefit to two children?
David Cameron [DC]: No I don’t want to do that—this report that was out today is something I rejected at the time as Prime Minister and I reject it again today
[Later] David Dimbleby [DD]: You said you didn’t want to put to bed rumours that you were going to cut child tax credits—you meant you did want to put to bed the rumours?
DC: Yes—we have increased child tax credits.
I have no idea if this organisation is politically motivated but it is the closest I have come to trying to work out the he said/she said.
Mr. Taffys, it has been discussed somewhat. I wonder how long the PM nominated will be given to try and pass whatever the first key test is (I'd guess a budget).
Forgive my ignorance but could someone explain please?
If you were on 12k pa in 2009, wouldn't you have been paying 25% tax on anything over about 4k?
And the last govt raised the threshold to 10k or something?
Plus you got tax credits as well???
The personal allowance w as £6,035 in 2008/9 and £6,475 in 2009/10. People would have been paying 10% income tax on the first £2,320 / £2,440 over that, then 20% on anything more.
So, yes, in Brown's mad world low-paid people were paying income tax which was then given back to them via a circuitous, expensive and bureaucratic route.
Cheers
So the person no longer paid tax on the 6-10k part of their salary and kept the tax credits under the coalition? And now the tax credits are being stopped so they're where they were under Brown without the nonsense of taking then giving back?
Is that right or have i missed something?
You are right. Since 2010-11 the personal allowance has risen £5k so anyone earning £11.5k is already a grand better off on that measure alone.
It's why I'm desparate to see real life examples of those who about to lose out from the tax credit changes. The lack of a serious defence of the policy by the govt suggests something more to the whole thing but I can't see what - unless it's just a massive charade for HoL reform!
The trouble is that it is not human nature to say, Oh five or six years ago my personal allowance starting changing and so looking back it does seem that I am £1000 better off and so the new tax credit cut is fair enough. Over those five years people have adjusted their lives or indeed have just been hit by the endless rises in energy, food and rent.
As for the issue of taking money and recycling: the problem with just using the personal allowance uprating as a way of helping low paid workers is that it is not a very targeted, cost effective method, as other tax payers also benefit. There's been some tinkering with the 40% threshold to help this, but I doubt it covers all the overall cost of allowance increases.
Why is it a problem if other tax payers benefit from the raising of the tax threshold too? The lowest paid benefit most proportionally
All of this hullabaloo boils down to one thing... The state is too big
It's not a problem in itself, the problem is affordability. If you want to help the low paid worker then raising the threshold is a less targeted way of doing it than tax credits.
Comments
A lot of credit goes to the IFS for making it clear to all of us.
One of the strengths of the Coalition was that policy had to more carefully thought through. Both parties almost acting as a HoL revising element within government.
The Conservative principle of increasing the minimum wage at the expense of tax credits is sound in the long term but this short sharp shock approach is cack handed and has damaged the sound case for reform.
It's not exactly an unambiguous success.
President @JunckerEU on #RefugeeCrisis: European budget is too small to deal with problems we are facing. We need exceptional financing
As to what I was expecting. Personally, exactly what we are getting plus a harder hit on ESA, DLA and so on. I was pretty sure all these disability and carer benefits would be made taxable (and I still see that one coming at some point). Also ESA being cut to the same level as JSA (at the moment the long term sick and disabled get a slight up rate on the standard JSA level of around £30 a week).
There was no arithmetical way to raise £12b without hitting working tax credit unless pensions benefits got thrown into the mix, something that Cameron has ruled completely out.
I hope you have all recognised that the House of Lords is likely to remain without major reform because of that rather than in spite of it.
The last thing the London parties want is to be unable to chunter about the lack of real political legitimacy of the Lords which would be the case if they did have their own electoral mandate.
But I think his talents are best suited to being an éminence grise than being leader
"More EU!"
twitter.com/odysseanproject/status/658916454495047681
Obviously they don't really contain any Linda McCartney, and so is false advertising.
Unless there is a homoeopathic equivalent for pop stars' wives?
That's hardly the epitome of neutrality.
BBC NEWS = economy slows to 0.5%
!!!!!!!!!
DD: “Clearly there are some people who are worried that you have a plan to cut child credit and tax credits. Are you saying absolutely as a guarantee, it will never happen?”
DC: “First of all, child tax credit, we increased by £450..”
DD: “And it’s not going to fall?”
DC: “It’s not going to fall. Child benefit, to me, is one of the most important benefits there is. It goes directly to the family, normally to the mother, £20 for the first child, £14 for the second. It is the key part of families’ budgets in this country. That’s not what we need to change.”
However I advised her that "Spectre" would surely be a tremendous disappointment for her after being married to the inspiration for James Bond ....
Her laughter was long, loud and a tad disconcerting to me. I shall re-box my Corgi Aston Martin DB5 for another day ....
I think a lot of it is profiting from Bond because they can.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34641131
Well, 'disputed' in the sense that other nations are disputing China stealing their territory.
Edited extra bit: Mr. W, it is not neutral economic language.
And if it must be used, why no comparison with the immense pain an everlasting deficit and permanently increasing debt would cause?
The issue is "Is the Statutory Instrument a Money Bill that cannot be delayed by the HoL or not?"
The Government say Yes. The Opposition say No. Only Speaker Bercow can adjudicate under the 1911/49 Parliament Act. His judgement cannot be challenged according to the Act.
I am awaiting a pronouncement from him.
- Adam Palin, FT, June 26, 2015.
They seem to come in at least four varieties. This chart in Palin's article is informative (I don't know how to embed it in a comment):
http://im.ft-static.com/content/images/34de899a-021e-4d63-817d-f149dd5189a9.img
Plenty of films with similar budgets are made with far fewer commercial tie ins, and less obvious product placements.
If you were on 12k pa in 2009, wouldn't you have been paying 25% tax on anything over about 4k?
And the last govt raised the threshold to 10k or something?
Plus you got tax credits as well???
"James Bond today is a security guard, not a gentleman
Daniel Craig plays Bond as a burly lout with a chip on his shoulder - which is why the films have lost their Establishment charm"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/jamesbond/11954217/James-Bond-today-is-a-security-guard-not-a-gentleman.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10872995/Nine-in-10-EU-voters-cannot-name-Jean-Claude-Juncker.html
The idea of producing more of what is not in demand in the hope of making it more in demand is rather optimistic. Addressing the reasons for low demand there is better, but still a gamble.
In the meantime, producing homes where people want them, where demand is high and supply low, and thus housing costs (and therefore living costs) are extremely high would seem to be the best approach to dealing with high cost of living.
As long as we step away from the flawed Green Garotte philosophy, where we effectively subsidise golf and horse-riding at the expense of the average cost of living for everyone, where the vast majority of the land is under less-than-environmentally-friendly intensive agriculture (which could easily be carried out elsewhere) and off-limits to the general public anyway (circa 90% of the Green Belt is inaccessible to the public), we could overcome the supply issues quickly.
We could replace the Green Belt with a more targetted system, where parklands, forests and housing replace intensive agriculture - allowing a massive increase in supply, while placing the people involved closer to nature than they are now.
I think Timothy Dalton's underrated as Bond. It doesn't help that he only did two, and one is rarely shown because it has the Mujahadeen[sp] as good guys.
So, yes, in Brown's mad world low-paid people were paying income tax which was then given back to them via a circuitous, expensive and bureaucratic route.
So the person no longer paid tax on the 6-10k part of their salary and kept the tax credits under the coalition? And now the tax credits are being stopped so they're where they were under Brown without the nonsense of taking then giving back?
Is that right or have i missed something?
I sense a growing gap between the political class and the general population in Europe, which will have to come to a head at some point soon. One imagines some very unpleasant people will be elected before the EU ruling class finally wakes up to what is happening on the ground.
If it is recognised as a Money Bill, what stops a future government put in a two-line Finance Bill and pass the rest through as SI ?
The key issue seems to be the power of the HoL to delay Statutory Instruments relating to the supply of finance. (Money Bills).
The obvious approach would be to remove the ambiguity (and reliance on Speaker Bercow to certify) and amend the Parliament Act 1949 to explicitly include Statutory Instruments within the definition of "Money Bill".
This would enable the Government to push through financial legislation without scrutiny or amendment by either House. This is a massive increase in Executive power. Speaker Bercow would have something to say about this. So would many backbench Tory MPs - Heidi, Zac and many others. I doubt if Cameron could get this sort of change through the HoC.
I suspect this rapid review is a lot of bluster. He cannot unilaterally restrict the power of the HoC. He needs the approval of Parliament.
This winter could witness the partial breakdown of the EUs calamitous ''policy'' on immigration and refugees.
It's why I'm desparate to see real life examples of those who about to lose out from the tax credit changes. The lack of a serious defence of the policy by the govt suggests something more to the whole thing but I can't see what - unless it's just a massive charade for HoL reform!
The House of Lords now deserves everything it will get.
Wait til everybody needs a warm home Mr Morris. Frozen corpses won;t be a good look.
From whence to you get that understanding?
Amendments to rates, thresholds, things of that sort, are often passed as SIs.
He is now trying to extend executive power by using SIs to bypass the Commons and the Lords.
It is as much an issue for the power of the HoC as of the HoL in holding the Executive to account.
Meanwhile Boris is engaged in a tug of war at Tower Bridge...
They could also be asked to include some iconoclasts and people from unpopular groups, which are also a sort of specialism, to counter the antifrank danger - Frank Field, George Galloway, Richard Littlejohn, a pacifist, a hedge fund manager, a tax avoidance consultant, a refugee, an imam, a recently discharged prisoner, a benefits claimant, etc. I'd dislike the likely opinions of some of these and you might dislike others, but among 1000 members they would not be able to cause serious trouble, but it would be useful to have them on a committee considering a Bill touching on their experience.
I apologise to Topping. I'm not used to the quote facility and seem to have put my comments under his name.
These are my comments not his.
Sorry again.
I agree with Pulpstar. The reform is a sensible one, but DC made a clear promise before the election, which he is breaking. Philip you are wrong when you say he was referring to CB. Read the quote again:
DC "First of all, child tax credit, we increased by £450"
DD "And that is not going to fall?"
DC "It is not going to fall"
He then went on to deal with CB.
Seperately the following was said:
Audience member: Will you put to bed rumours that you plan to cut child tax credit and restrict child benefit to two children?
David Cameron [DC]: No I don’t want to do that—this report that was out today is something I rejected at the time as Prime Minister and I reject it again today
[Later] David Dimbleby [DD]: You said you didn’t want to put to bed rumours that you were going to cut child tax credits—you meant you did want to put to bed the rumours?
DC: Yes—we have increased child tax credits.
As for the issue of taking money and recycling: the problem with just using the personal allowance uprating as a way of helping low paid workers is that it is not a very targeted, cost effective method, as other tax payers also benefit. There's been some tinkering with the 40% threshold to help this, but I doubt it covers all the overall cost of allowance increases.
I fear this point will be lost on the electorate though.
All of this hullabaloo boils down to one thing... The state is too big
May I be the first to shout triple dip and flatline.
Thank you
Apparently they're going to try deporting large numbers of them. I'm sure that'll go well.
http://www.aecr.eu/media/AECRAMR-European-election-poll.pdf
See question 5a: "Can you name any of the candidates that have been nominated by the Political Parties at the European Level to replace José Namuel Barroso as President of the European Commission?"
91.8% did not recall Jean-Claude Juncker. Only 13.6% were able to name any candidate.
" However there is a line of land along that road which never seems to be developed, not sure if the issue is flooding (always a Hull issue), pollution costs etc. This road (CSW) is the main arterial for traffic in and out of Hull and more development in this area just makes it worse. Hull struggles to grow and certainly the amount of brown field land is large with very little demand. It's a tough place to make money developing land. "
Anthrax found in a cow in Wiltshire which is the first case since 2006. There is very low level transmission risk.
https://fullfact.org/factcheck/economy/child_tax_credit_cut_promise-46421
Which of course brings us back to what the meaning of is is.
Guido has a quote from Farage's latest tirade on the matter.
-1 point for David Cameron's pre-election porkie pie on the matter
-1 point for the Lords muddle.
So 8/10 in all.