Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Tax Credit cuts may be cancelled by House of Lords

42 replies

squidzin · 19/10/2015 11:05

Sorry if there's already a thread on this...

A veto to the Tory's highly controversial decision to cut working tax credits, is to be voted on within the House of Lords on 29th Oct.

The move is constitutional because the cuts were not in the manifesto.

m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/8326878

OP posts:
Original poster
squidzin · 19/10/2015 11:07

m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/8326878

OP posts:
Kazzawazzawo0 · 19/10/2015 11:18

This is good news. Does anyone know if there's a petition against the cuts?

Original poster
squidzin · 19/10/2015 11:26

I searched parliament petitions, and found this one

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/104356

But don't know if there are bigger ones out there.

OP posts:
NoManJan · 19/10/2015 11:41

Here's to hoping.

NewLife4Me · 19/10/2015 11:47

I have just tried to sign this and it says I can't sign again.
I did sign one for my local MP so it sounds like if you have signed one they are all linked which sounds positive.
It would be awful if there were lots of little ones that never came together.

Jaxsbum · 19/10/2015 11:49

not sure about it.....the cuts will still happen to something

Isitmebut · 19/10/2015 14:09

So does that mean that if a party with a honking majority comes in and starts HIKING taxes and selling off the countries gold reserves - that was NOT mentioned in a (1997) manifesto where the ink hadn't dried yet - it was not constitutional?

As if anything was not constitutional, it was selling nearly half our gold reserves (already far lower than our economic size vs the rest of the worlds reserves) at a 20-year low price well under $300 an ounce.

If true on taxes, maybe every rise not mentioned in a manifesto should be thrown out as illegal, in which case after 2010 under Labour, our National Debt would be several hundred £billion more than it is.

AnyoneButAndre · 19/10/2015 14:15

No IIMB. A government with an elected majority can pass whatever legislation it likes in the House of Commons. The House of Lords can then veto that legislation unless it was in the manifesto. This is claimed not to have been in the manifesto hence the HOL could potentially veto it, if a majority could be got together so to do.

Jux · 20/10/2015 22:10

If the Lords throw it out, it goes back to the Commons, gets voted on, if passed again it will go back to the Lords who could vote against again but if the Commons vote for it a third time, it goes through. I think that's how it works.

In all the to-ing and fro-ing, there might be a few insignificant amendments made which will be blown out of proportion in the press to make it seem more acceptable to the masses, and then they think we'll all be happy.

ThruUlikeAshortcut · 20/10/2015 23:17

I'm a self employed mum of two school aged children - I'm going to be £40 per week worse off.

I start work at 6am take the children to school, pick them up, do dinner, homework and baths then back to work. I've just finished for the evening. I'm praying this is a nightmare and I'll wake up soon!

SummerMonths · 20/10/2015 23:23

Jux - that is not how it works. The Lords can ask the Commons to reconsider an amendment to a Bill as many times as they like. Not just three times. There are limits called the parliament acts which mean that if certain conditions are met then the Lords can only delay for about two years, but those conditions are rarely met. Having said that, the Lords rarely test the limits of their powers.

None of that is relevant though as the tax credit changes aren't in a Bill. They are in secondary legislation. Neither House can amend secondary legislation. It's accept or reject only. And if either House rejects then the Government must bring back a redrafted instrument.

GiddyOnZackHunt · 20/10/2015 23:57

At best it will be a reworking of a cut. They'll have to do a deal that makes the Lords happier. As opposed to real people :(

Original poster
squidzin · 21/10/2015 09:31

Or the outcome will be a total re-working of the House of Lord's powers.

OP posts:
howabout · 21/10/2015 10:38

I think Summer has done a pretty good job explaining the procedural process.
I don't agree with the HP that the Lords can only reject legislation not in a Party's manifesto. This is more of an interpretation of a gentlemen's agreement between the Lords and the Commons than constitutional fact.

On the actual issue I am listening to the Tory rebels with interest. They sound like they are working out the best way to exert pressure to get the best outcome while avoiding outright climbdown.

Giving GO the benefit of the doubt, the danger that I see is that there are compensating measures planned for the Autumn statement which will be put aside if the tax credits reform is defeated. If GO does have rabbits in his hat he is in danger of looking like the boy who cried wolf if he doesn't start some strategic leaking now.

If GO goes ahead with the changes without compensating measures, they look set to adversely affect upwards of 75% (per Daily Politics) of current claimants (which represents 60% of all families raising children -per briefing paper of 15 Oct). I do not understand how any Society building for the future and tackling the root causes of poverty and lack of opportunity can do this.

Jux · 21/10/2015 10:55

This is why it's important to have a HoL.

Summermonths, fair enough. Maybe it used to be like that (a long long time ago!) and my 'knowledge' is just out of date, as opposed to it being just plain wrong. It's a long time ago that I did Civics in school.

Is there any news on the proposed Fatal Motion, or whatever it's called?

howabout · 21/10/2015 13:15

Baroness Meacher was speaking about this on the bbc news at 11.00. She was outlining that under her proposal the government will agree to a debate of the IFS report a week on Thursday, but there will be no fatal motion.

She also thinks there is sufficient back bench support for changes in the House of Commons to make them there if they are made under a crossparty rather than a Labour umbrella.

She was much clearer than I am managing to be.

Original poster
squidzin · 21/10/2015 15:37

From what I gather the whole "fatal" motion is being pulled back, by Tory threats to the HoL's future.

OP posts:
SummerMonths · 21/10/2015 16:33

No Givernment can suspend the Lords. The Indie and the Huff Post are very lazy to report as if that possible. It just isn't. They don't have the power to do it. Abolition would take years and would require a new constitutional settlement including probably voting reform. The Tories wouldn't dream of going there. The worst they could do is further stuff the House with more party appointees.

The political reality is that the Gov realise they have to do something to respond to outcry on tax credits and they will do that in the Commons which is right and proper as it's the elected chamber. If they fail to allay concerns there then the Lords can vote after the Commons debate.

Original poster
squidzin · 21/10/2015 16:47

HoL back down, Guardian

www.theguardian.com/money/2015/oct/20/government-forces-lords-to-back-down-over-tax-credits-motion

OP posts:
blacksunday · 21/10/2015 19:21

This is why it's important to have a HoL.

This is why it's important to have a second chamber. More precisely, an elected second chamber.

caroldecker · 21/10/2015 19:50

here is the detail of what the HOL can do.
Basically they cannot delay legislation for more than a year or stop/delay finance bills.
They chose not to stop legislation included in the manifesto.

Jux · 21/10/2015 21:16

Yes, blacksunday, that is what I meant. Definitely a second chamber, not necessarily one of Lords Grin

ThruUlikeAshortcut · 21/10/2015 21:38

HoL back down, Guardian

Fuck!

Original poster
squidzin · 21/10/2015 22:14

So sorry ThruU...

OP posts:
ThruUlikeAshortcut · 21/10/2015 23:23
Sad