Have the House of Lords voted yet about the tax credits?

[Fantasyland]

Just wondering if my last hope of the House of Lords voting against the tax credits changes has happened yet?

I've felt sick all day

Fucking Tory Bastards

This particular government has been dreadfully unparlimentarian in behaviour. Remember Hague's nasty behaviour at the end of parliament last year to the speaker.

A victory of sorts?!

Fuck

Peers vote to delay implementation of tax credit cuts by majority of 30

The Meacher amendment delaying the implementation of tax credit cuts has been passed by 307 votes to 277 - a majority of 30.

i had written this but didn't post in time!

so there were 5 options, and they need to pick one

a) do nothing and approve like good boys and girls
b) Manzoor's fatal motion (rejected)
c) Baroness Meacher's amendment to delay cuts till more info is considered (content - so approved?)
d) Bishop of Portsmouth's idea (what is it?) now skipped
e) Barroness Hollis's delay (now voting?)

Am I understanding correctly they have passed a delay in the implementation?

Oh!

Do they now continue voting on the other stuff or deal with this delay first?

So it is going ahead just delayed?

Yes - I believe they have passed a delay - they are now deciding if they are going to suggest Hollis's as well?

Yup

the delay will give time for the living wage to be enacted, and all the higher personal allowance etc - so in theory should be better - rather than 3 years of absolute poverty before these things are brought in.

Channel 4 says tax credit changes look like being stopped dead in their tracks for now if 2 votes go against them.

2 delays better than one, right? In case Tory nasties manage to sidestep one?

The last few times they did the spoken bit there seemed to be a mix of male and female voices saying 'content' and mainly/only male voices saying 'not content'. Not that I know what that means and if that actually pans out in the voting.

Meacher's one that just passed says this Shutthatdoor

"to move, as an amendment to the motion in the name of the Lord Privy Seal, to leave out all the words after “that” and insert “this House declines to consider the draft Regulations laid before the House on 7 September until the Government lay a report before the House, detailing their response to the analysis of the draft Regulations by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, and considering possible mitigating action.”

Everything hinges on the last 4 words.

I bloody love the House of Lords. It shouldn't work, it's archaic and unfair and unaccountable, but it does! And it's incredibly cheap compared with other second chambers.

I think realistically this delay was the best we could hope for at this point, hopefully it makes them completely reassess.

I'll take it as a victory of sorts, PetitPiaf.

For those not watching, they voted in favour of Baroness Meacher's motion that the changes be investigated with proper figures given as to who is affected by the cuts and by how much and for the Commons to reconsider in the light of this.

(I think.)

Given that Howe was forced to admit earlier that the '8 in 10 families benefit by 2020' line applied to all families, not just those on tax credits, it could or could not prove interesting when it goes back to the Commons.

We can hope claig.

Ok so Meacher's delay is for a delay until impact analysis is carried out. Hollis' motion would delay until a package of transitional measures is put in place i.e. Living wage, income tax allowance increase etc.

Peers are now voting on the Hollis amendment. This just beefs up the Meacher delaying amendment, and now seems almost certain to be passed too.

Here is the amendment they have just passed.

to move, as an amendment to the motion in the name of the Lord Privy Seal, to leave out all the words after “that” and insert “this House declines to consider the draft Regulations laid before the House on 7 September until the Government lay a report before the House, detailing their response to the analysis of the draft Regulations by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, and considering possible mitigating action.”

This one does delay implementation of the tax credit cuts until the government has responded to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, and considered “possible mitigating action”. That does not 100% oblige the government to mitigate the effects.

But the Hollis amendment is stronger. It says:

to move, as an amendment to the motion in the name of the Lord Privy Seal, to leave out all the words after “that” and insert “this House declines to consider the draft Regulations laid before the House on 7 September until the Government, (1) following consultation have reported to Parliament a scheme for full transitional protection for a minimum of three years for all low-income families and individuals currently receiving tax credits before 5 April 2016, such transitional protection to be renewable after three years with parliamentary approval, and (2) have laid a report before the House, detailing their response to the analysis of the draft Regulations by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, and considering possible mitigating action.”

Hollis made clear that, by “full transitional protection”, she meant exempting existing claimants from the cuts, at least until they migrate over to universal credit.

Thanks GingerIvy that's much clearer