-:Undertaker:-
26-10-2015, 09:35 PM
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/oct/26/tax-credit-cuts-halted-as-lords-vote-to-protect-low-income-earners
Tax credits vote: PM accuses Lords of breaking constitutional convention
‘Rapid review’ sought after peers vote to delay tax credit cuts until compensation scheme for low-paid workers is worked out
https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3007/2701203046_d64e596412.jpg
House of Lords
Prime Minister David Cameron has accused the House of Lords of breaking a constitutional convention after the House of Lords (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/lords) voted to force George Osborne to pay compensation to low-paid workers who would be hit by planned cuts to tax credits. Downing Street will outline on Tuesday plans for a “rapid review” – which could limit the power of the upper house – after peers voted in favour of a motion by Lady Hollis, the former Labour minister, to halt the cuts until the government produces a scheme to compensate low-paid workers for three years.
A No 10 spokesman said: “The prime minister is determined we will address this constitutional issue. A convention exists and it has been broken. He has asked for a rapid review to see how it can be put back in place.” But George Osborne (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/georgeosborne) indicated that he will seek to calm tensions by softening the impact of the planned reforms which have been put on hold by the vote. In language which reflected some of the motion, he told the BBC that he would act to help people struggling in the “transition” period.
The chancellor told the BBC: “This raises constitutional issues that need to be dealt with. However, it has happened and now we must address the consequences of that. I said I would listen and that is precisely what I intend to do. I believe we can achieve the same goal of reforming tax credits, saving the money we need to secure our economy while at the same time helping in the transition. That is what I intend to do at the autumn statement.” Downing Street swung into action after the chancellor suffered a blow when peers voted in favour of a motion by the former Labour minister Lady Hollis to halt the cuts until the government produces a scheme to compensate low paid workers for three years.
The motion, which also called on the government to respond to an analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies that 3 million families would lose £1,000, was passed by 289 to 272 votes. Peers also voted in favour of a milder motion by crossbench peer Lady Meacher – by 307 to 277 votes – that declined to support the cuts until the government responds to the IFS analysis. A fatal motion, tabled by Lady Manzoor, the Lib Dem peer, was defeated by 310 votes to 99. The votes will force Osborne to rewrite his planned welfare cuts – a key part of his deficit reduction plan. The cuts were due to account for £4.4bn of his £12bn welfare cuts.
Labour dismissed government claims that its motion could trigger a constitutional crisis on the grounds that it was simply asking ministers to have a rethink and offer compensation. The Hollis motion said that the upper house would decline to approve the tax credit cuts until the government delivers a “scheme for full transitional protection for a minimum of three years for all low income families and individuals currently receiving tax credits before 6 April 2016”.
Michael Ellis, Tory MP for Northampton North who serves as parliamentary aide to Theresa May, described the vote as a constitutional outrage.
He told Sky News: “We cannot have a situation where the unelected [House of Lords] over rules the democratically elected House of Commons. The House of Lords has resisted that temptation for 100 years ... Tonight’s votes, particularly on the Labour motion, is a constitutional outrage. This involves £4.4bn worth of public spending. The principle that the House of Commons holds sway over financial matters is a crucial one to the functioning of our constitution.”
It is a strange reversal of history this, no matter what you think of the policy. At the end of the Edwardian era in 1910-1911 a reverse situation occurred when the House of Lords (mainly Conservative) threw out the so-called "People's Budget" of David Lloyd George's Liberal Party: a situation which was only solved when the new King George V threatened to create hundreds of new Liberal peers in order to overcome the Conservative Lords majority in the upper chamber. In that instance, a constitutional convention was established that over money matters the Lords would always relent and the House of Commons would have it's way.
In this case, you've now got a Liberal Democrat-Indepedent-Labour majority in the House of Lords which has rejected tax credit cuts (which would curb spending rather than increase) against a Conservative government. In other words, a complete reversal of the situation in 1910 and 1911.
My own thought is this: I am probably for the tax credit cuts as we do need government spending cut in all areas however as a recent-covert to an unelected upper chamber (I used to want it abolished) I actually support the Lords using more power and making the party-leadership dominated Commons think again about this. Imagine if we had a slavish upper chamber that was elected and simply followed the orders of the party hierarchies as is what happens in the Commons.
So hooray for the Lords.
Thoughts?
Tax credits vote: PM accuses Lords of breaking constitutional convention
‘Rapid review’ sought after peers vote to delay tax credit cuts until compensation scheme for low-paid workers is worked out
https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3007/2701203046_d64e596412.jpg
House of Lords
Prime Minister David Cameron has accused the House of Lords of breaking a constitutional convention after the House of Lords (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/lords) voted to force George Osborne to pay compensation to low-paid workers who would be hit by planned cuts to tax credits. Downing Street will outline on Tuesday plans for a “rapid review” – which could limit the power of the upper house – after peers voted in favour of a motion by Lady Hollis, the former Labour minister, to halt the cuts until the government produces a scheme to compensate low-paid workers for three years.
A No 10 spokesman said: “The prime minister is determined we will address this constitutional issue. A convention exists and it has been broken. He has asked for a rapid review to see how it can be put back in place.” But George Osborne (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/georgeosborne) indicated that he will seek to calm tensions by softening the impact of the planned reforms which have been put on hold by the vote. In language which reflected some of the motion, he told the BBC that he would act to help people struggling in the “transition” period.
The chancellor told the BBC: “This raises constitutional issues that need to be dealt with. However, it has happened and now we must address the consequences of that. I said I would listen and that is precisely what I intend to do. I believe we can achieve the same goal of reforming tax credits, saving the money we need to secure our economy while at the same time helping in the transition. That is what I intend to do at the autumn statement.” Downing Street swung into action after the chancellor suffered a blow when peers voted in favour of a motion by the former Labour minister Lady Hollis to halt the cuts until the government produces a scheme to compensate low paid workers for three years.
The motion, which also called on the government to respond to an analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies that 3 million families would lose £1,000, was passed by 289 to 272 votes. Peers also voted in favour of a milder motion by crossbench peer Lady Meacher – by 307 to 277 votes – that declined to support the cuts until the government responds to the IFS analysis. A fatal motion, tabled by Lady Manzoor, the Lib Dem peer, was defeated by 310 votes to 99. The votes will force Osborne to rewrite his planned welfare cuts – a key part of his deficit reduction plan. The cuts were due to account for £4.4bn of his £12bn welfare cuts.
Labour dismissed government claims that its motion could trigger a constitutional crisis on the grounds that it was simply asking ministers to have a rethink and offer compensation. The Hollis motion said that the upper house would decline to approve the tax credit cuts until the government delivers a “scheme for full transitional protection for a minimum of three years for all low income families and individuals currently receiving tax credits before 6 April 2016”.
Michael Ellis, Tory MP for Northampton North who serves as parliamentary aide to Theresa May, described the vote as a constitutional outrage.
He told Sky News: “We cannot have a situation where the unelected [House of Lords] over rules the democratically elected House of Commons. The House of Lords has resisted that temptation for 100 years ... Tonight’s votes, particularly on the Labour motion, is a constitutional outrage. This involves £4.4bn worth of public spending. The principle that the House of Commons holds sway over financial matters is a crucial one to the functioning of our constitution.”
It is a strange reversal of history this, no matter what you think of the policy. At the end of the Edwardian era in 1910-1911 a reverse situation occurred when the House of Lords (mainly Conservative) threw out the so-called "People's Budget" of David Lloyd George's Liberal Party: a situation which was only solved when the new King George V threatened to create hundreds of new Liberal peers in order to overcome the Conservative Lords majority in the upper chamber. In that instance, a constitutional convention was established that over money matters the Lords would always relent and the House of Commons would have it's way.
In this case, you've now got a Liberal Democrat-Indepedent-Labour majority in the House of Lords which has rejected tax credit cuts (which would curb spending rather than increase) against a Conservative government. In other words, a complete reversal of the situation in 1910 and 1911.
My own thought is this: I am probably for the tax credit cuts as we do need government spending cut in all areas however as a recent-covert to an unelected upper chamber (I used to want it abolished) I actually support the Lords using more power and making the party-leadership dominated Commons think again about this. Imagine if we had a slavish upper chamber that was elected and simply followed the orders of the party hierarchies as is what happens in the Commons.
So hooray for the Lords.
Thoughts?