Off Topic Political Debate

It also shows that he has listened to the cross party complaints and acted on it. Rather better I would have thought than simply take note of party members.

 

I think he also realised that there are probably quite a few Tory voters either now or possibly in the future that are on tax credits and it probably wasn't a good idea to hammer the "hard working families that aspire to better things" too badly.

 

I think tweaking the tax credits was not an easy option so a reversal became his 'rabbit out of a hat' moment. It was very naughty of the lords to throw out his tax credit proposal hopefully the government is taking steps to ensure it does not happen again.

He should have at least stopped tax credits for new applicants, it was such a bad policy.

 

I think the Lords did him a favour - he must have been rubbing his hands with glee when they rejected his proposals - not only would he have had some Tory MPs against him but it would have been a thorn in his side for years - a get out of jail free card for him. A little embarrassment is a small price to pay. However the Lords should not have done it - I want the House of Commons not an unelected bunch of bloated plutocrats deciding our laws.

 

I cannot see the logic of putting forward a policy hoping it would be rejected unless they were looking for an excuse to reform the Lords.

With the relatively small majority they have it is a lesson to pick their fights with caution!!

Slightly changing the subject what do you guys think of their ambition in reducing the size of the state to 36% of GDP?. Britain's average of the past 50 years has been about 43%.

Surely better to have smaller government and let people keep more of their own money.

 

I do not think they put forward the policy in the first place hoping it would be rejected. However the barrage of criticism of it showed it had been poorly thought out so I think Osborne was let off the hook. Had it gone through we would have had 5 years of moans about it. This way he was able to do a strategic withdrawal and come out again with a different plan.
The less money given to the state the better in my book. I have yet to see an efficient government department.

 

Having studied the details, part of the tax credit savings are still going ahead in 2017, the two-child cap and the family element. Universal credit is also replacing these and other benefits anyway in 2018.

More than one way to skin a bloated cat!!!!!

 

On reflection this morning I must agree with Max Hastings, the spending review outcome was a political election fix rather than addressing the UK's addiction to debt both personally and nationally. I know the government has a wafer thin majority but reversing out ever increasing debt mountain must be the absolute priority, particularly as we are at the beginning of parliament.

 

Clever move and the right one. A government must always listen to the people and if after putting toes in the water it turns out there are piranhas in there the smart move is to move back up the beach. The Lords need reforming and this would have been a mess of back and forwarding wasting energy that is better put to becoming more efficient and running the country rather than fighting an eventually winable though bloody battle, the government would come out as damaged as the UK was by the debt incurred in WW2....

 

The Lords has needed reforming for decades. Trouble is what to put in its place. Make it too good and it is a rival for the Commons. Do you have an elective chamber - hence democratic - or do you have so called experts and dignitaries. How big should it be - how representative - should it have real power or just advisory?
Not easy questions

As an aside it is embarrassing to have such poor Labour leadership - what a fool John McDonnell looked yesterday brandishing his Little Red Book - and even worse his trying to justify it today. We really need a more effective opposition. They have been caught flat footed by Osborne's U turn - they can't claim it was down to them as everyone knows it was the Lords, they can't really attack it and they can't praise Osborne.

 

I think the lefties are keeping their heads down, can't blame them.

Chaos in shadow cabinet.

 

You just love to use terms that you know irritate some people on here don't you - are you not able to make your points without deliberate provocation. It stops some people posting and so reduces the amount of debate. I do not understand the fun you get from wumming - and I have been told I am one of your supporters!!

 

Chill out matey.

I'm sure if the Tories were in such disarray there would be many lighthearted comments from some of our left leaning friends.
We had Cameron pictured as Hitler last week, I wondered how anyone could find humour in that.

 

I am by no means keeping my head down, just waiting for a coherant argument on your side which I can argue with.

 

It is obvious that the self-styled "superhorns" does indeed wind-up certain people on this thread, but not me. He is simply reinforcing the stereotype of the greedy, self-centred, somewhat nasty, "I'm all right Jack" image of the right-leaning Conservative - whether he is actually one I wouldn't like to hazard a guess.

And before he tries (in vain) to have a go at me, I am no "loony lefty", believe you me, but believe in a (roughly) middle course, where the avariousness of a naked capitalist system has to be reigned in on the one hand and the spend-thrift policies of a idealistic socialistic state (as possibly advocated by Cologne Hornet) need to be curtailed on the other hand.

So there!

 

I have to agree with you Leo that there is no simple solution if you wish to reform the Lords. At present no party has a majority, the number of peers is limited and there is a considerable selection of cross benchers who will vote as they believe right. If you look at the USA as an example with two elected houses you can get to the situation where they do not agree and government can grind to a halt. In France again the two houses can disagree and they have to call on three hundred year old laws to get matters approved. What I always ask is do we really want another bunch of career politicians who leave university and go straight into politics? I prefer what exists at present and will until someone can show a better system.

 

Can I take it you don't like Tories?

 

No, you can't. There you go again, assuming that because I don't approve of right-wing policies I "don't like Tories". I also disapprove of left-wing Corbyn-esque policies.

So you may take it from me that I approve of certain Conservative policies and "don't like" others, similarly I don't like many Labour policies, but admire others. I won't bore everyone with listing them.

What I despair of on this thread is the "I'm completely right, you're completely wrong" argument. I would suggest that this is one of the main reasons that many people are so disenchanted with politics and politicians these days. I cringe at the broadcasting of PMQ time for the approximately 5 seconds that I can bear to watch it these days.

Incidentally I don't use the term Tories, they died out with Disraeli - like the Whigs before them.

 

Surely the idea of a spend-thrift Keynesian style economics is not socialist, but rather implies an acceptance of capitalism but based on the idea that capitalism is there to serve the needs of all the people. Surely a real Socialist state does not need to be spend-thrift because it owns everything anyway. So, maybe we need to define the terms 'socialist' or 'leftie' before we go on because I do not regard Corbyn as being one or the other.

 

Your description of 'stereotyped Conservatives' was distinctly hostile and inaccurate.