UKC

... has actually done something for once.

And now our mate Dave is throwing a hissy fit because that's not how democracy is suppose to work.

Or is it that he can't cop being outed for what he truly is?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2015/oct/26/labour-peer-accuses-d...

Orwell would have been proud:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/26/david-cameron-conserva...

In reply to Trevers:

They were helpful when Tony Blair's cabinet were trying to introduce legislation which allowed people to be detained for 90 days without trial too, for terrorism related offences - or the suspicion of having committed any.

In reply to Trevers:

They've basically said, "Naughty, nasty Tories. Now go back and do your homework properly.".

... And bloody good on them too.

In reply to Trevers:

Do you know where they went wrong?

They killed off their lapdog, the Lib Dems. Those poor sods got blamed for everything during the last term of office and this would have been perfect to pin on them too.

In reply to Trevers:


I'm not very big on politics but what is democratic about a bunch of unelected peers blocking things from our elected government?

Also what should we do about tax credits?
Recently I was looking for an admin assistant to do basic Office work, phone answering and filing mainly paying £8 per hour for a 38 hour week. I was turned down by a few people because "it would mess up their benefits"

In reply to The Lemming:
what you are actually seeing is what the Tories can get away with without the Lib Dems reigning them in

In reply to The Lemming:



'Lapdog' is a bit harsh. Nick Clegg was too quick to throw away too much in the coalition negotiations. But I agree, they could do with a scapegoat now.

In reply to Dax H:


Well apparently 'convention' says that they're not supposed to meddle in economic matters. But they're supposed to act as a conscience for the government, which on this occasion they have. And, as has been pointed out, Cameron has been caught out on a very big and obvious lie which helped him to get elected. That's not very democratic.


Keep them, until we can be sure that vulnerable people won't be out of pocket as a result of their scrappage. Or keep them, and tackle corporate tax avoidance as a way of saving far more money. Or keep them and do away with the fiscal responsibility act entirely, on the grounds that it's completely irresponsible.

In reply to Trevers:

Yes, good on the house of lords.

I think we do need some kind of unelected (i.e. not motivated by winning the popularity of the thick and selfish) second chamber, picked for being clever and having an impeccable record of exercising judgement to tell the government to go f*ck themselves as required. I don't think many, if any, of them should be politicians, but just legal people, medics, others who have to think about the effects of their actions on individual people and make the right shout time after time for 40-odd years until you can trust them.

Anyway, Osborne can shove his policy and his lies right up his arse, for now.

In reply to Trevers:

It is quite weird to hear people talking about 'democracy' when a bunch of cronies, time-servers, placemen and, let's not forget, people who literally bought their seats for life in an unelected chamber thro donations (to all parties) can thwart the will of a govt democratically -elected at the ballot box.
You may approve of what they've done but please don't confuse it with democracy.

In reply to Dax H:

It's just as well that they're around, in this case, to curb the excesses of the Bullingdon Boys and their lies, weasel words and 'power postures'... And pigs.

Don't just take my word for it, even one of their own former Chancellors - Lawson - had this to say on the matter:

"I think it is perfectly possible with tweaking it to take more from the upper end of the tax credit scale and less from the lower end of the tax credit scale ... It is not just listening [by the chancellor] that is required. It is change that is required."

In reply to Dax H:

Having just come off JSA I've no idea how someone can get £304/week from benefits. I was getting a massive £73 a week and in all the time I was able to claim the tax rebate I got when I signed off was worth almost as much as everything I got in JSA.
But as it happens, with the changes the gov want to introduce, the people earning the low wages would be worse of after the changes and therefore have even less of an incentive to take a job.

In reply to Dax H:

Well, since they pledged the opposite of what they're doing, someone forcing a u-turn seems to be required to maintain policy in the same direction as what was voted for at the election. Not that the electoral system is any good at representing the will of the people.

youtube.com/watch?v=8Uj2rAuQ9dY&


Good question, not easy. It's a ludicrous system. Basically, you've got to come up with a bunch of policies that allow/make employers pay wages that are in line with the cost of living, and while you're at it, not tax people who can't afford to pay the bill. This is what Osborne said he was doing, but it turned out he was bullshitting - actually what he was doing was just taking money off low-paid workers so he could win on his spreadsheet-game.


That's where universal credit should sort out the mess, when it comes in. It's meant to taper benefits as you get into work, so that it always pays to work.

In reply to Trevers:

Taxing and spending is completely the responsibility of the Commons. I think this tax credit thing has been a disaster from beginning to end, but it's a shame that to stop it the Lords have essentially put us into constitutional crisis.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


Don't forget the ones in silly hats (the bishops)


The issue is that in this case people were mislead. In their manifesto they clearly said "we will not cut tax credits". I can't provide a ref for this quote but the video has been all over the press.
So, who is to say that the people who voted for them in May support the changes in tax credits.

In reply to climbwhenready:


Constitutional crisis? Obscure point of etiquette ignored in pressing circumstances more like.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


I explained myself above, and I agree with Jon Stewart's post as well. I'm not confusing it with democracy, but I'm also pretty pissed at the level of mistruth our government is comfortable with.

In reply to gethin_allen:


Nor the ones who lost thier seats at the election, who having been rejected by the voters, were eased seamlessly back into the so-called Upper House and are, quite literally, lording it over us



Obviously impossible for anyone - including their lordships - to know but it doesn't matter. In this country we elect a govt for five years and that's it. We don't have issue-by-issue referendums. I don't, for example, recall voting for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan nor for 'pledging' extra powers for Scotland to name just a few minor items but it did not stop PMs doing all three.

In reply to Trevers:


They are called the Nasty Party for a reason. And we have 10 more years of them to contend with, provided Boris does not get the top spot.

In reply to Dax H:




Then pay them enough to actually live on.

In reply to Trevers:

I'm certainly not an advocate for the House of Lords, but it's what we have and for now probably have to accept that. It seems odd that many stalwarts of conservatism, who resist all reform of the Lords, seem to now think it's acting unconstitutionally.

By convention the Lords don't block or amend finance bills. On that basis the Government is saying that their action tonight breaks that convention. Except, this isn't a finance bill, you would think it should be and you would probably be right, but the Government chose not to pass it as a finance bill in order to time limit the debate in the Commons.

Unintended consequences I suppose.

In reply to The Lemming:

I didn't vote for them, but I was naively hopeful that perhaps their talk of compassionate conservatism was genuine. How wrong I was

In reply to Trevers:


You silly fool. We saw last time around just how dishonest they were in pretending to be moderate, compassionate Conservatives. Now it's really scary. Osborne terrifies me. I think they really will try to weaken the House of Lords as a result of this vote. It's as if they don't understand our constitution. The H of L is doing exactly what it should do: act as a check on the excesses of the Govt and lower house when it judges that they are not following the will of the people. In this case (the Tax Credits) there has been a very clearcut breach of trust by the Govt, in that they misled the electorate with a series of lies. They are treating democracy with contempt now, which to me is hardly surprising, because from Mrs. T onwards I've always believed that what they would really like is a Tory dictatorship.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

because from Mrs. T onwards I've always believed that what they would really like is a Tory dictatorship.

Somewhat scuppered by the Tony dictatorship...

In reply to FactorXXX:

Yup, it headed that way, but didn't get very far really, thank goodness. Though he did create a ridiculous number of quangos. Anyhow, Labour are right out of it at the moment, so let's just concentrate on the real problem we have now with THIS bunch of nutters.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Yup, it headed that way, but didn't get very far really, thank goodness. Though he did create a ridiculous number of quangos. Anyhow, Labour are right out of it at the moment, so let's just concentrate on the real problem we have now with THIS bunch of nutters.

Well, I suppose if you ignore Iraq and Afghanistan, then yes, the quangos might well pale into insignificance...

In reply to The New NickB:


It is quite amusing to see those who have for years railed against the unelected Lords as an affront to democracy now be queueing up to praise them while the Tories who resisted change at every turn are now on the attack. What price a shedload of new Tory peers to give them an inbuilt majority in an already bloated chamber in the next (dis)honours list?

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


Well unfortunately that's the system we've got - ridiculous, illogical and utterly self serving.

In reply to Trevers:

The House of Lords are really just a random bunch of dicks who just turn up and ramble shite, depending on whether they have a passing interest. Or perhaps a brown envelope.
For example, any Bill on commercial maritime law in the offing and all the daft yacht club tw*ts turn up spouting about giving the bill a 'Fair wind' or a 'Good passage'
Generally, the rest of them stay at home and rely on a few other gobshites to decide for them.
The upper house should consist of an ever changing jury of experts across the field of society. A broad selection of people with the proper knowledge. Only then can a true system of checks and balances be exerted.
You heard this first from Num Num.

In reply to Clauso:

I see that a couple of folks have disliked my original post. I'm genuinely interested to know which part of the "Gideon, you don't know what you're f*cking doing." verdict, courtesy of t'Lords, the panel disagrees with.

In reply to birdie num num:

Careful now num num. youll get a reputation for being normal.

By the way, i completely agree other than I would mandate the exclusion of bishops in your learned bunch.

In reply to Trevers:

Tesco's share price must be up.... the Govt./taxpayer is now going to carry on subsidising its piss poor wages.

To put this in context its all doom and gloom at Tesco's as profits for 2014 were down again.... 6% this time. Obviously having only made £3,400,000,000 profit the poor mites couldn't afford to pay there staff. :|

In reply to Clauso:


I dislike the lords in effect diverting money from schools/hospitals etc to subsidise the shareholders of billion £ corporations

In reply to birdie num num:


Bit like UKC then.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


That an unelected house can't bring down the government? Basically, the supremacy of the house of commons over what used to be the landed gentry, and is now political appointees?

I think the argument against the principles behind the biggest change to British Parliamentary democracy in the last half millennium, the Parliament Acts, has to be argued against with a bit more than "it's an obscure point of etiquette."

In reply to Indy:


You seem somewhat confused about the bill that is being discussed!

In reply to ianstevens:

Dax H runs a business and employs people, I suspect you do not , so its reasonable to assume that that hourly rate is what he can afford to pay.

In reply to Indy:

Well that is debateable, Tesco is still going to have to pay the new living wage anyway irrespective of the tweeks. People forget that the govt were p***d off by the fact that big employers were in effect using Tax Credits to subsidise low wages.

You only have to go in and look at job offers to see that they are advertised " and with tax credits this will increase your wages to £x" to see that the system had to be changed.

In reply to neilh:


Apart from the minimum wage doesnt go to a livable level for several more years (even then its debatable if it will do that).

In reply to Trevers:

Chris Grayling:

"This time they have taken the step of throwing out a statutory instrument on a financial measure for the first time in 100 years. They have set about trying to dismantle the financial plans that we said we would have to go through when we fought the election and won the election in May"

Well that's another barefaced lie isn't it?

In reply to climbwhenready:


Whilst there are plenty of good arguments against the House of Lords those same arguments existed during the fox hunting debate. You know the ones where the tories deliberately used it as a blocker and then tried to blame labour for how much time it took up?
Considering that the tories (and new labour before them) are big fans of fptp because of the bias to them it gives and the tories are trying to increase it further dont really have much time for them whining about democracy.

If the tories had done it as a finance bill then the HoL wouldnt have had a say at all. They didnt do that but used secondary instruments to try and limit discussion in the HoC. Now they have been bitten by it.

In reply to Trevers:




To be fair, I do remember Osborne announcing that he would cut the budget by a further £12 billion or so during the election campaign but he wouldn't be drawn on specifics. But the Tories do seem to be sending mixed messages. On the one hand they are trying to appeal to hard working people and to get the country working whilst at the same time hitting the poorest of those hard working people. Then we have Cameron on a person crusade to eliminate poverty as per his conference speech.

They seem to be the party of say one thing, do something else, but they will always look after number 1.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


I do know what you mean, but on the other hand I wonder if them being unelected and there being a mixture of people from different parties, means they have a certain freedom from having to be popular, and that when averaged out due to a mix of political hues and people from different backgrounds, what emerges from them turns out to be 'common sense'. The last thing which comes to my mind was them throwing out the 90 days detention without trails, it seems to me that is something really sucks - and obviously so - it gets thrown out.

It might be flawed, but it seems to work is what I'm getting at, with the end result being that the government of the day is kept in check when it's something very serious. I won't call myself a realist because everybody likes to think they are, but I like that it works, and wonder if an elected second chamber might become some kind of popularity contest for people who are elected to it, meaning it may lose a certain neutrality.

I'm still on my first cup of tea, but hopefully you get what I mean...

In reply to Clauso:


I didn't dislike your post but I do disagree with your statement.

There isn't much disagreement that tax credits need to be phased out,they are a subsidy to low paying employers and are distorting the economy. A more compassionate chancellor would try to unpick them without placing people in financial shock.

So why has Osbourne gone for the 'sledgehammer' option.... four and a half years till the next election and an ineffective opposition. I think he does know what he's doing. Doesn't make him a nice bloke but it ain't the same thing.

In reply to birdie num num:

That makes more sense than the HoL when you put it like that.

In reply to Dax H:


Given that's essentially full time and fractionally above minimum wage I suspect there's either more to this or that's their misconception not a reflection of reality.

jk

In reply to Timmd:


Totally agreed. It isn't as if the Lords undermine the Commons on a regular basis. The motion to kick this bill into the long grass was voted down by the Lords. All they have said to the government is "B- Could do better!"

To make it "always pays to work" absolute maximum benefit income must be significantly lower than lowest pay rate. Another way would be to cut off benefits completely after some time of not working, but that would be to unpopular for UK.

In reply to Mike Stretford:


Are they really any more a subsidy to low paying employers than a 10k personal allowance? At least tax credits can be targeted somewhat at those for whom it is not an obvious decision from a financial perspective to work, those with high childcare costs for example. Not many people would be out beating the drum for the personal allowance to be abolished but it's no less of a subsidy to low payers than tax credits.

jk

In reply to Clauso:


Bonkers as it seems, one regular poster on here thinks that using the name George was given at birth is antisemitic.

Equally, some people think he is doing a good job. I guess the sanity of that view is marginally more open to debate.

In reply to ByEek:

I remember Cameron in one of the televised debates clearly and unambiguously stating that tax credits would not be cut if he won the election.

http://newsthump.com/2015/10/27/breaking-a-constitutional-convention-much-w...
(This claims to be satire, but they've accidentally failed to make a joke and instead simply reported the facts.)

In reply to nutme:


But those are both counter-productive measures, unless you want to live in a society where families and children live on the streets begging for survival.

In reply to deepsoup:


Fair dos.

In reply to KevinD:



What's fox hunting got to do with this discussion?

I think it's worth unravelling the issue (the tax credit reduction - cackhanded all round) from the principle (limitation of the power of the HoL).

In reply to climbwhenready:


ermm, because it is exactly the same issue. HoL returning something to HoC. There are plenty of other cases during the previous labour government where this happened.
If the tories didnt want the HoL to interfere then they should have done it as a financial bill. They didnt to try and limit debate in HoC.

In reply to climbwhenready:

You are talking as if limiting the powers of the H of L is a good thing. I don't think it's a constitutional crisis at all, although the Conservatives are desperately trying to paint it up as such. The House of Lords did not throw the bill out (which would have been exceeding its powers) but did exactly what its job is: it's forced the Commons to reconsider a bill that is very unpopular even among many Conservatives. Even Lord Lawson, no less, joined the opposition in the Lords last night and said it needs to be amended. And apparently David Davis on the Today programme said, 'Someone had to tell the government to think again.'

In reply to The New NickB:



It's hard to argue with any of this except that I wasn't aware the UK had a constitution. Absolutely amazing squaking coming from the Tories who really have been caught wit their trousers down. Cameron is predicting a response will be ready today.... ? Can't see this being very well thought out

In reply to jkarran:

Of course they are, for a start taxes are not a cash payment. If your wages are increased over the tax allowance you still earn more, just paying 20% on the extra you earn over the allowance, with tax credits earning more can leave you no better off, that's a crucial difference.


To be fair, they are increasing free childcare, which is precisely targeted. However, as is clear prom my first post I don't support Osbourne's policy.

In reply to jkarran:

The minimum wage is 6.70 an hour, so £ 8 an hour is not fractionally above it. The current living wage outside London is £7.85 .It is fractionally above that, so its a reasonable rate.So you should be congratulating Dax H.

In reply to ByEek:


Cameron was drawn. He said quite clearly more than once that working tax credits wouldn't be touched.


Nail, meet hammer.

In reply to KevinD:

It's not the same issue. Taxation is critically important because it empowers the executive to do it's job; nothing else is like that.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


I don't think limiting the powers of the HoL is a good thing, over and above how they are already limited (ie. they don't get a say in taxation). Maybe the tories messed up by trying to push this through as not a finance bill; I don't know enough about the workings of parliament to know the ins and outs of this.

What worries me is that by dabbling in taxation - which they are fundamentally not meant to do - they might have their powers severely limited, which given their track record in stopping things like draconian "anti-terror" measures, would be a very bad thing.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

As an analogy, I would have the same issue if the Queen decided not to sign into law a similarly controversial bill. In itself, we can all celebrate and say "well, no-one wanted it anyway." However, the monarchy works because it is now constitutional convention that the Queen doesn't do that. If she actually had exercisable power over the government, it would cause a crisis.

In reply to climbwhenready:

I think your analogy goes far too far. The Lords have not rejected the Bill, they've asked for amendments.

In reply to climbwhenready:


From the sounds of it, that was part of their game. Either the Lords passed it, win for the government. Or the Lords fight it, Cameron and Osborne can cry foul, and get a mandate to reform the Lords (or rather, create a load of new peers). All it needs is for the major news outlets to fail to make clear the nuance...

I agree that the Lords needs reform, but that there is a place for an unelected chamber (see Jon Stewart's first post on this thread).

In reply to Trevers:


There is no appetite for Lords reform, more's the pity, and I doubt very much that this fiasco was engineered to stimulate such an appetite. I also doubt very much there's any likelihood that Cameron would have the nerve to create the 100+ new lords necessary to give the Government a majority in the HoL - there was plenty of (well-deserved) criticism over the last bunch of appointments after the May election, even from usually loyal Tory commentators, and taking that course of action would simply be papering over the cracks of a thoroughly outdated institution which needs something rather more fundamental to make it fit for purpose.

In reply to climbwhenready:


Which is why there are different rules for government bills as opposed to statutory instruments. The former for finance bills in government manifestos would be exempt from review.
So the tories could have got it through without issue. If they had done it properly.

In reply to neilh:


Fair point. I actually started out by typing 'significantly above', checked https://www.gov.uk/national-minimum-wage-rates where some reading problem clearly kicked in and I read £7.70 as opposed to £6.70 causing me to revise my post. One day I really must learn to read properly!

jk

In reply to KevinD:



Agree up to a point, but a part of the problem is that there are no rules. There are conventions which are generally observed but which can be breached if the HoL sees fit. Chris Grayling was of the opinion that it wouldn't have made a difference if the Gov't had presented it as a Bill rather than a statutory instrument - but then he was blaming it all on embittered Labour and LibDem peers still smarting from the election defeat, rather than conceding the fact that the proposals would make many people at the bottom of the pile worse off and that some in the HoL didn't think this was a good thing.

In reply to Trevers:

The Mash, as usual, has the right of it:
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/house-of-lords-to...

In reply to wbo:


That is part of the problem, our 'constitution' is 800 years or laws, rulings, agreements and conventions. What it isn't is a single codified document.

In reply to tony:

If it was a finance bill it would certainly have gone though (the regret vote may have still been won) as the majority was only 30 (including a few labour peers who voted with the government) and they had the clear 'get out' only because of the use of secondary legislation gave an excuse on the finance convention. If it was in the manifesto another convention would have been explicit as well, also meaning it would have gone through. The Lords may be flawed as an institution but as a whole they take these things seriously (unlike Num num they are not cartoon characters).

This is nothing to do with the constitution (we don't have one for starters) its about the government bungling the conventions as others have bungled them several times in the past. Cameron and others did state several times in the election campaign that tax credits wouldn't be touched and rebuffed labour and journalists when they asked where else the 12 million will come from. Hoisted by their own dishonesty and incompetence on some bad legislation. Does anyone seriously think this wouldn't have influenced many hard working families on low incomes who voted for them??

Another point getting lost in this smoking fire is part of the key purpose of tax credits is to to deal with ridiculous differential tax rates. If you gain nothing by earning more, most wont earn more. Whatever the fix is this needs to be dealt with in the new system.

In reply to neilh:


As you correctly assume, I do not employ people, I'm presenting a purely ideological argument. That may be the hourly rate he can afford to pay, and it may well be the market rate for the position - I'm not saying otherwise. However, this is where the issue lies - it's legal to pay an amount, that, in this example, means an individual requires additional money in the form of state benefits to live to a suitable (i.e. for the UK) level of comfort. How can this be rectified? Fair pay.

In reply to ianstevens:

"this is where the issue lies..."
..."an individual requires additional money in the form of state benefits to live to a suitable (i.e. for the UK) level of comfort."

Indeed, that is an issue

In reply to ianstevens:

See my posts about the fact that Dax H is paying more than the recognised national living wage ( and is above the minimum wage , so he is being more than fair)

If Dax H was interested he could easily be on the list of companys who pay what is considered to be a fair wage.

In reply to neilh:



Agreed - he is, and probably paying above board for the position offered, not that I have any expertise in the sector. The point I'm trying to make is not a personal one against Dax H, more just to use him as an example of an employer. If the Governement want this fabled switch to a low tax, low benefit, high wage economy they need to ensure that even the lowest level wages are suitable for a poverty-free lifestyle in the UK, and "encourage" employers appropirately, through the pre-exisitng minimum wage legislation. However, they're not doing this; £9/hour in 5 years time IF you're over 25 just doesn't cut the mustard for me.

In reply to tony:

Yep the government like a weak non elected second chamber as they can use the undemocratic card when stuff like this happens. As soon as you make it elected it would be a threat to the House of Commons. Even if there was a big reform but it was still non elected, I think the House of Lords would be in a stronger position as they would have a stronger mandate to question the commons. This is why no Lords reform has happened since Labour got rid of hereditary peers.

The only thing the government might do is to try and restrict the HoL powers further. I can't really see the Tories have the balls to create over 100 peers.

In reply to The New NickB:



That would be me. Do you have a better reason for people's enthusiasm for calling him Gideon?

Plenty of people use a second name routinely but don't have their preference ignored and made a point of. Why in this case?

In reply to Trevers:
Fortunately the House of Lords has an elegant system of cheques and balances built in. Once Cameron has collected the cheques, he will appoint a bunch of new peers and they will tip the balance his way.

In reply to MG:

He was born Gideon Oliver but changed his name aged 13.

So it is not his second name.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:



Apparently he changed it because he thought it sounded too posh.

In reply to tony:

Which it probably does!

Which is why people still refer to him as Gideon, to remind themselves and other about what a posh git he is!

In reply to MG:


Could you explain the antisemitic bit? Bearing in mind that for the average uk person it is far more likely to be associated with Christianity due to the Gideons.

In reply to KevinD:


Well it is originally a Jewish name, which is how I think of it. I don't know about other people though. Maybe I am wrong and it is simply people childishly picking up on a name they think is "posh", rather than arguments.

In reply to MG:


You've got some very odd notions of what might be classed as anti-Semitism...

I also like to refer to Queen Elizabeth II as Brenda. Is that anti-royalist, or merely displaying a fondness for Private Eye?

In reply to Clauso:

The latter, probably.

What is your explanation for "Gideon"?

In reply to MG:


It's just one of those 'character building' names, or more realistically one that's going to lead to bullying at school. It sounds funny, like the picute of Osbourne with both feet pointed in looks funny. All fair enough, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander so partisan mickey takers shouldn't cry foul* when their parties leader is lampooned by the right wing press for not being able to eat a bacon sandwich (which it turns it is good for you).

* Not that I think Darren would.

In reply to Jon Stewart:
That's where universal credit should sort out the mess, when it comes in. It's meant to taper benefits as you get into work, so that it always pays to work.

Universal Credit currently pays less to those who were previously on tax credits and the work allowances are significantly less than WTC et al.

I should know I work for them !!

In reply to climbwhenready:


Have they brought down the government? Get in!



I can't follow your argument until you explain what the impact is of the Lords stopping a bit of policy that was brought in as a SI and involved money? They stop bits of policy all the time, and all policies will have some impact on govt finance. If I had some idea of how the impact of this was going to ruin all our lives as our democracy crumbles around our feet, then OK. But as it is, it looks a lot like the Lords saying "oi - this is totally unfair, it happens to be the opposite of what you were elected to do, and it won't get passed us as a matter of conscience". How does that break our democracy in two?

In reply to Allanfairfechan:


I guess that shouldn't surprise me. Do you think it will leave people unable to heat their homes and eat a decent meal?

In reply to MG:


Blame Private Eye again!

In reply to Mike Stretford:

I thought that Ed's inability to eat a bacon butty was very amusing... As was his Edstone.

In reply to MG:


Quite a few names were Jewish and then rebranded Christian. I think you are reading a tad to much into it, perhaps deliberately. Considering his background you could just as easily accuse him of being anti-semitic for changing his name. Nonsensical in both cases though.You might as well accuse anyone of doing essex jokes involving the name kevin of being anti-irish.


or alternately since he decided to bin it off people find it amusing to keep using it. Petty but a simple, low cost, entertainment.

In reply to MG:


It wasn't you I was thinking off. I guess that makes two of you. I suspect people find it amusing that he changed it to seem less posh. I find nothing remotely funny about the man.


It's not his second name, but that doesn't matter. Plenty of people don't have there preference ignored, the reason I think you know, to poke fun. I don't do it myself in the case of the Member of Parliament for Tatton.

My Dad switched his first and middle name as a teenager, because hated the abridged version of it that my Nan used. I occasionally use that name to mildly poke fun at him. As it happens, it's a good Jewish name, does that make me antisemitic?

In reply to The New NickB:

I looked the meaning of the name Gideon, it is "one who cuts down". It does seem rather apt in this context.

In reply to jkarran:



More than one person turned the job down and the pay rate is £1.30 per hour above minimum wage and 80 pence per hour above the new living wage standard as of April 2016.
Care to enlighten me on how much I should be paying someone in the north of England for answering a telephone and putting bits of paper in a filing cabinet? Then once you have set my new pay scales please nip round all my customers and get them to agree to new servicing costs on their equipment because if the start of the ladder goes up everyone's wages have to go up.

In reply to Dax H:

I've already explained my mistake regarding the minimum wage threshold. I don't read right proper apparently.

Notwithstanding, my post was not intended to be a criticism of you or your management decisions, it was I thought clearly intended to suggest the people who rejected your offer were either in very peculiar personal circumstances or that they misunderstood their situation. Misunderstandings it would seem are common

jk

In reply to deepsoup:



My recollection is that he said child tax credits would not be cut.

In reply to Dax H:



Why would other staff think that someone who backs them up by doing essential admin work must be paid less then their own wage?

In reply to timjones: Ask your GP.

In reply to timjones:
Hm. You may be right about that.

In reply to timjones:

Because they're tories, and nothing annoys a tory more than someone they regard as their inferior being treated as their equal.












I'm just trolling now, sorry.

In reply to timjones:

Lots to debate around that, but I would say a good admin person is worth their weight in gold and "the market" often seriously undervalues them.

In reply to Mike Stretford:


My GPs admin skills appear to be limited to chucking files onto the floor for someone else to pick up later. I don't think he's qualified to answer the question!

In reply to The New NickB:


A poor receptionist can certainly do an awful lot of damage to a business. It can't be wise to undervalue them

In reply to timjones:


I thought he said (ambiguously) that WTC wouldn't be cut, and unambiguously that CTC wouldn't.

In reply to timjones: Fair enough. Questing pay scales is questioning a pretty fundamental aspect of working life. From an employers point of view it's basic supply and demand, and from an employees POV it's reward for qualifications, skills and experience. Flat pay scales have been tried in communist countries but there's all sorts of problems.

In reply to timjones:


I hope you are joking here but if not here goes.

My site workers are all apprentice trained over 5 years (proper old time apprenticeship not the modern crap) to at least One level or above.

All but 1 has 20 years experience in our trade.

They all hold various qualifications like forklift licence, mewp license, pasma, confined space, manual handling, CCNSG, iosh managing safety, asbestos awareness, working at hight, coshh awareness and those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.
As well as these they are factory trained in all the different types of equipment that we deal with (more than any of our competitors) and have undergone training on some of our customers processes to better diagnose faults on the equipment.
Typically most of these things need re validation between 2 and 5 year's.

They are responsible for managing their workload and maintaining a minimum van stock level of spares to cover breakdowns.

They work independently out on site with little to no backup.

They often work outside regardless of the weather and lots of sites don't even have running water let alone toilets etc.

The admin person makes cups of tea, answers the phone and files paperwork.

This is why my site engineers are paid significantly more than an office junior.

For the record as we are growing my last Office junior has stepped up and taken on more responsibility and now earns 21k per annum instead of 16k and if we carry on growing and the new lass is good at her job and takes on more she will get paid more too.
All this is before the profit share too. (though there hasn't been a profit share for a good few years because we are sinking everything in to the expansion to increase the stability for both the staff and directors)

In reply to Mike Stretford:


I'm not suggesting totally flat pay scales but there is some merit in narrowing the differential. If it's necessary to pay a bit more to secure a good admin or receptionist it should not automatically mean that everyone else's wages have to go up.

Looking at it practically the move to a living wage is a good thing but it will be costly to many small companies if they have to increase all wages by the same proportion.

In reply to Dax H:

I was exaggerating the point but definitely not joking.

I wouldn't expect better paid staff to throw their toys out of.the pram.if it was necessary to pay a little extra in order to fill a key lower paid role.

The person who serves as the first point of contact by answering the phone can easily lose business before the customer even gets to speak to anyone more. senior. It's in everyone's interest to fill the role with someone good even if it does narrow the pay gap within the company.

In reply to Trevers:


youtube.com/watch?v=8Uj2rAuQ9dY&

Not that ambiguous. He lied, outright, he's been caught, and yet still won't admit it. Spineless scumbag.

youtube.com/watch?v=Gr53JoTbvrg&

In reply to birdie num num: As a matter of interest Mr Num Num the only person I know who has personally been in front of a House of Lords committee was pretty impressed at the depth and range of their knowledge.

But I appreciate your knowledge of a different area of interest and your comments. (Mind you, it is obviously a well known fact that all professional mariners loathe yachties and try to scare them at every opportunity, so you may not be entirely unbiased...)

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Num Num would say that the well known fact you allude to is a myth.
In general, professional mariners have a very detailed knowledge of the collision regulations and adhere strictly to their responsibilities.
Yachties perhaps sometimes receive a scare owing to their selective knowledge of responsibilities between vessels; but never more so than a professional mariner may receive when a yachtsman's sudden manoeuvre may put his career at risk.
The (fairly) recent Marine Navigation Bill brought by Sheryll Murray (Plymouth.. Political interests.. Rural Affairs and Royal Navy {daughter, a Wren}) Pushed along by the then Shipping Minister, Stephen Hammond (investment banker)
glided almost unhindered through the Lords owing to lack of interest by the many headed, but an uncanny momentum unusual in a Private Members Bill. Headed up by Baroness Wilcox (Plymouth..ex Cadbury) and given a head of steam by other lordly landlubbers who dabble as weekend sailors.
Num Num gave them all a hard time and was even quoted twice during the debate.
The result was inevitable however and Num Num sniffs the cold hard glint of lucre somewhere in the background.
Whatever, that's how statute is passed in this country sometimes. By random interest/or lack of.
Num Num doesn't doubt that the Lords cannot display in depth knowledge at times. But they should go and be replaced by folk who have broad experience of the relevant issues, selected like a jury and compelled to attend.
Num Num wonders what the point of having a party political upper house is? One that reflects the commons in span of political ideology.

In reply to birdie num num:

John Harris hits the nail on the head

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/28/house-of-lords-democra...

In reply to timjones:

Like Dax H, I employ similarly qualified people. You are leaving in "cloud cuckoo land". Practically you can train somebody to do those sort of " receptionist skills" very easily,it's not difficult or rocket science.

And yes better paid people will throw their toys out of the pram over pay differentials.And yes that is justifiable. They have after all slogged their guts out to improve themselves and learn skills.

In reply to timjones:


I think you're being a bit rude given Dax's quite detailed response, especially the last paragraph. If you're going to tell someone how to run their business at least engage with what they are saying.

In reply to Trevers:
Methinks they protest too much.

The leader of the house of Lords (I think it was ) came on the TV and said that the Government selected a procedure to push that through that had an option that allows the HOL to review and reject and also another that they could not reject.

The Government SELECTED the procedure that would allow the Lords to reject this (Why? )
Incompetece, or perhaps they just did not fancy admitting a U Turn to satisfy their Tory naysayers, AND they needed an excuse to get a majority in the HOL , and now they can (as has been called for) appoint a load of Tories to the HOL so that they will have no problems in the future , as the 'lap dog' LibDems are no longer in their laps.

Kills two birds with one stone.

In reply to Dax H:




But is that any different from millionaires and large corporations , 'arranging' their tax liabilities efficiently so they maximise their income/profit.

If so, why?

In reply to Jim C:

Because (in your example) on one side you have people trying to minimise the amount they contribute to society and on the other you have people trying to maximise what they take?

In reply to neilh:


It might appear that it's not rocket science but I can count at least 4 instances this year where the handling of my initial phone contact by a receptionist has made or broken the potential for a sale.

It doesn't matter how well qualified the rest of the staff are if the business is lost before the customer even gets to see them.

In reply to Mike Stretford:


I'm not telling anyone how to run his business. I'm merely musing on our attitudes to the relative values of the different roles within companies.

In reply to Jim C:

I don't think it's any different.
Tax loopholes need fixing.
People who can work but chose not to need cutting off.
Economy fixed overnight.

In reply to Jim C:


Miscalculation, they selected a procedure which meant less debating time in the House of Commons, they didn't think the Lords would oppose them.

In reply to The New NickB:


Either way, the end result is that there isn't a constitutional crisis, just a load of hot air.