Search results

as i understand it, this doesn't apply as the change wasn't going through as legislation but using statutory instrument. which is the Lords argument why they are within their rights to block it, because the government hasn't put it forward as part of a finance bill. its all very technical.

and it still doesn't. unless you want to pretend that people who might qualify for something in the future wont get something they never had. no one in receipt of child tax credits will see them removed. new claims will be restricted to first two children as of next April, a compromise that...

only child tax credits where promised and remain for those receiving it.

i'm curious why this keeps being brought up when no one seemed to notice the same in 2001 and 2005 where the government was elected on 24% and 21.5%. yes, we probably need to address the whole electoral system as its odd that 21.5% and only 9.5 million voters can return a 60+ seat majority...

yes. didn't increase the tax allowance or other tax cuts, he made millions of workers dependent on the state instead.

there was an election less than 6mths ago, cuts to budgets were mentioned.

looking at this, all i can tell is this was a technical amendment to existing legislation, in which the government wanted to take power to adjust the upper earning limit at will, without further legislation. so not the same, it wasnt a change to actual fiscal policy.

there's £35bn reasons why something needs to be done about tax credits. and what both motions do, as well as sensible opposition to them, is reduce or delay the impact of them, not stop them completely. the fact the Lords is overrulling the elected government's programme is an interesting...

well thats going to be a bit of a pickle.