Politics at Westminster | BREAKING: UKIP

Review into working of parliament announced
(aka how to change the Lords)
Pmq's should be interesting...

I'm not sure they have a big enough majority to do anything this major without cross party support. How big will the second chamber be; how will it be elected, when is it elected within each parliament, how long do they serve before re-election, what exactly is its role and the limits to it powers. Once its elected it will assert its authority.

Reform hasn't happened yet despite the obvious need because no party can agree amongst themselves or between the different parties exactly how to reform it.
 
I'm not sure they have a big enough majority to do anything this major without cross party support. How big will the second chamber be; how will it be elected, when is it elected within each parliament, how long do they serve before re-election, what exactly is its role and the limits to it powers. Once its elected it will assert its authority.

Reform hasn't happened yet despite the obvious need because no party can agree amongst themselves or between the different parties exactly how to reform it.
Labour's last manifesto called for an elected 2nd chamber... So did the libs I think so provided it's done cross party and collaboratively it should be workable (though i imagine pr, av, FPTP could be a point of difference)
 
I'm not sure they have a big enough majority to do anything this major without cross party support. How big will the second chamber be; how will it be elected, when is it elected within each parliament, how long do they serve before re-election, what exactly is its role and the limits to it powers. Once its elected it will assert its authority.

Reform hasn't happened yet despite the obvious need because no party can agree amongst themselves or between the different parties exactly how to reform it.

The review will no doubt just be to confirm the primacy of the commons over the lords on financial matters, whether they're bills or statutory instruments.
 
So the HoL's blocks Osborn's horrible cultishness and, as a result, the conservatives are set on the path to HoL reform?

Sounds like a win win to me.
 
So the HoL's blocks Osborn's horrible cultishness and, as a result, the conservatives are set on the path to HoL reform?

Sounds like a win win to me.

Either that, or the Tories try to expand the HoL so they have a majority.
 
I don't like the non-elected Lords I don't see the constitutional issue in the Lords blocking a policy which the Tories point-blank said they wouldn't implement before the election. If we're talking about damaging precedents, demonstrably lying to get elected and then changing your mind 5 months later is up there.
 
Not quite 1997 but close

If that happens it will raise serious questions about the legitamy of our democracy.

In that scenario the Conservatives are winning roughly twice as many seats per percent of the popular vote as Labour.
 
Corbyn finally hitting it home at PMQS on tax credits, Cameron looked very uncomfortable.
 
Corbyn finally hitting it home at PMQS on tax credits, Cameron looked very uncomfortable.

This is a perfect time for Corbyn to try and gain some traction, since it's by far the weakest the Tories have been since the election. He needs the full backing of the party right now, in order to try and improve their fortunes.
 
This is a perfect time for Corbyn to try and gain some traction, since it's by far the weakest the Tories have been since the election. He needs the full backing of the party right now, in order to try and improve their fortunes.

Corbyn was all over him today.

Cameron telling 'Karen' she will benefit from 2 million more people in work and 3 million apprentices was hilarious
 
They're going to be squirming about it till the Autumn Statement by the looks of it.
 
I missed all of Corbyn's questions at PMQs, although i can well understand why Cameron would have had cause to squirm. The backbenchers did provide some amusement however, particularly the MP who sought to scaremonger about kids meals.

The PM did use one of the questions to announce a refund of energy costs for the steel industry, provided that the government can gain EU approval. Does this amount to little more than a gesture ore or could it be assistance which saves jobs?


If that happens it will raise serious questions about the legitamy of our democracy.

But it doesn't lack for legitimacy whilst the system favours Labour? or on those occasions when the Labour government pursued self-serving changes to the electoral system?

Speaking of which, i struggle to find any enthusiasm for a fully-elected second chamber (may as well have none if that is the destination here). There is no denying that the Lords has become bloated in recent years, but whether we'd seen an improvement in the governance of the country by adding another round of elections for which people are mostly apathetic, i rather doubt.
 
Last edited:
SNP minister defends free university tuition despite bursary cuts for poor

Angela Constance insists university tuition must remain 'free' for wealthy Scots as figures show a drop in grants and bursaries for poor youngsters.

By Simon Johnson, Scottish Political Editor
27 Oct 2015


The SNP’s Education Minister has insisted that university degrees must remain “free” for wealthy Scots after it emerged that youngsters from poor backgrounds are receiving fewer grants and bursaries to fund their studies.

Angela Constance said there was a “principle that education has to be free” despite official figures showing children from the poorest families are becoming increasingly reliant on loans rather than non-repayable grants and bursaries.

She initially appeared to admit that a higher proportion of poorer students go to English universities, which charge tuition fees but offer more generous bursaries, before backtracking by questioning whether that was the case.

But Lucy Hunter Blackburn, who was formerly the Scottish Government’s most senior civil servant dealing with higher education, said the system was skewed towards better-off children.

She told ITV Border that children from poorer backgrounds suffered most from cuts to bursaries and grants and the new figures showed they are now taking on a disproportionate amount of loan debt.

In contrast, she said wealthy children graduate with little or no debt. The Scottish Tories said the ‘free tuition’ policy had backfired on the poor and described the SNP’s record on social mobility as “deplorable”.

The figures, published by the Student Award Agency Scotland (SAAS), showed that the number of students receiving grants and bursaries fell by two per cent in 2014/15, with the total amount paid out falling to £63.6 million.

This compares with a total of more than £100 million paid out in 2012/13. The average bursary or grant has dropped by £640 over this period, from £1,860 to £1,220.

Youngsters living in the poorest households, with incomes of up to £16,999, took on an average loan of £5,870 in 2014/15 compared to £4,600 for those with the wealthiest families.

Students eligible for the maximum bursary, who are generally the poorest, had average annual borrowing of £6,650 compared to £4,560 for those ineligible for a bursary.

UCAS, the university admissions body, recently published figures showing 17 per cent of disadvantaged students had been accepted to sit a degree in England compared to just 9.7 per cent in Scotland.

Challenged that more children from poor backgrounds were going to English universities, despite the existence of tuition fees, Ms Constance told ITV Border: “Of course, but what we have in Scotland is a principle that education has to be free.”

However, she then denied that the English system was performing better, saying: "I'm not sure that is the case because we have to be careful to ensure that the figures are comparing like with like."

SNP ministers have previously argued that the UCAS figures are not comparable as they do not include Higher National Certificates (HNCs) and Higher National Diplomas (HNDs) undertaken at Scottish colleges.

However, the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework gives these qualifications less weight than a university degree and academics say they do not open the door to the same range of well-paid professions.

Ms Hunter Blackburn, of Edinburgh University, has previously published research showing the free tuition fees policy benefits the better-off most and has been funded by pushing poorer students further into debt.

She said the SAAS figures “confirm that in Scotland the poorest students are carrying far more of the growing student debt than their numbers in the system would justify...

“What the system does is mean that students from better off backgrounds are less likely to take out a loan so they are the ones coming out of the system with the least debt and often no debt at all.”

Liz Smith, Scottish Tory young people spokesman, said: “The SNP’s record in helping less privileged young people is deplorable. Youngsters from disadvantaged backgrounds are being failed in the classroom thanks to the Scottish Government’s failure to close the attainment gap.

“The SNP’s formula for funding free education for those who can well afford to pay for it is harming the very people it professes to want to help.”

Iain Gray, Scottish Labour’s opportunities spokesman, said: “Since the SNP took office in 2007 the budget for bursaries and grants has been slashed by £40 million and student debt has soared.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/educatio...ty-tuition-despite-bursary-cuts-for-poor.html
 
But it doesn't lack for legitimacy whilst the system favours Labour? or on those occasions when the Labour government pursued self-serving changes to the electoral system?

Speaking of which, i struggle to find any enthusiasm for a fully-elected second chamber (may as well have none if that is the destination here). There is no denying that the Lords has become bloated in recent years, but whether we'd seen an improvement in the governance of the country by adding another round of elections for which people are mostly apathetic, i rather doubt.

On the first point I have long been in favour of STV or AV+. Both Labour and the Conservatives view democracy more as a sport than a way to represent the views of the population - it's all about winning and once you have won you can do whatever you like. Corbyn has at least had more rhetoric around accountability but there is no detail yet.

An elected second chamber that was based on STV would provide a necessary balance to the Commons if we are stuck with FPTP and the forthcoming gerrymandering

EDIT: Also the 2015 election result was the most unrepresentative in history. The boundary changes will ensure 2020 is even worse (unless UKIPs vote share disappears)
 
Having seen Twitter you'd think it was a roasting, but having watched the full session back, it really wasn't. Corbyn was going for a Paxman/Howard, but it never got squirmy and Cameron, as usual, didn't look ruffled. Only in his last answer did he even seem evasive, and indeed I notice he's starting to jab back now that Corbyn is being more offensive. Definite win for Corbyn though.
 
Corbyn was all over him today.

Cameron telling 'Karen' she will benefit from 2 million more people in work and 3 million apprentices was hilarious
Cameron usually gets away with his refusal to answer questions so this week's question time was particularly enjoyable. After each Cameron response I was shouting to Corbyn (from in front of my telly) telling him to ask the question again and again. Instead of Cam sitting down after his reply, wearing his usual arrogant smirk, with every Corbyn question his face got pinker and podgier. At one point I laughed as both Cam and Osborne scowled and just reminded me of Muppet versions of themselves. I'm liking Corbyn. I'm liking the HoL too.
 
Seems like a genuinely disgusting character looking at his wiki page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Davies

A pic of him:
800.jpg
 
The people of Shipley (twice so far it seems)
I imagine conservative hq wouldn't mind seeing the back of him either as he voted against the whip 120 times (most of any current conservative MP)
Wait, so he's the Corbyn equivalent?
 

During his epic speech Shipley MP Mr Davies said the bill was a 'worthy sentiment' but claimed Ms Cooper had chosen a 'dud' campaign.

He said: "I think the bill is ill thought through with many areas which are far too vague.

"It would be a logistical nightmare to enforce and implement it would cost NHS Trusts up down country millions of ponds potentially.

"It would exempt an awful lot of people who are just as worthy recipients of some parking concessions.

Could the MP in question not return with an improved bill? Having skimming through that article i'd say that the current proposals fall between two stools, neither adequately addressing the matter of parking charges nor providing enough support for carers.
 
Is there any tyrant so blood soaked we won't roll out the red carpet for him?
There is almost no torturer too brutal, no mass-murderer too bloodthirsty nor dictator too autocratic for David Cameron not to extend an invitation to visit Britain:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...t-blood-soaked-won-t-roll-red-carpet-him.html


Just 25 MPs have donated their £7,000 pay rise to charity – despite pledges by 69 when they were awarded the increase:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rity-despite-pledges-69-awarded-increase.html
 
Could the MP in question not return with an improved bill? Having skimming through that article i'd say that the current proposals fall between two stools, neither adequately addressing the matter of parking charges nor providing enough support for carers.

I must say that Im always wary about jumping on people's backs without having read the bill myself. Sometimes what you find is that bills that sound good on paper are so flawed that its better to have them voted down so the political issue stays alive. Once a bill passes, the games over, and if the new act is shitty, we're all stuck with it.

May not have been the case here mind, haven't read into it.
 
People can vote and argue against a bill if they want, just don't filibuster for hours purely to prevent debate on it.
 
Billions saved .Nothing wrong with that .Wish England would follow suite.
 

Two different policy positions for different parts of the UK, and two leaders who don't agree with the stance of their party. Labour 2015 - screwing up in new and interesting ways.
 
Conservatives 2015 - screwing us over in old and predictable ways.
 
Fair play.
 
Yes, and the policy is decided at national level. So the vote was essentially pointless.

It's fairly symbolic for the party though, and will be seen as a major step in the right directiion in the eyes of SNP voters. The fact that their leader doesn't agree with it shows the confusion and division within the ranks, but it's still important for them...even if only in a minor way.
 
It's fairly symbolic for the party though, and will be seen as a major step in the right directiion in the eyes of SNP voters. The fact that their leader doesn't agree with it shows the confusion and division within the ranks, but it's still important for them...even if only in a minor way.
It's great for the SNP, yeah.