Politics at Westminster | BREAKING: UKIP

Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse for Labour. I'd forgot about this.

English votes for English laws plan set to be reintroduced to Commons

Scottish MPs will have their voting rights restricted on English-only laws under new plans to be brought before the Commons next week.

The timing of the announcement is intended as a deliberate provocation of the Scottish National party at the start of its annual conference, according to Tory sources. Ministers are planning to reintroduce plans to restrict the voting rights of Scottish MPs with a vote a week today on a reformulated plan for English votes for English laws, which has come to be known as “Evel”. Chris Grayling, the leader of the House of Commons, will claim the proposals have been looked at by the procedure committee and hopes to push the measures through.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4586210.ece (paywall).

This year, ffs.
 
Complete waste of parliamentary time. Cameron & Co should be running the country not trying to score election points when there isn't even an election.
'oh, we'd best just put 'in normal times' in, just in case, like'. Meaningless.

The feck does "normal times" mean anyway? Who decides when we're in normal time? Does it depend on the economy? On a war? Seems such a vague way to define it.
 
Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse for Labour. I'd forgot about this.



http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4586210.ece (paywall).

This year, ffs.
Boundary changes as well, including the shrinking of the Commons by 50 seats that would result in many MPs going through re-selection processes. 2020 is going to be hellish.

The feck does "normal times" mean anyway? Who decides when we're in normal time? Does it depend on the economy? On a war? Seems such a vague way to define it.
1% growth or above = normal times.
 
Ah, fair enough. Not as arbitrary as I thought, then. The whole thing is still a bit silly though, of course.
Agreed, ruling out borrowing to invest is dumb in the extreme. Osborne being a plank.
 
Agreed, ruling out borrowing to invest is dumb in the extreme. Osborne being a plank.

It largely just feels like a PR stunt from him, anyway. He's just trying to come across as being fiscally responsible, since the idea of always having a surplus sounds quite appealing, even if it's not completely necessary. Trying to force a future government to follow your own decisions is a terrible idea, which is why it'll probably just be quietly shifted to the side if the Tories haven't eliminated the deficit come 2020.
 
I would have voted for the green party last election but when I read their manifesto and got to the bits on the economy I realised they were unelectable.

Obviously they know that they're not going to get into power anyway, but they surely have to make themselves a credible party. They damage their own movement by seeming to be pie-in-the-sky idealists at every turn.
You don't vote for the Greens/UKIP/Lib Dems because you think they'll get in power, you vote for them as a protest and as a way of indicating you want the country to go the general direction they promote, in the case of the Greens you vote for them because they're the only party serious about environmental issues and because they'd move further to the left economically and socially than the rest. And you use your vote to say that you take the environment seriously and you want broadly left wing politics.

Not that any of our votes count for shit, really.
 
At least this cheered me up.


MP for Denis Healey's old seat East Leeds. Just reading Healey's autobiography at the moment, he described the right wing of his local party (circa 1950s) as "Bevanite. The left wing was Trotskyite."
 
If Germany could rat on it's deficit promises I'm pretty sure Britain could. The tories too, if they thought it was the best option at the time.
Yeah, the consequences for failing to adhere to the charter was something that Nadhim Zahawi entirely failed to answer when repeatedly pressed by Wark on Newsnight, just kept on repeating guff about "protecting the country from future Labour governments". They all know it's crap and just a means of making Labour look dumb, which, to be fair, it has.
 
1% growth or above = normal times.

So while the economy is growing (even barely) the goverment must commit to pulling money out of the economy.

At least it won't be long before government's are allowed to invest again as the economy won't continue growing on that basis.
 
At least this cheered me up.



I can't believe that even the Corybynistas are happy with that performance, i didn't know whether to cringe or laugh. If Burgon is incapable of doing justice to his portfolio he ought to be sacked.
 
Last edited:
You have to say, Cathy Newman was a bit of a twat also.

She's a well known arsehole and liar. Which means he should have been better prepared.
 
What did she do wrong there?

I've watched it again and she isn't as bad as I initially thought, I have a dislike for her in general that definitely tainted my reaction. He's an idiot for saying "I'm not an economic..." (Oh wait I fecking am!) However I still don't like her question about meeting people in the city - just feels like a cheap shot to me.
 
Kin ell... He's shocking

Thinking about it, I think that was a stitch up job. Only someone close to him would know details about his diary like that, or the fact that he was so blasé about the actual numbers that he probably hadn't actually looked at the Government figures. Probably revenge for his role in Monday's PLP debacle.
 
Thinking about it, I think that was a stitch up job. Only someone close to him would know details about his diary like that, or the fact that he was so blasé about the actual numbers that he probably hadn't actually looked at the Government figures. Probably revenge for his role in Monday's PLP debacle.
In truth many of those firms in the city he is supposed to be responcible for in his portfolio would also know that he has not had any previous meetings with them, and since his appointment has not scheduled any - they could quite conceivably have been contacted in the prep for the interview by the researchers and lets be honest they probably raised genuine concerns about his suitability if that's a true reflection of his "ability".

But yes that line of questioning probably came about from some previous knowledge - be that somebody who works for him... Or perhaps a labour MP / associate from the Umuna / Reeves wing of the party who has good contacts within the city passing on concerns or like I said perhaps even say somebody from within one of these companies contacting or being contacted by the researchers.
 
http://www.cityam.com/226587/labour-to-city-were-just-not-that-into-you

This newspaper is not naturally sympathetic to Labour’s new policy direction. Plans for nationalisations, higher taxes and faith in a magical money tree have not gone down well in our editorial conferences.

We have, however, kept an open mind. Maybe, just maybe, wiser heads were at work among the chaos of the opposition’s early days. Maybe they were assembling a team that would, over time, work to restore a slither of economic credibility.

Any remnants of optimism we may have had in this direction were shattered last night during a Channel 4 News interview with Labour’s shadow city minister, one Richard Burgon MP.

Read more: Parliament passes the fiscal charter as Labour MPs abstain

He thought he was on the telly to attack Osborne’s “fiscal charter” and doubtless hoped that Labour’s new name for it, the “austerity charter” would go down well on Twitter.

Imagine his horror when Cathy Newman asked the aspiring city minister if he knew the size of the deficit.

His answer, in full, was: “Well-er, uh, I’m not an economic… er… I’m not, er, somebody who's going to put a figure in a crystal ball… er…” at which point Newman humanely euthanased his attempt to answer the question.


He did ultimately hazard a guess that he thinks “it’s going to be higher” – as if he were playing a fiscal Price is Right.

As the interview progressed, we learnt that he hasn’t visited a City firm since being appointed to the role, though he did meet a few business folk in Brighton.

Instead, according to his Twitter feed, he has in recent days met with students to campaign against “ruthless cuts”, addressed the fire brigades union in parliament and opened the new changing rooms at the grounds of Whitkirk Wanderers.

Admirable endeavours, but not ones likely to help him get to grips with a ministerial portfolio covering financial stability, City competitiveness and financial conduct.

Lest there was any doubt that Corbyn’s Labour couldn’t give a flying fiscal charter about the interests of the City, they made Burgon, a self- confessed socialist, the Square Mile’s shadow minister.

This isn’t an opposition. It’s barely even a political party. It’s a gesture. An amateurish, angry gesture that appears to have little interest in how wealth and jobs are created.

Good luck, Mr Burgon. You’re going to need it.
 
What did she do wrong there?
nothing

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...l-throttle-in-my-own-car-crash-interview.html


By Cathy Newman

5:26PM BST 15 Oct 2015


It was, as Jeremy Paxman noted during his spoof interview with The Thick of It “junior immigration minister Ben Swain”, the kind of question which “invited a numerical answer”. But when, on Wednesday evening’s Channel 4 news, I asked Richard Burgon what the UK deficit was set to be this year, the real shadow economic secretary to the Treasury found that the numbers eluded him. “Well…” he began.

His mouth started to move but no words emerged. “I’m not an economic… erm…,” he finally ventured, before remembering his full title . As he paused, I could sense the cogs turning furiously before he settled on: “I’m not somebody that’s going to put a figure in a crystal ball of what exactly the deficit is going to be at the end of the year.” No crystal ball was required, of course. The figures are in the official Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts – something perhaps he might have been expected to read up on since being appointed last month.


“Car crash” political interviews can make for compelling viewing. Voters have long wearied of soundbites, so anything that forces an MP off the script is always going to be more interesting. So it was with Jeremy Paxman’s humiliating encounter with Chloe Smith, the junior Treasury minister who found herself unable to answer simple questions about her boss’s deferral of the fuel duty rise. There was a certain amount of sympathy for Ms Smith, with one Conservative MP reflecting that it was like sending a lamb to the slaughter.

Paxo admitted afterwards that he’d wrecked her ministerial career. Should he have held back? Believe me, it’s not always easy judging the tone right on the other side of a car-crash interview. But it is a dereliction of duty to go easy on a Minister of the Crown.

You certainly can’t blame Nick Ferrari for quietly tormenting the Green Party leader, Natalie Bennett, whose “brain fade” interview on LBC Radio earlier this year degenerated into coughs and splutters when she hadn’t the first idea how to cost her party’s housing policy. Mr Ferrari was persistent but always courteous – devastatingly so. An iron fist in a velvet glove allowed him to press the point, without losing the sympathy of his listeners.

That was the same technique used by Eddie Mair when he accused Boris Johnson, ever so politely, of being “a nasty piece of work”. The London mayor doesn’t use a car if he can help it, so let’s call it a bicycle-crash interview. Either way it was impossible not to watch, even if you ended up squirming in embarrassment.

I knew Mr Burgon was starting to struggle when I noticed him at one point apparently wiping something out of his eye. It’s what a poker player might call a “tell”. The fictitious Ben Swain on The Thick of It betrayed his own discomfort when he started puffing and blinking furiously during his own innumerate answers.

That’s when your natural empathy for an interviewee – a reluctance to feed a clearly floundering fellow human being into the mincer – collides with a professional duty to slice through the pre-spun answers to the unvarnished truth.

So I pressed on.

I look forward to inviting Mr Burgon back into the Channel 4 News studio. Next time, no doubt, he’ll be able to give me deficit statistics – to the last decimal place.

 
:lol: The lack of competence here is staggering. The EVEL debate next week is going to be a disaster.
 
Completely forgotten about Chloe Smith, that genuinely did screw up her ministerial career.

:lol: The lack of competence here is staggering. The EVEL debate next week is going to be a disaster.
You changing your mind on Corbyn, or just think he needs more time to settle in to the job?
 
SNP's Stewart Hosie just got a bit of a slaughtering on Daily Politics regarding SNP's health spending. Andrew Neil can corner people like no one else.
 
You changing your mind on Corbyn, or just think he needs more time to settle in to the job?
It was obvious that he and his team weren't going to settle naturally into leadership, particularly if the majority of the PLP was against him, but this start has been an unmitigated disaster. And despite challenges from Osborne, and the media, it's been mostly self-inflicted failures. This too, without a significant rebellion from within the party (which was very much expected), shows how much worse it could get in the near future.

That said, we're talking about the opposition for an election over four and a half years away. First impressions and media coverage are key, but only the political junkies will really remember any details of what's happening in these months. I'd happily give him a couple of years to get his message out there, and if he fails at that task then he deserves to go. There's a lot of populist left wing messages and policies that would be easy to communicate as alternatives to policies the Tories are going to be implementing in the coming months and years. Plenty of people are going to be suffering and Labour should be the natural home for those voters, and others concerned about the changes to the Welfare state. Corbyn must show those people that he understands their problems, rather than just being an 'Islington socialist'.

I also think Osborne's become far too arrogant and wrapped up in his 'clever' games, which have to back fire at some point. Despite all the budget cuts in the last five years he didn't come close to lowering the deficit, the normal times surplus bill is ludicrous, and I see no possibility of him succeeding in cutting the non-ringfenced department budgets by 20-40% over the course of this parliament. Opportunities to regain public trust will come.

Which is all a wishy washy way of saying 'ask me again in a year'. He obviously needs time, and will get it, but it's not looking good.
 
It was obvious that he and his team weren't going to settle naturally into leadership, particularly if the majority of the PLP was against him, but this start has been an unmitigated disaster. And despite challenges from Osborne, and the media, it's been mostly self-inflicted failures. This too, without a significant rebellion from within the party (which was very much expected), shows how much worse it could get in the near future.

That said, we're talking about the opposition for an election over four and a half years away. First impressions and media coverage are key, but only the political junkies will really remember any details of what's happening in these months. I'd happily give him a couple of years to get his message out there, and if he fails at that task then he deserves to go. There's a lot of populist left wing messages and policies that would be easy to communicate as alternatives to policies the Tories are going to be implementing in the coming months and years. Plenty of people are going to be suffering and Labour should be the natural home for those voters, and others concerned about the changes to the Welfare state. Corbyn must show those people that he understands their problems, rather than just being an 'Islington socialist'.

I also think Osborne's become far too arrogant and wrapped up in his 'clever' games, which have to back fire at some point. Despite all the budget cuts in the last five years he didn't come close to lowering the deficit, the normal times surplus bill is ludicrous, and I see no possibility of him succeeding in cutting the non-ringfenced department budgets by 20-40% over the course of this parliament. Opportunities to regain public trust will come.

Which is all a wishy washy way of saying 'ask me again in a year'. He obviously needs time, and will get it, but it's not looking good.

Quick point, its not true to say that Corbyn has a few years to turn things around. Scottish and local elections are in 7 months time.
 
http://www.cityam.com/226587/labour-to-city-were-just-not-that-into-you

Lest there was any doubt that Corbyn’s Labour couldn’t give a flying fiscal charter about the interests of the City, they made Burgon, a self- confessed socialist, the Square Mile’s shadow minister.

Oh no. :rolleyes: I'm sure the public are going to be outraged at the City not having enough influence over the Labour party. I mean it's not like they've had enough influence over government financial policy for the last 30 years, which has been a rip-roaring success.
 
Oh no. :rolleyes: I'm sure the public are going to be outraged at the City not having enough influence over the Labour party. I mean it's not like they've had enough influence over government financial policy for the last 30 years, which has been a rip-roaring success.
yes we would all be much better off if they took their 15% of uk gdp and set up in frankfurt wouldn't we
 
It was obvious that he and his team weren't going to settle naturally into leadership, particularly if the majority of the PLP was against him, but this start has been an unmitigated disaster. And despite challenges from Osborne, and the media, it's been mostly self-inflicted failures. This too, without a significant rebellion from within the party (which was very much expected), shows how much worse it could get in the near future.

That said, we're talking about the opposition for an election over four and a half years away. First impressions and media coverage are key, but only the political junkies will really remember any details of what's happening in these months. I'd happily give him a couple of years to get his message out there, and if he fails at that task then he deserves to go. There's a lot of populist left wing messages and policies that would be easy to communicate as alternatives to policies the Tories are going to be implementing in the coming months and years. Plenty of people are going to be suffering and Labour should be the natural home for those voters, and others concerned about the changes to the Welfare state. Corbyn must show those people that he understands their problems, rather than just being an 'Islington socialist'.

I also think Osborne's become far too arrogant and wrapped up in his 'clever' games, which have to back fire at some point. Despite all the budget cuts in the last five years he didn't come close to lowering the deficit, the normal times surplus bill is ludicrous, and I see no possibility of him succeeding in cutting the non-ringfenced department budgets by 20-40% over the course of this parliament. Opportunities to regain public trust will come.

Which is all a wishy washy way of saying 'ask me again in a year'. He obviously needs time, and will get it, but it's not looking good.
Much obliged for the detailed response. The woman on QT last night shows that tax credits cuts have the potential to rebound massively on Osborne, unfortunately though I think the state of Labour right now means they have get out of jail free cards a plenty.
 
Government accused of trying to cover up negative impact of tax credit cuts


The government has been accused of trying to hide the negative impact of its changes to tax credits after producing an analysis that fails to address how poorer families across the UK will be hit.

The Treasury document came under fire after it emerged the impact of the tax credit reductions had only been considered for families already in receipt of credits, as opposed to the population as a whole.

The new figures were handed to the Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny committee on Thursday, but Matt Whitaker, the chief economist at the Resolution Foundation thinktank, pointed out key numbers had been withheld.

He said: “Government analysis of how the summer budget will affect households was conspicuously absent in July. This may, in part, be due to the eye-watering cash losses that millions of working households will experience due to tax credit cuts – despite the welcome introduction of the ‘national living wage’.

“The government’s latest analysis still fails to show the full distributional impact of its welfare changes. They should focus instead on easing the losses that working families will face in April.”

The Treasury select committee wrote to the chancellor, George Osborne, in August asking for a full assessment of the summer budget measures. The so-called ‘distributional impact’ has been provided following previous budgets. The same request was also made by the shadow work and pensions secretary, Owen Smith.

The committee members received the same distributional impact paper in the past few days as the Lords, but the committee chairman, Andrew Tyrie, has now written back to the chancellor to say the tables are inadequate, and he must provide a proper analysis in the form that was originally requested. One committee member said the evidence “is an obvious sleight of hand”.

In addition Frank Field, the chairman of the work and pensions select committee, has announced he is to hold an inquiry into the impact of the tax credit cuts.

Field said: “George Osborne simply won’t come clean about the impact of these cuts in April on Britain’s lowest-paid workers. He’s trying to bamboozle his way out of a corner by saying ‘eight out of 10 working households’ will be better off overall by 2017-18. But it is doubtful that any of the tax credit claimants affected by these cuts will be among this group. Might he now publish a proper reckoning of the impact of these cuts on the nation’s strivers?”

The government has tried to defend its proposals by referring to wider range of measures in the summer budget, including increases in the personal tax allowance childcare, and the minimum wage, which are to be introduced over the course of the parliament. As a result the Treasury claims it is expected that by 2020-21, an illustrative couple with two children currently in receipt of housing benefit and where one partner works 35 hours a week on the national minimum wage will see a cash increase in their annual income of £2,400 compared to today.

But Helen Goodman, a Treasury select committee member, said these numbers do not take into account the fact that the cuts to tax credits will bite next April, but the full increases in personal tax allowance and the minimum wage do not occur until the end of the parliament.

It also fails to take account that many people on the minimum wage are second earners in relatively well-off households.

In the only new information provided by the Treasury, the distributional analysis shows 10% of tax credit claimants on the highest incomes are contributing nearly four times as much as the poorest tax credit claimants to welfare savings. Average household income in the richest 10% of tax credit claimants is £42,000 per year; significantly above average household income of £25,000 per year. It adds that 60% of the tax credit savings come from the half of tax credit claimants with the highest income.

The savings are to be achieved in 2016-17 by increasing the tax credits taper rate from 41% to 48%, so saving £1.47bn; reducing the tax credits income threshold to £3,850 saving £2.76bn million; and reducing the income rise disregard from £5,000 to £2,500 saving £170m.
 
Polling update from ComRes (for those who care..)

Con 42%, Lab 29% (-1), UKIP 13%, Lib Dem 7%, Green 3%

Looking at the data more closely, again there's a worrying drop in Labour support from existing supporters. 1 in 5 people who voted Labour in May no longer intend to vote Labour (vs 1 in 10 Tories no longer intending to vote Tory). It was the same in the Guardian/ICM poll earlier this week. Bleurgh.
 
Last edited:
Lib Dem comeback tour.

Government facing defeat in Lords over tax credits

The chances of the government being defeated on plans to cut tax credits in the Lords next week have risen markedly after the Liberal Democrat leader, Tim Farron, instructed his peers to vote for the fatal motion to block them.

The Lib Dem peer Lord Kirkwood had been planning to move a motion of regret, which would have amounted to a request for the government to reconsider its plans. But Farron’s intervention on Tuesday means the government is now likely to be defeated, requiring ministers to restart the process in the Commons via a new statutory instrument.

A Lib Dem spokesman said Farron had instructed a heavy whip on his peers to back the fatal motion. Some opposition peers are anxious they may be over-reaching their constitutional powers by challenging a main part of the government’s financial programme. Opposition peers recognise that they can defeat the government repeatedly and almost at will as long as Lib Dem peers unite with Labour and a few crossbenchers to defeat the Tories.

By custom and practice, the peers do not challenge financial measures, but Farron has been arguing that the specific tax credits measure was not in the Conservative party manifesto and was even specifically denied by David Cameron in a leaders’ TV election debate, after the Guardian revealed a document leaked by the Lib Dems showing that the government had been considering cuts to tax credits. Farron also believes that Lib Dem peers are free to throw aside constitutional conventions since the government has set its face against reform of the Lords.

George Osborne fended off Conservative MPs anxious at the proposed cuts to tax credits at a private meeting of the party’s 1922 backbench committee on Monday by insisting the changes have to go ahead and warning that if he had not acted, £15bn of spending cuts would have to be found elsewhere.

In a Treasury analysis released to coincide with the backbenchers’ meeting, the government said that without action, spending on tax credits would have risen to £40bn by 2016-17, a £10bn increase from 2010-11 and £15bn lower than now forecast as a result of the cuts introduced by Osborne in the summer budget.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-peers-house-of-lords-fatal-motion-tim-farron

Good politics by Farron, have to say.

However I rather suspect that if they stick in the Frank Field amendment and then relabel it a bill rather than a statutory instrument, it'll get through the Commons again and eventually go through after a bit of ping-pong.
 
Lib Dem comeback tour.



http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-peers-house-of-lords-fatal-motion-tim-farron

Good politics by Farron, have to say.

However I rather suspect that if they stick in the Frank Field amendment and then relabel it a bill rather than a statutory instrument, it'll get through the Commons again and eventually go through after a bit of ping-pong.

if they do this its the end of the lords - perhaps not straight away but an unelected body overruling the financial policies of an elected government - yeah its not going to end well for the lords and there can only be one winner in the long run

That said I thin the second chamber should be an elected chamber (it could even be an english only chamber (english votes for english laws and all with the same powers transfered to the welsh and scottish parliaments.
 
Never agreed with having a second chamber .But if it is to be the end of the House of Lords (which I doubt).Then go out with a bang.
 
Lib Dem comeback tour.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-peers-house-of-lords-fatal-motion-tim-farron

Good politics by Farron, have to say.

However I rather suspect that if they stick in the Frank Field amendment and then relabel it a bill rather than a statutory instrument, it'll get through the Commons again and eventually go through after a bit of ping-pong.

Good publicity for the Liberals, but on the other hand this bill is so bad and would be so divisive it might be better for the opposition in general if the proposals went through unamended. Only a thought really, it wouldn't be fair just to let the bill's victims get stuffed without trying on their behalf.