Bolitics The New Condem Government

[Gringo]

Government introduces anti tax-avoidance legislation

This will hit the rich, and completely leave the poor untouched.

Drat should be well pleased!

is this whacking the thriving EBT business?

[Risso]

Government introduces anti tax-avoidance legislation

This will hit the rich, and completely leave the poor untouched.

Drat should be well pleased!

is this whacking the thriving EBT business?

It made things "interesting" at work yesterday, certainly!

[TrentVilla]

Government introduces anti tax-avoidance legislation

This will hit the rich, and completely leave the poor untouched.

Drat should be well pleased!

is this whacking the thriving EBT business?

It made things "interesting" at work yesterday, certainly!

Does it do anything about the non dom's?

[tonyh29]

How Cameron can allow him to continue in his role in beyond me with so many allegations against the man

i think allegations is the key word here .. it's not like Coulsen got involved in a street brawl and kept his job when an honourable man would have done the decent thing and resigned before a less spineless leader sacked him

Coulsen until it is proven otherwise has nothing to resign or be sacked for .. unless not voting or supporting labour has become a crime ?

[blandy]

Caroline Lucas mentioned one suggestion that someone had made about having a levy on large companies who may well be seen to benefit disproportionately from graduate workers (one problem I could see from that would be the incidence of such a levy but still).

The point is that there has been little time allowed for policy discussion since the release of Browne and the coalition policy (which was always going to be the policy that went through) was pretty much a fait accompli (though a flexible one as seen by their changes in the last few days). Most of the time spent on the subject by the government has been either defence of the policy or the apparent conscience wrestling of Lib Dems.

Many companies, including the one I work for, pay for and sponsor graduates through Uni. In the case of the Co. I work for, they put graduates through Enginering degrees and have a scheme with cranfield Uni, such that there's a specific course in Aerospace Engineering aimed at what BAE needs.

The grads who go on the course are selected through merit and are given work during non-term time so that they get experience as well as education.

What you've got there is education of genuine value to both the students and the Company, you've got a Uni that benefits from research funing for BAE. Defence companies might be seen as evil by some people, but the reality is that in terms of what's left of the UK manaufacturing base and in terms of funding education, keeping skills and so on, they are pretty much all that's left.

On Browne report, I can't see the problem - someone has spent a great deal of time, commissioned by Labour, to look into the problem and make recommendations. Those recs were then tweaked by the new Gov't and put through.

I prefer it when Gov't listen to expert advise and take heed, The criticism comes when they ignore the experts and the results of the studies and go with populist stuff for their own core support. I don't think either the Tories or the LDs can be accused of doing that in this instance.

[Gringo]

Government introduces anti tax-avoidance legislation

This will hit the rich, and completely leave the poor untouched.

Drat should be well pleased!

is this whacking the thriving EBT business?

It made things "interesting" at work yesterday, certainly!

Does it do anything about the non dom's?

Nah - neither party would seriously harm the people that support them. It reads to me to be aimed at the trust funds and pension funds set up by the high earners and football players.

[tonyh29]

On Browne report, I can't see the problem - someone has spent a great deal of time, commissioned by Labour, to look into the problem and make recommendations. Those recs were then tweaked by the new Gov't and put through.

I prefer it when Gov't listen to expert advise and take heed, The criticism comes when they ignore the experts and the results of the studies and go with populist stuff for their own core support. I don't think either the Tories or the LDs can be accused of doing that in this instance.

A big THIS

really have no time for know it alls .. if you put an expert in place then take his advice , don't discard it and feel you know best

[Awol]

really have no time for know it alls .. if you put an expert in place then take his advice , don't discard it and feel you know best

Labour and Tories have done exactly this over the drugs debate.

[snowychap]

On Browne report, I can't see the problem - someone has spent a great deal of time, commissioned by Labour, to look into the problem and make recommendations. Those recs were then tweaked by the new Gov't and put through.

Why wasn't the report properly discussed?

It doesn't appear to have had much of an airing as most of the debate has raged around the exact level of the tuition fees and the cap and thence around the level of the actual repayments (and not a lot about how it might be seen to radically change the 'marketplace' of university education).

I prefer it when Gov't listen to expert advise and take heed...

What expertise in education did Browne get at BP?

[Gringo]

really have no time for know it alls .. if you put an expert in place then take his advice , don't discard it and feel you know best

Labour and Tories have done exactly this over the drugs debate.

But that was different - they were ignoring people who were experts in the field they were offering advice in, whereas lord 'perjure myself' browne's expereince of university funding ended 50 years ago, and he's hardly likely to be putting any of his own offspring through. Browne's expertise comes from the arena of cutting costs, and the resultant dangers this brings, ie blowing up refineries in texas.

[tonyh29]

really have no time for know it alls .. if you put an expert in place then take his advice , don't discard it and feel you know best

Labour and Tories have done exactly this over the drugs debate.

well tbf Cameron does have some (alleged) expertise in this one

[snowychap]

No charges in News of the World phone-hacking probe

No charges will be brought following a probe into phone hacking at the News of the World, prosecutors have confirmed.

The director of public prosecutions Keir Starmer said there was no admissible evidence to support claims public figures' phones were hacked.

An ex-reporter on the paper refused to comment to police about claims he made in the US that his former boss Andy Coulson knew about the practice.

Tory communications chief Mr Coulson denies knowing anything about hacking.

Mr Starmer said former NoW reporter Sean Hoare refused to co-operate with police over claims he made in the New York Times that the practice was more widespread at the UK newspaper than had been previously admitted.

He said: "A number of other witnesses were interviewed and either refused to co-operate with the police investigation, provided short statements which did not advance matters, or denied any knowledge of wrongdoing.

...more on link

How much did that all cost (Rupert), I wonder?

[tonyh29]

The Prime Minister's director of communications Andy Coulson will not face criminal charges following an investigation into phone hacking at the News of the World.

Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer said there was no evidence to charge anyone.

Innocent until proven guilty

do you want the email address to send the apology to Ian :-)

wasn't it investigated due to some Labour MP making a complaint ? Bet that cost the tax payer the equivalent of a few duck houses ..

[kidlewis]

The Prime Minister's director of communications Andy Coulson will not face criminal charges following an investigation into phone hacking at the News of the World.

Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer said there was no evidence to charge anyone.

Innocent until proven guilty

do you want the email address to send the apology to Ian :-)

wasn't it investigated due to some Labour MP making a complaint ? Bet that cost the tax payer the equivalent of a few duck houses ..

:winkold:

[blandy]

On Browne report, I can't see the problem - someone has spent a great deal of time, commissioned by Labour, to look into the problem and make recommendations. Those recs were then tweaked by the new Gov't and put through.

Why wasn't the report properly discussed?

It doesn't appear to have had much of an airing as most of the debate has raged around the exact level of the tuition fees and the cap and thence around the level of the actual repayments (and not a lot about how it might be seen to radically change the 'marketplace' of university education).

I prefer it when Gov't listen to expert advice and take heed...

What expertise in education did Browne get at BP?

There were 7 people on the review including the head of McKinsey’s Global Education Practice, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Birmingham, an academic, the Open Uni policy advisor, and some business and bbc bods. The exam question, wasn't about how to change the way people are taught, or the way tutors are trained - it was The review was tasked with making recommendations to Government on the future of fees policy and financial support for full and part-time undergraduate and postgraduate students.

I'm not aware that anyone from any field complained about the make up of the review committee, in terms of it being ill suited to do the job.

[snowychap]

I'm not aware that anyone from any field complained about the make up of the review committee, in terms of it being ill suited to do the job.

Tbh, I haven't looked to see if anyone did.

I take your point about heeding expert (or even informed) advice (rather than completely dismissing it as has often happened in the past twenty or thirty years of governments) but I questioned the particular expertise of the head of the review.

I don't feel that there has been enough debate after the review about its conclusions and suggestions for such a change in policy (as it isn't just about fee levels). I don't see how debating the conclusions would be seen as not taking heed.

Telling David Nutt that he didn't know his arse from his elbow when expressing his expert opinion on drugs would be an example of government (or a particular minister) suggesting that they know more than an expert; taking on board the research and recommendations from a review and debating on the way forward for a policy heeding the recommendations of that review would seem to me to be a sensible way forward.

[blandy]

I take the point about debate - but in a sense that's what they did t'other day, though it all got rather party- partisan - more about "you said this now you want to do that" - but there were amendments proposed, changes made, options proposed and voted on.

In essence though my view is that some bods, overall well qualified to look at stuff, looked at it, gave their recommendations as to what should happen, and then these rec's were debated nd various options voted on and made law.

Maybe it was rushed, maybe it was too partisan, but like I said before, ultimately the Labour appointed expert committee made recs that were tweaked by Tories and Libs and voted on and largely implemented (with some changes to make things easier for many less well off people).

the outcome wasn't perfect, the process wasn't perfect, but overall, I don't feel I can criticise the politicians in power for what they did in this instance (from Labour setting it up, to the other ones implementing).

I can accept some people do disagree with the results of the study, but that's a different subject, really.

[snowychap]

I take the point about debate - but in a sense that's what they did t'other day...but there were amendments proposed, changes made, options proposed and voted on

I don't believe there were any changes made to the SI put forward and voted on, no other options discussed or able to be proposed.

It'll be interesting what happens when this goes to the Lords as this article from the Economist suggests:

SO, THE coalition government won its first vote on raising the cap on tuition fees at English universities to £9000. The government's margin of victory was reduced to 21 (compared to an overall coalition majority of 84) and the Liberal Democrats have taken a permanent hit to their self-image and public reputation. After decades in opposition, enjoying the luxury of consequence-free pandering to every attractive interest group that came to lobby them, Lib Dem MPs now know the feeling of trudging through the division lobbies to keep a government in power while police and protestors skirmish in the streets outside.

Today's result was never really in doubt. Yet I was taken aback to learn that serious figures in the coalition suspect the tuition fees legislation—in its current form—may never go through.

The reason? There are two houses of parliament, and the upper House of Lords is a place with strong ideas about doing the right thing and curbing what their lordships identify as government folly and excess. By chance, I was at the House of Lords first thing this morning for an interview, and bumped into a wise old bird of a peer with long years of experience. These fees will never go through in this form, he predicted. There will have to be a deal at some point.

The vexed question of university funding goes to the Lords for a first debate next week. Will there be a dust-up? I asked senior types for their views, and they were unsure. Their lack of certainty goes to the heart of a vexed question: what are the sources of this coalition's democratic legitimacy?

To simplify, if a single-party Conservative government had just won a vote in the House of Commons on raising tuition fees, and Tory leaders had warned voters before the last election that this was their intention, it is a good bet the House of Lords would not have put up a fight.

As an unelected chamber, the House of Lords is bound by the so-called Salisbury convention not to challenge legislation that was promised in the most recent election manifesto of the governing party: that would smack of unelected peers defying the will of the voters.

Alas, the current situation is not so simple. Before the May 2010 election, the Conservative Party made no promises when it came to tuition fee levels. Their manifesto talked about waiting for a review of higher education funding by Lord Browne, the former BP boss asked to look into this question by the Labour government (which also made sure Lord Browne would be reporting back after the election, neatly kicking the issue into touch).

Now the Tories are in coalition with a party, the Liberal Democrats, whose MPs famously and painfully promised before the election to oppose any rise in tuition fees (even though their leader, Nick Clegg, privately considered this position madness). The current legislation now wending its way through parliament is based on a compromise between the two parties, set out in their written coalition agreement forged after the election.

Does the House of Lords have the right to challenge laws that are set out in the coalition agreement?

Some on the Tory side have suggested that the coalition agreement is somehow the equivalent of a party manifesto. Labour peers, in opposition, reject that argument. A manifesto pledge is sacred because it enjoys a democratic mandate, they say.

How does that principle work now that the government is made up of two parties, each of which had their own manifesto? This, it turns out, is one of the many headaches thrown up by Britain's first coalition government since world war two.

If a proposal in the coalition agreement was in both the Tory and Lib Dem manifestos, then they are on solid ground, suggests a senior Labour figure. But if it was in one manifesto but not the other: well the whole question of the Salisbury convention is as clear as mud.

The fun and games do not end there. It is doubly unclear whether the House of Lords might challenge the government over tuition fees because peers traditionally only challenge the elected lower house on open, undecided issues of principle.

The Lords are wary of challenging the will of previous parliaments, as expressed by votes in the House of Commons. That means they are unwilling to take on what is known as "secondary legislation", ie, things like statutory instruments that tweak existing laws. The coalition government is not trying to establish tuition fees and student loans for the first time in a new act of parliament (ie, with primary legislation). It was the previous Labour government that introduced tuition fees in higher education.

If the proposal to raise the cap on tuition fees were heading towards the red benches and hushed calm of the upper house in a piece of primary legislation, there would be much greater willingness to amend and stop it, I am told.

As it is, it is all rather unclear. If you think this is complicated, by the way, just wait till the coalition reveals its plans for reforming the House of Lords. Assuming that their proposal involves electing some or all of the members of a new upper house (or senate, as it may be called), expect its elected members to take a more robust line on challenging the House of Commons. Add coalition government to the mix, and life without a written constitution looks more complicated than ever.

[blandy]

There were votes on 6000 and 9000 as the top threshold - I heard it on the radio as they were voting, snowy. There were also various amendments proposed, though I think they all got chucked out. And obviously there were changes made because of the threat of losing the vote. Imperfect, sure. But the "system" got there. Be interesting to see what comes from what the Economist article says, but I doubt anything will, and suspect that anything along the lines mentioned is going to be party motivated.

[snowychap]

There were votes on 6000 and 9000 as the top threshold - I heard it on the radio as they were voting, snowy. There were also various amendments proposed, though I think they all got chucked out. And obviously there were changes made because of the threat of losing the vote. Imperfect, sure. But the "system" got there. Be interesting to see what comes from what the Economist article says, but I doubt anything will, and suspect that anything along the lines mentioned is going to be party motivated.

They had to vote on the two parts of the SI - the upper limit and the basic threshold (as that was what was laid down in the 2004 Act that enabled the secretary of state to change the figures by means of secondary rather than primary legislation).

*I would be interested to know whether they would have been able to get rid of a cap via an SI or whether they would have had to go through primary legislation.*

There were a couple of amendments not selected by the speaker (even though one was mentioned in the brief speeches of Mulholland and Lewis they weren't debated).

There weren't any changes to the SI that was voted on. The changes that have been spoken about have been made to the proposed policy which will have to be enacted at a later date.

Whilst discussion of primary legislation may be taken in to account when a court decides upon a piece of statute, I don't think it has any real relevance to a statutory instrument passed on the basis of proposed future legislation (indeed I don't see how it could).

Effectively, from what I can see, this vote has gone through on the basis that the government will follow through with this amended policy. The more I think about it, the more it seems to be the cart going before the horse.