Tory welfare cuts will impoverish 200,000 children next year and more than 600,00 in 2020

Speaking only for myself (of course) I don't know anyone personally who will benefit from IHT changes.

I do know several families who may be affected by the proposed tax credit cuts, but until they know exactly where they stand they're not getting in a flap about it - too busy working and looking after their families!

Yes, I've looked at everywhere I have lived, mcem.
Peterborough has 9,000 families affected; their tory MP voted for the tax credit cut. He had a majority of less than 2,000 at the election. He might be worried in 2020.

Five years to go, then...

unison.typeform.com/to/nYWPlq

Anyone who wants to know if they or their family will be affected, there is a calculator here, based on pay and type of family.

I do hope the Lords do not back down tomorrow.

Looking hopeful. Can imagine D.C. and GO working like mad to try and get it through. They are furious. Claiming it is a budget thing won't wash though as it is a welfare issue.

Given all of the adverse publicity it's great that at last there are the beginnings of a fight back. Does George Osborne think we're all stupid when he claims if the legislation doesn't go through the country will go bust!

Considering that the government has just managed to get the ministerial code changed to exclude international law, it has no right to complain about the Lords not obeying convention.

www.theguardian.com/law/2015/oct/26/ministerial-code-no-10-showing-contempt-for-international-law

On parliament TV at the moment. Baroness Hollis is superb.

Baroness Meacher's motion passed, so government will have to think again.
Voting on Hollis's motion now.
I had not realised that Sentamu is the chair of the Living Wage commission - or if I had known, I'd forgotten.

I think the House of Lords should have electronic voting; they take so long.

So tell me dj what meachers motion is I've been too busy to keep up

I think the House of Lords should have electronic voting; they take so long
But if some of them are getting old and doddery they could press the wrong button

They have also passed Hollis's bill.

Meacher's was that the bill goes back to the house to think again after considering the analysis by the Institute of Fiscal Studies and reporting on their findings.

Hollis's was

"to move, as an amendment to the motion in the name of the Lord Privy Seal, to leave out all the words after “that” and insert “this House declines to consider the draft Regulations laid before the House on 7 September until the Government, (1) following consultation have reported to Parliament a scheme for full transitional protection for a minimum of three years for all low-income families and individuals currently receiving tax credits before 5 April 2016, such transitional protection to be renewable after three years with parliamentary approval, and (2) have laid a report before the House, detailing their response to the analysis of the draft Regulations by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, and considering possible mitigating action.”

Which means that those on tax credits already are not penalised. Had to copy it out in full as there is a lot to it.

They can still walk to the wrong place, roseq, if they are that doddery.

It's all so complicated these days though.

Pay the tax (if any is due) then have to claim it back again involving endless formfilling etc.
With computers one would think everything could be simplified.

The old system was much simpler where tax allowances were made and the tax was reduced at source.

That old system is still there, roseq. The discussion is about tax credits; many of the claimants do not earn enough to pay tax in the first place.

www.parliament.uk/business/publications/hansard/lords/todays-lords-debates/read/unknown/135/

Hollis's speech here at about 4.30
They agree with me that it was the best one of the debate.

(I was going to visit my mother in law today, but remembered this debate. I can go any day this week, as it's half term. The luxury of choice. Apart from tomorrow, or Friday, so that cuts down the available choices.)

That old system is still there, roseq. The discussion is about tax credits; many of the claimants do not earn enough to pay tax in the first place.
Yes, I realised that as soon as I posted it.

I meant the system where 'married men' - got an allowance, then for each subsequent child. That old system no longer exists, does it?

Yes, child benefit still exists. Fortunately, these days, it goes to whoever is looking after the child, usually the mother. It has now been means tested, so those earning too much do not get it. Lots of complaints about that when it changed recently.

Oh, I meant the very old taxation system which I think was in operation when our DC were young.
Married man's allowance - perhaps could be updated to partner allowance
Child's allowance for each child

Not a system where tax was paid then a benefit claimed which seems complicated.
A system where the tax was reduced by allowances and wasn't paid in the first place.

But, as you say, if people are under the tax threshold that wouldn't work.

www.gov.uk/child-benefit/what-youll-get

Is this what you mean?

The rules in the Lords are very different from those in the commons.
Dale Campbell-Savours called Cameron a liar about half a dozen times. He would not have got away with that when he was an MP.

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/104471

Vote of no confidence in Cameron has got over 100 signatures in last hour.
I wonder why the vote on Osborne hasn't trended.

Great news. On the day after the election I said "I hope the Lords give them hell" and this is a small bit of cheer in the pretty bleak prospect offered for the next 4 years.

Interesting that hardly any Tory peer spoke up for the government. Osborne needs to take note and care that he is beginning to go too far in his quest for a small state.

and Lawson, no less, spoke against.