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

Am I mistaken, happy to be 'put right'

Doesn't the Scottish Parliament have the facility in place to raise taxes already?

I think, it's the Income Tax rate but the Scottish Parliament has chosen not to so. It could therefore raise extra funding for Scotland's NHS etc , as you say if that is what the Scottish people want.

It's all a bit he said she said when you listen to politicians speaking so the in's and out's behind this are quite technical so I would be interested to hear from somebody who DOES know the correct answer.

www.livingwage.org.uk/news/new-uk-living-wage-rate-has-been-announced

New living wage has been announced. It's £8.25. I wonder how Osborne will square that with his idea of the national living wage next year.

www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN07077/devolution-of-financial-powers-to-the-scottish-parliament-recent-developments

Durhamjen

So the Scottish Parliament (SNP) can raise taxes if they choose to, correct, or have I misread the summary you provided.

Am I to take it that the 'government' whom you believe should take notice and raise taxes is the Scottish Parliament in this instance?

Scotland should have had the right to raise its own taxes by now, but the Scotland Bill was put on hold when Cameron said that evel should take place at the same time. The Scotland Bill is still going through parliament.
They will be able to change some rates next year but not until 2017 for most rates.
That's what I think, anyway. Sure someone else will know better.
Anyway, it's good to know that the Scottish people care about their health and education systems enough to want their government to put up the basic tax rate to pay for them.

politicalscrapbook.net/2015/11/influential-tory-think-tank-to-osborne-think-again-on-tax-credit-cuts/

A think tank told Osborne today that he should think again about the cuts and the effect they will have on the poorest.
The person who runs the think tank is a Tory in the House of Lords who voted with the government last week. Hypocrite or what?

Hypocrite

www.welfareweekly.com/jobcentre-staff-bullying-benefit-claimants-to-tears/

This is what the Tories want to happen, is it?

Time IDS was brought to book.

It's a sad fact of life that some people such as the job centre staff mentioned, when they think they have been given a little power, become unpleasant bullies and seem to enjoy feeling superior.
I am sure that is not in their remit.

*However, the main point is that Labour governments always run the economy better than the Tory ones.
I wonder why the newspapers always tell us differently*

For the millions of people who have lived life under different governments, they say that themselves. They have experienced it. They dont need telling or reminding of it by newspapers.
My parents were telling me it as far back as the 70s. Twas always thus according to them.

The job description excerpt isn't "The ability to reduce claimants to tears is essential" My DD1 worked in a job centre and they took a hell of a lot of trouble over their clients. There may be some individuals who relish tgeir little bit of power but it is not endemic.

Don't be daft. Whatever their political policies, no party sets out deliberately to smash a section of their electorate into bloody pulp. We know that you are partisan, dj but there is no need to impute such an intention to the party to which you are in opposition -(eternal and implacable opposition, that is. I am sure that if they brought in legislation to give everyone a minimum wage twice what it is now, with three months paid holiday a year, paid all unemployed as much as a captain of industry, set up the homeless in suites at the Savoy and threw all employers into a dungeon on bread and water, you would still wear the blinkers and condemn them all to the deepest fires of hell.)

There is an interesting article in the Telegraph today about the mess Osborne has got himself and his Party into over tax credit cuts. By Fraser Nelson.

Yes, I saw Fraser Nelson on one of the politics shows a couple of weeks ago, and I nearly switched over. I couldn't believe what he was saying, so unusual for him.
What also surprises me is that he is allowed to write that in the Telegraph. After all, that is why Peter Oborne left the Telegraph, because he wasn't allowed to criticise the government.

Sorry, Elegran, to annoy you a bit more, but it wasn't me who said it.
It was evidence to the Scottish Welfare Reform Committee, as you would have realised if you had read the post.
You obviously are so blinkered that you do not know what is happening about welfare reform. Perhaps you ought to read more about it.

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/arriva-ambulance-bonus-payback-mps-10377387

This is not about welfare reform, but about a company running ambulances in Manchester, and fleecing the NHS out of £1.5 million pounds. This is a private company which bid for the ambulance services and was given the contract despite everyone involved saying they could not possibly do it on the terms they gave.
If less of this went on, or more of it was discovered and prosecuted, there would be no need for the Tories to "smash a section of their electorate into bloody pulp" as you so graphically put it.
They might still do it just for the hell of it, though.

"The Scottish Welfare Reform Committee has heard evidence at Holyrood about Jobcentre staff bullying claimants, often reducing them to tears.

The Committee heard from witnesses who are claimants on a first-name basis only, because of fears that the disclosures may lead to sanctioning by the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP)."

This is the beginning of the article about job claimants.
Surely it's wrong that they cannot give evidence in their full names because of fears that they might be sanctioned.
That's just evil.

If you said that kind of thing less often, dj perhaps yours would not be the first name to come to mind. If you posted fewer links then maybe they would be read, and if you listened to others perhaps they would listen more closely to you.

Anyone bullying anyone else in a jobcentre or elsewhere should be prosecuted under their own name -whether they are claimants or staff. DD1 was threatened by claimants for doing her job and had to get a large male member of staff to intervene. Of course, you would class her as the middle-class bully and the man who discouraged the claimant from attacking her as the aggressor. This was when unemployment in the area was 14% so there were plenty of unhappy people around - I believe it was under a labour government.

I STILL say that you malign many people by claiming that they are pursuing a deliberate policy of what amounts to genocide by starvation. You could say that they are mistaken, that they are being stupid and short-sighted, you could say a lot of things without exhibiting such personal hatred.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mps-could-be-forced-to-debate-a-no-confidence-vote-in-david-cameron-a6722796.html

Fortunately, Elegran, not everyone agrees with you - about the government I mean.
The rest of it, I could not care less about.

After all, that is why Peter Oborne left the Telegraph, because he wasn't allowed to criticise the government.
And joined the dreaded Daily Mail where he can criticise to his heart's content

The job description excerpt isn't "The ability to reduce claimants to tears is essential" My DD1 worked in a job centre and they took a hell of a lot of trouble over their clients. There may be some individuals who relish tgeir little bit of power but it is not endemic.

Sorry, Elegran I didn't mean to tar them all with the same brush. Of course, it is always the few who do become 'jobsworths' and enjoy their power over other people who are the ones who hit the headlines.

The rest of it, I could not care less about.

Oh, the sheer arrogance of it...

The rest of it was a personal attack. That's why I could not care less about it.

Over 1500 signatures in the last hour on that Cameron petition. The power of the press.

And implying that conservative politicians encourage civil servants to bully claimants and so on and "They might still do it just for the hell of it, though." is NOT a personal attack ? (on them, not on me?) I think some of your wilder utterances might be classed as "immoderate language" in the House.

Oh dear, it looks like it has happened under successive governments, in this case pensioners were 'bullied' and harrassed - apparently:
www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/watchdog/2008/12/pensioners_being_made_to_pay_f.html

I wonder if Gordon Brown encouraged them to do it just for the hell of it, though
I doubt it, just as I know that it is ridiculous to suggest that any government would bully claimants just for the hell of it

Although one or two of them one hears about who are allergic to work when they are fit and well do need a boot up the you-know-where bit of a push and must exasperate hardworking staff who may be earning less than some people they are dealing with get in benefits.

convoluted sentence there