Government defeated in the Lords on tax credits

I have very little time for the House of Lords as a concept in the 21st century, but they have done the right thing here.

Just because you entirely lack nuance on the subject doesn't mean everyone else has to pick a 'change everything' or 'never complain' position.

Jacob Rees-Mogg explained the objection on the Daily Politics on Friday. It's still on iPlayer. The suggestion is that this is a breach of a constitutional convention which exists precisely because the House of Lords is unelected. To maintain this position does not require one to support reform of the House.

I love the way how lefties who always go on about Lords Reform and now defending them, just because one 'result' went in their favour.Posted from TSR Mobile

And I love the way righties are now whittering on about Lords reform having prevented it for so long.

I love the way how lefties who always go on about Lords Reform and now defending them, just because one 'result' went in their favour.

I love how righties who always defend the House of Lords are now attacking them being on result went against them.

In any case, you are confused (and obviously butthurt). I actually support the House of Lords and so there is no inconsistency here. So that only leaves your inconsistency.

I agree. On the one hand they are a thoroughly outdated concept, but on the other, they do take their responsibility to the country very seriously. I truly believe they have done the right thing here by making the government rethink their ideas. There was a motion tabled to destroy this bill which was voted down by the peers.

Wasn't the last time they exerted their power when Tony Blair tried to pass his terrorism legislation that would allow people to be detained for 90 days without charge?

In the period 1999-2012 the Lords voted on 27 fatal and 42 non-fatal motions, which resulted in 17 defeats – just three of them on fatal motions. The details of these defeats are in my book: two occurred in 2000 over arrangements for the London mayoral elections, and another in 2007 over the Manchester ‘supercasino’.

I've always been for Lords Reform, but not complete abolition. I think there should be a limit on the number of Lords, people should be appointed on merit by a democratically elected body and those who have inherited their titles should be removed from the Lords. I believe the Lords should reflect the Commons in terms of party proportions, and also there should be a certain number of Lords for certain issues, eg 100 appointed for business matters etc etcPosted from TSR Mobile

The last time they killed an SI with a fatal motion was in 2007 over the super-casinos, but they have also passed many non-fatal regret and 'take-note' motions, which allow the instrument to pass but with detail of the House's concerns attached. They are still embarrassing to the Government and it tries to avoid them.

Professor Russell speaks:

More interesting data here, some graphical charts from page 20 onwards.

Interesting. But if the Lords was a reflection of the Commons in terms of proportions, is there not a risk that they are whipped into line on party terms and bad legislation is rail-roaded through the system?

It gives me much comfort and reassurance that our upper chamber are prepared to make a stand against the Commons regardless of party simply on the merits of the legislation being proposed.

In fact, after the hereditaries were thrown out in 1999, the Tory leader in the upper house, Lord Strathclyde, said that whatever putative convention may have existed re statutory instruments is now dead.

Just because you entirely lack nuance on the subject doesn't mean everyone else has to pick a 'change everything' or 'never complain' position.

Jacob Rees-Mogg explained the objection on the Daily Politics on Friday. It's still on iPlayer. The suggestion is that this is a breach of a constitutional convention which exists precisely because the House of Lords is unelected. To maintain this position does not require one to support reform of the House.

Just because you entirely lack nuance on the subject doesn't mean everyone else has to pick a 'change everything' or 'never complain' position.

Jacob Rees-Mogg explained the objection on the Daily Politics on Friday. It's still on iPlayer. The suggestion is that this is a breach of a constitutional convention which exists precisely because the House of Lords is unelected. To maintain this position does not require one to support reform of the House.

Did find this, though: "That this House affirms its unfettered freedom to vote on any subordinate legislation submitted for its consideration."

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1994/oct/20/subordinate-legislation-voting-freedom

And that's aside from the fact that the Tax Credits regulations are welfare in nature, not financial.

Unfortunately Mr. Rees-Mogg is quoting ancient material that refers to Acts of Parliament and budgets, not to secondary legislation, and the Conventions Committee 2006 and a 1994 debate in the Lords show that the conventions surrounding secondary legislation are quite different. And that's aside from the fact that the Tax Credits regulations are welfare in nature, not financial.

I find your distinction between welfare and financial matters highly spurious. I'm aware of the point as to certification by the commons of a piece of legislation as a money bill, and that may be a decisive argument. I'm not an expert and I don't intend to get involved in that. My point was that it is stupid to go on about the fact that the tories in general have not pushed for lords reform. That really isn't what's in issue.