Government defeated in the Lords on tax credits

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.

It is legitimate to point out that their sudden interest in Lords' reform is not based on any longstanding principle but simply pique at having been checked in the Lords.

(1) There is no such thing as a "money instrument". There are money bills, and the Commons' primacy on such matters is enshrined through the parliament act. The Commons supremacy on that is unchallenged.

(2) This measure is not a financial measure. It doesn't touch upon tax rates or revenue appropriations or the consolidated fund. The fact it has financial implications wouldn't automatically make it a matter of financial privilege because almost everything the government does has some financial implication. Tax credits are not actually a tax refund; they are a welfare measure.

(3) The lords is probably the most toothless upper house in the world. The fact the government has gone into conniptions over being rebuffed in this manner, when they have the power to force the measure into law anyway with primary legislation, speaks very poorly of their maturity and political judgment.

(4) The Lords right to reject an SI is undoubted, and any claimed convention on SIs is long dead and was declared so by the Tory leader in the Lords, Lord Strathclyde. The Lords have used this power sparingly in any case, and even if there was a convention, a convention is not a law. Conventions change over time.

(5) Rees-Mogg's hyperventilating over a "left-wing majority" in the Lords shows how many conservatives have something akin to a sense of ownership over the house, and they appear to be outraged that it should be constituted in any way other than that of an inbuilt conservative majority that they had for the entire 20th century. These comments and their behaviour shows they have very little respect for the Lords as an institution

All in all, the arguments are very much weighed against the government on this matter. Their behaviour and their decision to now lash out at the Lords is embarrassing.

It's a triviality. If they'd turned to saying that the house should be seriously reformed (to which I'm not aware of any real proposals) it would be a different matter, but they're perfectly entitled to argue about the proper role of the second chamber. Vernon Bogdanor has been all over TV doing that, and I don't think anyone contends that he's in it to shill for the Conservative party.

(1) This is argued on convention and principle, so the fact that it falls outside the provision in the Parliament Act is really neither here nor there.

(5) I don't disagree with that, although I also don't mind the idea of having an inbuilt tendency against change in the system.

It's a genuinely good thing the law was rejected, but the solution to damaging legislation is an evolved form of government, not to call on the power of an older, more archaic form of it.

I don't think anyone's arguing that nobody can debate the nature of the Lords and its powers, but the fact is that to claim that the Lords is governed by conventions that it should not block secondary legislation, even legislation of a financial nature, is simply not true. Perhaps it ought to be, but it doesn't at the moment.

Unfortunately debating with you isn't like a brick wall, because a brick wall wouldn't splurt out tory propaganda lines and meaningless soundbites.
Rather than debating with you in the future, i'll hit up the tory party website and see their latest lines of argument - may as well cut out the middle man.

Not once have I seen you ever take a position that differs from the tory party line. You even refer to it as 'we'.

It's a shame some people are utterly incapable of thinking for themselves. About time you started.

Cheers.

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.