Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    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.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SignFromDog)
    (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.
    I'd contend this, actually. I don't have the material to hand but I can find it later if you like, but the Lords Library did a comparison of upper houses worldwide and there's a fair number of second chambers out there which are even weaker, actually.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SignFromDog)
    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. (2) I've already said that I find the finance/welfare distinction spurious, but the point may be arguable. (3) I don't much care how other countries organise their upper houses. That's no argument. (4) Unless you consider it inappropriate for them to use this veto on a money matter on which the Commons has voted. (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.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    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.
    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.

    (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.
    Well the 2006 Conventions Committee dug quite deeply into the matter and came down pretty firmly in the camp that no conventions preventing the Lords from blocking SIs exists, apart from the vague one of not making a habit of doing so.

    (2) I've already said that I find the finance/welfare distinction spurious, but the point may be arguable. (3) I don't much care how other countries organise their upper houses. That's no argument. (4) Unless you consider it inappropriate for them to use this veto on a money matter on which the Commons has voted.[/quote]

    Again, the Conventions Committee makes no distinction between financial and non-financial matters, so even if this was unequivocally a financial instrument, it matters not - they have the right to stop it. In any case, the Lords did not block it, but in fact delayed its passage to allow more consideration of the instrument, especially in the Commons, where there are growing suggestions that some Tory backbenchers want the Regulations revised.

    As with primary legislation, the Lords has done its constitutional duty and invited the Commons to have a second thought.

    (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.
    I think you're confusing the Conservatives with being conservatives. They make as much major change as Labour.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    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.
    What does this even mean?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    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.
    I think the 'is' and 'ought' are not so sharply divided in constitutional matters as you seem to imply.

    I've stated multiple times that I didn't intend to get bogged down in the substance here. My original point was simply that there is no hypocrisy in arguing about constitutional convention and propriety as relates to the House of Lords after failing to abolish the same House. I think that point is made, so I'll stop now.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    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.
    But we need to return to a low welfare, high wage economy! (Said about 8 times on DP)

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Telling point: In 2012 the tories Vetoed a bill for the House of Lords to become elected. Now they are moaning about 'unelected peers' - You couldn't make it up.

    And another, in 1997, the House of Lords voted down 38 pieces of Labour legislation. Where were the tories calling it a constitutional crisis then?! Not even Blair called it such.

    This is nothing more than the tories throwing their toys out the pram.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SignFromDog)
    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.
    There is no inconsistency from Michael Ellis' end, either; as I have already pointed out in the linked post, he has an unambiguous history of supporting radical Lords reform. You are being disingenuous.

    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...95&postcount=8
 
 
 
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.