Turn on thread page Beta

Tories vetoed bill to make House of Lords elected... watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    In 2012, the Tories vetoed a bill introduced by the Liberal Democrats to make the House of Lords mostly elected.
    Now it seems bizarre they'd do that considering how they are now going on about how how it's awful that 'unelected' Lords voted their bill down...
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_...form_Bill_2012

    Also in 1997, the House of Lords voted down 39 bills from the New Labour government when Labour had a majority of over 100.
    I don't remember the Tories back then calling this a 'constituional crisis', nor do I remember Tony Blair throwing his toys out the plan calling it a constituional crisis.

    http://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/...s-govtdefeats/
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    In 2012, the Tories vetoed a bill introduced by the Liberal Democrats to make the House of Lords mostly elected.
    Now it seems bizarre they'd do that considering how they are now going on about how how it's awful that 'unelected' Lords voted their bill down...
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_...form_Bill_2012

    Also in 1997, the House of Lords voted down 39 bills from the New Labour government when Labour had a majority of over 100.
    I don't remember the Tories back then calling this a 'constituional crisis', nor do I remember Tony Blair throwing his toys out the plan calling it a constituional crisis.

    http://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/...s-govtdefeats/
    It's a "constitutional crisis" because by convention the House of Lords does not vote down finance-related bills.

    And it's equally bizarre that the Liberal Democrats, who wanted to make the House of Lords an elected house, had to use an unelected body to vote a bill down.

    You just seem to be grasping at straws to make the Conservative party look bad.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    You just seem to be grasping at straws to make the Conservative party look bad.
    It doesn't take much doing, tbf.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    It's a "constitutional crisis" because by convention the House of Lords does not vote down finance-related bills.

    And it's equally bizarre that the Liberal Democrats, who wanted to make the House of Lords an elected house, had to use an unelected body to vote a bill down.

    You just seem to be grasping at straws to make the Conservative party look bad.
    It's also a convention that governments shouldn't make a promise before an election to win votes and then go back on that promise within a few months.
    You could easily spin it to make it a welfare bill rather than a financial one...
    Osborne and Cameron kept em ruining the fact that the lords were 'unelected', repeatedly. Yet when they had their chance to make it elected they vetoed it. So the unelected nature clearly isn't an issue to the Tories and its desparate for them to use it now.
    Don't reject the chance to make it elected then moan about the fact it's unelected.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Tory Lord reform most likely means stuffing the lords with more of their cronies :rofl2:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    It's a "constitutional crisis" because by convention the House of Lords does not vote down finance-related bills.

    And it's equally bizarre that the Liberal Democrats, who wanted to make the House of Lords an elected house, had to use an unelected body to vote a bill down.

    You just seem to be grasping at straws to make the Conservative party look bad.
    If they hadn't put it througg as secondary legislation yes. But they did so it wasn't unconstitutional nor against convention.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Tory Lord reform most likely means stuffing the lords with more of their cronies :rofl2:
    You know they flew in multi-millionaire Andrew Lloyd Webber to cast his first vote in two years just to vote for their cuts to tax credits?
    Yeah that's real democratic...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    It's a "constitutional crisis" because by convention the House of Lords does not vote down finance-related bills.
    The convention is that the House of Lords does not block money bills. The definition of a money bill is strictly interpreted and requires, among other things, that the Speaker of the House of Commons says it is one. In this case he didn't, and so the Lords were perfectly free to vote as they thought best.

    If anyone is causing a crisis here, it's the Conservative Party. Having the constitution changed simply because the incumbent government finds it an inconvenience is something that happens quite often in third world countries, but hardly ever in a western democracy.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    It's a "constitutional crisis" because by convention the House of Lords does not vote down finance-related bills.
    No. Its a "constitutional" crisis because the lords voted down a tory bill, one they had assumed would pass, dont pretend its anything beyond that.

    Its the samevreason they complain about union votes, but see no problem with being voted in by a minority.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    AGAIN.

    How is outright leiing to get elected is not a crisis of democracy... Saying and then doing another thing to the extent the Tories wanted to do is a democratic crisis in itself.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    It's a "constitutional crisis" because by convention the House of Lords does not vote down finance-related bills.
    The House of Lords broke no convention. From parliament.uk:

    (Original post by parliament.uk)
    The Salisbury doctrine, as generally understood today, means that the House of Lords should not reject at second or third reading Government Bills brought from the House of Commons for which the Government has a mandate from the nation.
    The Tories had no mandate from the nation to impose tax credit cuts the way they were trying to: these cuts were not in the manifesto, and they repeatedly said they would not do it.

    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    And it's equally bizarre that the Liberal Democrats, who wanted to make the House of Lords an elected house, had to use an unelected body to vote a bill down.
    No it isn't. The Liberal Democrats do support bicameralism: the same thing would have almost certainly happened had the House of Lords been reformed in the way they wanted it to be reformed. Do you expect them to boycott the House of Lords because it's not exactly the way they want it to be?

    You seem to be clutching at straws to defend the Conservative party.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    It's not a constitutional crisis when it was clear constitutional.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    In 2012, the Tories vetoed a bill introduced by the Liberal Democrats to make the House of Lords mostly elected.
    Now it seems bizarre they'd do that considering how they are now going on about how how it's awful that 'unelected' Lords voted their bill down...
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_...form_Bill_2012

    Also in 1997, the House of Lords voted down 39 bills from the New Labour government when Labour had a majority of over 100.
    I don't remember the Tories back then calling this a 'constituional crisis', nor do I remember Tony Blair throwing his toys out the plan calling it a constituional crisis.

    http://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/...s-govtdefeats/
    No such Veto occurred.

    The Lords reform bill actually succeeded in passing its second reading, it was withdrawn because enough Labour and Tory back bench MP's defeated a timing amendment which meant it would have run out of time.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    No such Veto occurred.

    The Lords reform bill actually succeeded in passing its second reading, it was withdrawn because enough Labour and Tory back bench MP's defeated a timing amendment which meant it would have run out of time.
    It was abandoned by the British Government in August 2012 and formally withdrawn on 3 September 2012[2] following opposition from within the Conservative Party.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    It was abandoned by the British Government in August 2012 and formally withdrawn on 3 September 2012[2] following opposition from within the Conservative Party.
    Exactly. It was withdrawn by the government because Tory and Labour back benches defeated a timing amendment (more Tories than Labour).

    Nothing you've said makes my statement any less true.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Exactly. It was withdrawn by the government because Tory and Labour back benches defeated a timing amendment (more Tories than Labour).

    Nothing you've said makes my statement any less true.
    It was defeated because the tories didn't want it to pass.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    It was defeated because the tories didn't want it to pass.
    Except that it passed its second reading and the front bench voted for it. Only the back benches derailed it with a bunch of Labour help i might add.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    The 2012 Reform Bill died because backbenchers of both Tories and Labour co-operated to kill it - and it was Ed Miliband who led the vote against the Programme Motion. There was no way it would make it out of the Commons, and would simply take up massive amounts of parliamentary time. Putting aside time to argue over Lords reform at the expense of legislation about jobs, housing, and health doesn't look good to the public, so the Government did the sensible thing and killed it.

    Good thing, too, it was a terrible Bill and would have caused massive damage to the Constitution if it had passed.

    So, is this Regulation on tax credits a financial matter or not? The overwhelming consensus of constitutional experts is that it is not. Firstly, the Parliament Acts do not apply to secondary legislation (this was NOT a Bill); secondly, even if they did, the Parliament Acts require that the Speaker of the Commons certify such a thing as financial in nature before the provisions of the Parliament Act to do with financial legislation can apply. The Speaker did not do this, therefore it is not financial. Furthermore, the Tax Credits Act 2002 was not declared a money Bill by the Speaker either, so the Government is wrong any way you spin it.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    It was defeated because the tories didn't want it to pass.
    Tory and Labour backbenchers, plus Ed Miliband led the charge against the Programme Motion. Whatever their motives (whether out of concern for the constitution - hah! or simply to deck the Government), the Tories could not have stopped it alone.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.