Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread [5]

[Pettytyrant101]

A while back I put forward the idea that recent moves by Russia (at that time Ukraine) were because Russia had no choice- and that NATO had been encircling Russia with arms for years and that it was stupid to think you could prod the Russian bear indefinitely before it swiped your face off.

Look like it wasn't a bad armchair analysis. Here's Putin saying much the same thing but in Russian-

[Pettytyrant101]

Well that was a farce!
The Tory austerity, fiscal bill got passed tonight.
Last week Labour were going to vote for it because they said it demonstrated to the people that they were not 'deficit-deniers.'
On Monday, seemingly on his own, the Shadow Chancellor announced they would not in fact be supporting it after all- what followed was by all accounts a farcical brawl of a meeting of the Labour Parliamentary Party and Leadership- with one Labour MP being heard from the corridor outside by journalists yelling "This is a fucking farce!"
In the end Corbyn applied a 3-line Whip- the maxim a party can and under normal circumstances failure to vote as instructed results in removal of the Whip (excommunication essentially)- 20 Labour MP's abstained and many others simply didn't turn up.
The SNP and Lib Dems voted against as they have always said they would do but without the full Labour support the Tories win.

Thanks for nothing Labour, again.

[Mrs Figg]

what a balls up, how could Labour even consider voting for it?

[Eldorion]

The shadow chancellor, McDonnell, seems like something of a loose cannon. But Corbyn himself is in a weird position trying to enforce the whipping system after having flaunted it for the better part of three decades. If Cameron is smart he'll keep putting pressure on Labour's ideological and procedural fault lines.

[Pettytyrant101]

If Cameron is smart- Eldo

He is not noted for it.
But he has been unbelievably lucky in the lack of credible opposition he has had as PM. First Miliband and now this slow-mo trainwreck.

[Mrs Figg]

I don't get why Corbyn has to enforce a three line whip, when surely he is against austerity? or am I missing something important.

[Pettytyrant101]

He is against his austerity- the party he leads has consistently voted with the Tories for it however.
Same goes for Trident- he is against his party is for.
He cant get his party to vote with him on principle so he has to use the whip system to force them to vote with the leadership.

[Mrs Figg]

heres proof if anyone needed it that the House of Lords is a vital part of British democracy. for the first time in 100 years they are in rebellion against tax credit cuts, Labour and Lib Dem peers refusing to back the Tories. Lets hope they block this hideous law going through. I bet Sturgeon wishes she had SNP peers at the moment.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/house-of-lords-voting-down-tax-credit-cuts-could-lead-to-a-constitutional-crisis-former-civil-a6705331.html

[Pettytyrant101]

This could get interesting, and a bit mad- the Tories might just flood the House of Lords with Tory peers, make a hundred extra in one go, just to pass the legislation.
But right now its hard to tell if these Tory threats and claims of Constitutional Crisis are just that-threats to make the Lords toe the line- or if they will really do it.
Tomorrow we find out if the Lords will really do it, or if the threats have worked.

[Bluebottle]

Constitutional crisis? Even when their role has been diminished onto non-existent the House of Lords still have a constitutional role, and one they are exercising in this case.

[Bluebottle]

Maybe were heading back towards something like this.

The Commons of England assembled in Parliament, finding by too long experience that the House of Lords is useless and dangerous to the people of England to be continued, have thought fit to ordain and enact, and be it ordained and enacted by this present Parliament, and by the authority of the same, that from henceforth the House of Lords in Parliament shall be and is hereby wholly abolished and taken away; and that the Lords shall not from henceforth meet or sit in the said House called the Lords' House, or in any other house or place whatsoever ...

[Pettytyrant101]

Even when their role has been diminished onto non-existent the House of Lords still have a constitutional role- Blue

Several in fact. And its not quite non-existent, in fact in general its a good idea I reckon, not the unelected hereditary bit, or the churches, that should all have gone long ago, but the reason it hasn't is that against all the odds its been a surprisingly successful secondary chamber for detailed consideration of bills, with the ability to send it back to the Commons 3 times if the think it needs a rethink.
And ironically enough a large part of that success is done to it being completely undemocratic- its not in direct competition with the Commons, no one is fighting for votes. And most of them are too long in the tooth for the party games- no more greasy pole left to climb for them- so what they actually bring is years of experience in their field.

[Bluebottle]

Yeah, it was their veto being suspensive I was getting at. And if this is a money bill as the Conservatives claim it can be given royal asset without their approval.

I just find it ridiculous that they are complaining about the HoLs basically filling their constitutional role.

If they are right they'll get their bill through without approval. If this falls within the constitutional jurisdiction of the HoLs, they will get their way in the end. And they should rather take it in over themselves that the bill proposed completely out of the ordinary has stirred the HoLs to action, and perhaps take the extra time they are offered to think through what they are actually doing. That is exactly the role the HoLs is meant to play.

[Pettytyrant101]

if this is a money bill as the Conservatives claim it can be given royal asset without their approval. - Blue

Thats a big IF- this is one of their own making- they didn't put it through as a finance bill- but as a statuary standing order- which means technically the Lords can veto it.
The counter argument being it might not technically be a financial bill but it clearly has huge financial implications.
Tomorrow will be constitutionally an interesting day.

[Bluebottle]

Oh, I like constitutionally interesting days.

[Mrs Figg]

if the Lords rebel it sends out a very large and embarrassing message to Osbourne and co. it also reminds the Tories of what happened over the Poll Tax. if something is that unpopular that even Lords cant stomach it, theres something wrong. But there are many Tories who don't like tax credit cuts either.

[Pettytyrant101]

I don't think the Lords has the stomach to rebel- I suspect it will be Bishops Bill thingy- which is an option where the Lords neither endorses nor vetoes a Bill- but shows its displeasure for it.

[Bluebottle]

#science

Much human ingenuity has gone into finding the ultimate Before.

The current state of knowledge can be summarized thus:

In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded.

- TERRY PRATCHETT, LORDS AND LADIES

[Pettytyrant101]

Things are hotting up in the Lords- the first vote on the Lib Dem motion which would have stopped the bill in its tracks and sent it back to the drawing board failed by a whopping 310 to 99, however the second vote, on a Labour Motion which delays the bill until after an independent assessment has looked at who it will effect has just passed by 307 to 277.
This means there is no longer a needed for a vote on the Bishops motion.
However there is one more vote to go- which would see the bill delayed until a three year transitional period is complete.

The Lords has moved into new constitutional territory- but then thats the interesting thing about not having a written constitution but one based on precedent- you can always set a new one.

[Pettytyrant101]

Update- the Lords passed the third vote too! I didn't expect that. Didn't think they had the balls. The bill calls for- ' the changes to be delayed until a three-year package of transitional financial help for those affected has been agreed upon. '

[Pettytyrant101]

The government response is taking shape-

'Chancellor George Osborne said the vote had "raised constitutional issues that need to be dealt with".
But he added that on tax credits "I said I would listen to the concerns raised and that is precisely what I will do. I think we can achieve the same goal as reforming these tax credits, securing the money we need to ensure our economy is safe and at the same time helping in the transition to these changes".
He said he would set out how that could be achieved in next month's Autumn Statement.'

Sounds like a climb down to me. And if the Lords had not done this there would be no climb down.

It will be interesting to see what move Cameron makes now-

'No 10 has said it will review arrangements around the House of Lords after the defeat over tax credits. A spokesman said: "The prime minister is determined we will address this constitutional issue. A convention exists and it has been broken. He has asked for a rapid review to see how it can be put back in place." Details will be announced tomorrow.'- BBC

[Bluebottle]

Well, the "We will name 50 new lords" lines almost felt like madness. Though they might be thinking reform more long term. A reform they might live to regret when they next find themselves in opposition.

I still don't see the real issue though. The HoL did what it's meant to do, no?

[Eldorion]

I like the Lords as an advisory chamber but I don't like them having legislative power. I'm not going to change my position on that just because they happen to have done something that I politically agree with. I'm confident this thread would be taking a very different tone right now if the Lords were standing in the way of some piece of legislation that most people on here supported.

[Pettytyrant101]

The convention between the Chambers is that the unelected Lords will not contest financial bills passed by the elected Commons.
The Tory argument here is that the democratically elected house has been stopped form carrying out its democratic duty as appointed by the people, by an unelected body.

The Lords counter argument is it was not technically a finance bill but a standing order, and it was not in the manifesto (which allows them to contest something that the government were not elected by the people to do) but usually that does not apply to financial bills- at least not since 1911 when the convention came into being.
And that the job of the House is to consider bills and if necessary send them back to be amended before they will pass it into law (they can do this to a bill 3 times after which it becomes law whether they like it or not- demonstrating the supremacy of the elected chamber over the unelected one).

[Pettytyrant101]

I like the Lords as an advisory chamber but I don't like them having legislative power.- Eldo

They aren't- they cant create legislation- they only scrutinize bills passed up from the Commons- they can send it back by voting against it- with non finance bills this works fairly well- they consider and then make suggestions for amendments they can vote for.
They pass bills into law- but its more a final rubber stamp- they help shape bills by debating and sending amendments- but only the Commons can create bills, laws or make amendments to them.
The problem with the Lords is that its unelected (I don't find this a big issue myself for a revising body) the peerage system which shouldn't exist, and the automatic right of people to be members based on birth or being a Bishop in the Church of England.
But the reason its so hard to reform is that its been surprisingly effective as a revising chamber for a rather long time.