The Lords and finance Bills.

[MicrosoftBob]

We need fracking.

Quite, leftie tree huggers can frack off

[NotAllThere]

The Lords' rejection isn't definitive. The government retains the power to push the bill through. Anything that slows any government down and forces a rethink is a good thing, which is why I'm in favour of a second chamber. The fact that they're unelected is, in my view, immaterial, since the Lords cannot enforce its will. Ideally, the second chamber should be filled with experienced statesmen and women - that's easier to achieve by appointment than election.

Abolition of the second chamber, and replacing their function with committees may work equally as well, but so far as I can see, the system isn't broke, so doesn't need fixing. Any government that abolished the second chamber would be doing so for their own (short term) political advantage. I can't see it benefiting the country as a whole.

[MicrosoftBob]

Ah.

So you want unfettered one party statedom, so you?

No that's what the current Labour party want

[MrMarkyMark]

But this wasn't a finance bill, in the sense of being primary legislation, which is what the convention applies to. Gideon and Dave thought they were being very clever by pushing it through as a statutory instrument instead; but that means the Lords damn well can block it.

The reason they used - or rather, tried to use - a statutory instrument is that it reduces the amount of scrutiny and debate it's subject to in the Commons. A statutory instrument is supposed to be used for minor matters that don't require a lot of discussion, not major legislation like this. But they thought they could get away with it, and they've been caught out, because it turns out they're not as clever as they think they are, the arrogant pair of twats.

This.
Underhand and sloppy, hence they were caught out .

The Lords' rejection isn't definitive. The government retains the power to push the bill through. Anything that slows any government down and forces a rethink is a good thing, which is why I'm in favour of a second chamber. The fact that they're unelected is, in my view, immaterial, since the Lords cannot enforce its will.

Exactly. It is in this type of situation why the Lords should be there in the first place. I don't think this issue with tax credits has been thought through.
I do agree there should be reform, but this should be carefully considered not just sledge hammered in.

[DodgyAgent]

. Anything that slows any government down and forces a rethink is a good thing,.

So if a bill needs to be passed to declare war on Russia after invading Scotland and a bunch of unelected bureaucrats in fancy dress decide "to slow it down" then that would be a good thing?

[TestMangler]

So if a bill needs to be passed to declare war on Russia after invading Scotland and a bunch of unelected bureaucrats in fancy dress decide "to slow it down" then that would be a good thing?

Glad you raised that. Was worried about that happening but didn't want to hijack such a frivolous thread with serious points

[NotAllThere]

So if a bill needs to be passed to declare war on Russia after invading Scotland and a bunch of unelected bureaucrats in fancy dress decide "to slow it down" then that would be a good thing?

Red herring. This is not a matter of urgency; it is about preventing hasty, ill-thought out, government action. Declaration of war does not need Lords approval. I seem to recall that power resides in the hands of the PM alone (acting on behalf of the monarch).

[DaveB]

So if a bill needs to be passed to declare war on Russia after invading Scotland and a bunch of unelected bureaucrats in fancy dress decide "to slow it down" then that would be a good thing?

No, because that would be absurd.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

AKA The what's next brigade.

[OwlHoot]

So if a bill needs to be passed to declare war on Russia after invading Scotland and a bunch of unelected bureaucrats in fancy dress decide "to slow it down" then that would be a good thing?

No bill is needed to declare war, as that is a royal prerogative so the cabinet or "executive" can advise the Sovereign to go ahead without the consent of Parliament.

A parliamentary bill would then be needed to pay for the war; but that would be a finance bill, which the Lords could not block (or at least not for long, even in the unlikely event they tried).

AIUI

[DodgyAgent]

If the Ruskies want Scotland they can have it.

No reason to object.

Good point It would however require a quickie "Bill through Parliament"