The Lords and finance Bills.

[BolshieBastard]

The British Constitution has clearly laid down over the last 100 years that the upper house does not interfere with Finance Bills, end of. While the Constitution isnt written down, that doesnt mean geriatric politicians can re write it for short term political gains.

The Lib Dems, Labour and the minor parties are playing a very dangerous game if they push the Lords intto challenging any Government's Finance Bills (and Im no lover of Cameron and co).

[DaveB]

The British Constitution has clearly laid down over the last 100 years that the upper house does not interfere with Finance Bills, end of. While the Constitution isnt written down, that doesnt mean geriatric politicians can re write it for short term political gains.

The Lib Dems, Labour and the minor parties are playing a very dangerous game if they push the Lords intto challenging any Government's Finance Bills (and Im no lover of Cameron and co).

There is no such thing. There are conventions, legal precedents and assorted other arrangements. Non-of these preclude the Lords from voting against something they believe is wrong, and there is a long history of this happening. Less so since the abolition of Life Peers, but it still happens. And it should. It this case it so happens that it is a finance bill. No-one is forcing the Lords to do anything, they will debate the bill and vote on it. That's democracy.

[BolshieBastard]

There is no such thing. There are conventions, legal precedents and assorted other arrangements. Non-of these preclude the Lords from voting against something they believe is wrong, and there is a long history of this happening. Less so since the abolition of Life Peers, but it still happens. And it should. It this case it so happens that it is a finance bill. No-one is forcing the Lords to do anything, they will debate the bill and vote on it. That's democracy.

You're utterly and totally wrong. There is a British Constition, it just not a written one.

You show an abject lack of understanding as well. The convention precludes the Lords voting against any Government's Finance Act. That goes back to around 1911 when the Lords continually stiffled the elected Government's attempt to get its budget through Parliament.

And the last bit is the biggest laugh of all. You consider a totally unelected chamber voting against a Finance Bill to be democratic. You couldnt make that tosh up.

[darmstadt]

You're utterly and totally wrong. There is a British Constition, it just not a written one.

Sorry, if its not written down there there isn't one. Do you start a contract without a bit of paper?

And the last bit is the biggest laugh of all. You consider a totally unelected chamber voting against a Finance Bill to be democratic. You couldnt make that tosh up.

I wonder how many people bang on about the EU not being democratically elected but respect a vote passed by the House of Lords?

[AtW]

The British Constitution has clearly laid down over the last 100 years that the upper house does not interfere with Finance Bills, end of. While the Constitution isnt written down

If it's not written down then it's a matter of opinion.

HTH

[AtW]

There is a British Constition, it just not a written one.

No, there isn't!

[jamesbrown]

The British Constitution has clearly laid down over the last 100 years that the upper house does not interfere with Finance Bills, end of. While the Constitution isnt written down, that doesnt mean geriatric politicians can re write it for short term political gains.

The Lib Dems, Labour and the minor parties are playing a very dangerous game if they push the Lords intto challenging any Government's Finance Bills (and Im no lover of Cameron and co).

Point of order. Do you actually understand the different types of legislation and how they operate? This was brought in as a statutory instrument, which is secondary legislation (a regulation), not primary legislation (a bill). The reason this has become a total joke is that the Leader of the House (of Commons) tried to push this through as secondary legislation, rather than a bill, and so there is no mechanism for the HoL to amend and to negotiate a compromise. None of this would've happened had it been put through as primary legislation. This was a total misjudgement on the part of the Gov't to think they could force something through quickly without usual process and it has backfired (regardless of where you may stand on the merits, and I stand on the side of thinking that tax credits do need to be completely reformed).

[AtW]

Point of order. Do you actually understand the different types of legislation and how they operate?

BolshieBastard knows more about laws (espcially tax) than The Lords, High Court Judges and various legal professionals including QCs - how dare you to question him?

[jamesbrown]

BolshieBastard knows more about laws (espcially tax) than The Lords, High Court Judges and various legal professionals including QCs - how dare you to question him?

Had to chuckle at the OP. It's precisely because this wasn't in the Finance Bill that it went tits up. The HoC were at third reading of the FB while this was going on FFS. The HoL don't go anywhere near FBs. This is nothing more than George being caught with his pants down, trying to be far too clever. You don't push through major legislation as a statutory instrument. The Gov't are doing their best to cloud this as a constitutional matter, but it's nothing of the sort. It's about George being too cute and getting found out.

[AtW]

Gideon got spanked by the Lords, very nice.

All material changes in budgets should have 3-5 years transitional periods - same as he did for BTL crowd, but totally failed to do with new taxes and removal of tax credits.

If only their Lordships did the same for the divvie tax