Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Antifrank looks at what now for the House of Lords
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Antifrank looks at what now for the House of Lords
So the House of Lords has opted for confrontation with the government by asserting its right to intervene on financial matters that are not covered by the letter of the Parliament Act 1949. In turn, the government, like King Lear, has threatened that “I will do such things — what they are yet I know not — but they shall be the terrors of the earth”. We’ll see.
0
Comments
1. Lord Adonis
2. Lord Grabiner
3. Lord Warner
4. Lord Noon (R.I.P)
5. Lord Healey (R.I.P)
5. Michael Meacher (R.I.P)
6. ???
Labour quickly evaporating in the HoL, if it continues at this rate Mr Cameron won't need many more peers to make their un-elected voice irrelevant once again.
As an aside, former MPs of whichever persuasion should not be ennobled. The HoL can do without their dirty habits.
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/637020695478824960
It may be that the Conservatives genuinely didn't believe the Lords would vote down a matter of finance. Others have suggested this is a deliberate tactic by Osborne, though I'm unconvinced. There is also the option of hubris and complacency (distinct from the first point, which is about assuming the following of convention and sensible behaviour).
More generally, though there's much to deprecate in the institution and operation of the House of Lords, I don't think there is any general sense that the system - from the point of view of the electorate - is broken. Yet.
I'm surprised, he normally hands out such debates like confetti. Presumably it's because either the rosette was the wrong colour, or because the Lords voted them down.
Britain considers outcomes under Proportional Representation
LONDON, UK -- Political analysts have discovered the horrifying truth that if the election were to have been carried out with proportional representation, the United Kingdom would now be sitting under a Communist regime. The D'Hondt system would also have produced an interesting opposition cabinet.
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/UnNews:Britain_considers_outcomes_under_Proportional_Representation
It might be prudent for Cameron to enoble a few Tory apparatchiks to make the point.
I don't know what argument there is against IVR, other than pure partisanship.
Limiting the house to maximum number is good, but you have to allow for the cross benchers, and the difficult bit of how to define that they are, in theory, apolitical.
An imaginary make up could be:
300 members:
15 for God and his competitors
60 for Cross Benchers
225 for parties split proportionally to the results of a mid term election with a 7.5% threshold.
Members entitled to sit in each category vote to allocate members in the same way the Hereditary element do now when one of their number drop off the perch.
Mr. H, that seems a pretty sensible reform idea (certainly better than Clegg's deranged offering).
Hissyfits, one might suggest, and ignoring the conventions of Westminster are not the way to go.
The Lib Dems have a huge amount of space to work in, if they wish to claim to be the sensible left. Instead, they're pulling stunts. It baffles me.
Whatever your views on the HOL, I'd have thought that stopping the Government ignoring professional advice for party advantage was what it's there for.
Bluster seems more likely
Worth noting that the Lab-LD blocking alliance in the Lords is not all powerful. Even yesterday the majority for the votes were only 30, and 17, respectively and relied on the crossbenchers breaking for the opposition.
In fact, I'd even go so far as to say Lab-LDs need the crossbenchers to continue their obstructiveness.
Thus enobling (say) a further 50 Tory peers, 2 LD, 2 SNP (if they'll take it) 3 UKIP and 13 Labour next year might be the easiest course, and do the trick.
Public opinion would flare for a day or two, and then disappear.
...I thought you were referring to Instant Run-off Voting, otherwise known as that "fabulous" voting system called AV!
Reform of the House of Lords, which most Lib Dems are enthusiastically in favour of. The Tories are hopelessly split on this one, as we saw in the last Parliament.
The uselessness of the Labour Party in standing up for the interests of ordinary people. The fact that the Labour Party is hopelessly split is patently obvious for all to see.
So two very clear goals for the Lib Dems under their new leader, Tim Farron. Chaos and confusion in the ranks of Osborne´s Conservatives.
What were you saying about muppets, Mr Dancer?
If the Lords is changed to reflect the percentage votes - how many UKIP Lords will need to be added?
Average size for an Upper House among the 79 nations with bicameral legislatures = 44% the size of the Lower House
Average number of seats for an Upper House among the 79 nations with bicameral legislatures = 92.5
Average number of seats for a Lower House among the 79 nations with bicameral legislatures = 234.4
The Lib Dems are currently not enjoying universal popularity, but they have many peers. If power is stripped from the peers, what do they have?
The electoral commission is not some Olympian, disinterested body. Its 'advice' should carry as much weight as that of any other pressure group i.e. ACPO, the local government association or the equalities and human rights commission
Lib Dems delenda est (part II)
Your suggestion is one to stop all sentient life forms from wishing to continue.
Personally I’d be in favour of the LD scheme (well, I would be wouldn’t I) but TBH it does seem as good as anything else and probably better than most.
402 “members” each elected for one term of 15 years, with one-third (134) coming up every five years, Not at the same time as HoC elections, though. We’d have to elect all 402 first time round, unless it was decided to elect 134 at first and keep 268 of the present lot (drawn by lot from those under 75?), electing another 134 five years later and thanking 134 non-elected for their services.
Constituencies based on the European Parliament ones. Elections by STV. None of this Party List rubbish.
If nothing had been done about Brown's tax credit madness then this year it would have stood at £38bn and next year £40bn. In 2010 nine families in ten with children received it.Because of cuts under the LD coalition it has been stabilised at £30bn. It affects now 6 families in 10.
The present measures will bring that down to affecting, wait for it, 5 families in 10 with children.
(see David Smith in The Times)
Other benefits will probably help the poorest.
Other choices?
Tax credits are complicated as it is, can cuts be easily phased in? Frank Fields proposals claim to be painless but it would create a very high marginal rate of effective taxation on earnings above £13000.
It strikes me that, as David Smith suggests, that we may see a bit of both of the above, but what we may also see is more taxes for the ordinary person. Fuel tax, thresholds remaining higher and IHT thresholds remaining higher.
Free lunches do not accompany virtue signalling.
Overriding the Electoral Commission by means of a secondary instrument is pretty cavalier, and I don't think bring the launch forward by a year was in fact in the manifesto. The Government can't use the Parliament Act precisely because it's a secondary instrument - the Act only works on primary legislation. It's karma, really.
In any case, Michael Forsyth was saying on Radio 4 before that the Queen would probably follow the precedent set in the 1910s Lords crisis: the King refused the Liberals' request to ennoble huge numbers of new peers unless/until they won an election on a platform to reform the Lords.
Get rid of bishops, have 20 year terms and appointment by committee with 12.5% per cycle appointed on party lines and the remainder appointed for expertise as cross benchers. Keeps the politics mostly out of it and then no one can moan about under or over representation.
Mr. 565, the purpose of the Lords is to amend and revise legislation. It is expressly not to vote down matters of finance.
The electoral commission is not some Olympian, disinterested body. Its 'advice' should carry as much weight as that of any other pressure group i.e. ACPO, the local government association or the equalities and human rights commission"
---------------------
Well, it's an independent government-funded body reporting to Parliament, with no apparent vested interest in whether IVR is completed this year or next. It's not really a pressure group for anything, except fair elections. Doesn't mean they're always right, but not really a lobby group.
But no, nothing to do with the Government clearly.
Like the PM was appointed (in effect) by an elected House of Commons (as per Gordon Brown, Jim Callaghan, Alec Douglas-Home, Neville Chamberlain, who were as legitimate as any other PM).
While the Lords are certainly not democratically legitimate, neither are they democratically illegitimate. A very British system, really.
You could argue that public opinion has changed since they were appointed, but then again, it changes between elections. Otherwise we'd never have any change. It's just more pronounced in terms of the Lords.
And who appoints the committee? Will it be 'independent'? As 'independent' as the CPS or the Equalities Commission or any other quango of that sort? Of course it won't.
Once again, we had had these arguments many times before.
Is there specifically a ban on religous standing? I'm not religous myself but stopping people standing (Unless they are inciting violence) due to their beliefs is a slippery slope itself.
The timing does seem a mighty coincidence, doesn't it?
But as others have said, it puts Lords Reform right back up the agenda from nowhere, and duffs up the Government as soon as it oversteps its manifesto. Win-win for the Lib Dems, however much it infuriates those in blue.
(He didn't take part in yesterday's votes).
If Lords reform occurs, it'll be done a Conservative way, and diminish substantially Lib Dem power. Pyrrhic victories usually happen by accident...
Mr. Clipp, I'm glad you agree with me. I've always thought you to be a sound and prudent fellow.
Mr. Clipp, that's clearly nonsense of the first water. You tinker.
Mr. Pulpstar, I never said there was (or even should be) a ban. Just that overtly religious parties would be a massive backward step.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/about-individual-electoral-registration-ier/about-individual-electoral-registration
I'm a regular shopper there but I wouldn't touch it with a barge poll as an investor.
That's a thought, can we dissenoble all former MPs?
I was just trying to work out how removing the bishops from the HoL automatically leads to more religous parties is all, there are no imams currently in the HoL and nor should there be.