PDA

View Full Version : The Lords and finance Bills.



BolshieBastard
26th October 2015, 19:13
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
26th October 2015, 19:25
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
26th October 2015, 19:58
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
26th October 2015, 20:03
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
26th October 2015, 20:16
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
26th October 2015, 20:16
There is a British Constition, it just not a written one.

No, there isn't!

jamesbrown
26th October 2015, 20:19
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
26th October 2015, 20:20
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? :rolleyes:

jamesbrown
26th October 2015, 22:04
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? :rolleyes:

:laugh 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
26th October 2015, 22:08
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 :eyes

NickFitz
26th October 2015, 22:50
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.

LOL :D

darmstadt
27th October 2015, 07:14
Sneaky little barstewards are the Tories, but then we knew that all along:

Ministers accused of trying to sneak through new fracking rules | Environment | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/27/ministers-accused-of-trying-to-sneak-through-new-fracking-rules)

Human rights group challenges Government's change to ministerial code - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11954531/Human-rights-group-challenges-Governments-change-to-ministerial-code.html)

BolshieBastard
27th October 2015, 07:28
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.

LOL :D

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong! And again shows an abject misunderstanding of the British Constitution.

Yes, it wasnt a Finance Bill. But, the convention is well established. The unelected chamber does not usurp the elected Government of the day on Finance Bills or matters as this was.

Anyway, one good thing to come out of it is we may very well see the unelected lordships powers severely watered down or, hopefully, abolished altogether.

BolshieBastard
27th October 2015, 07:30
Sorry, if its not written down there there isn't one. Do you start a contract without a bit of paper?



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

Utter rubbish! Why not try studying The British Constitution and Politics as I have?

And good attempt trying to link the constitution to a contract but no cigar Im afraid.

As for the EU, Im voting to come out.

Zero Liability
27th October 2015, 07:35
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 :eyes

Can't have the great unwashed getting too well off, now can we?

minestrone
27th October 2015, 08:05
In work tax credits need to go and fast.

The very fact that employed people are screaming about it like heroin addicted babies rather than hit on their employers to make up the shortfall shows how distorted Brown made the Labour market in this country, deliberately of course.

Waldorf
27th October 2015, 08:18
Clearly this is not democratic, I long came to the view that we should abolish the House of Lords and not replace it with another chamber. The revising task can be done by committees made up of MP's and co-opted experts to help and guide good legislation.

darmstadt
27th October 2015, 08:18
As for the EU, Im voting to come out.

Which means that they would have to repeal part of the unwritten UK constitution as part of it comprises of the European Communities Act of 1972, which is written down :smile
[/URL][URL="http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/britains-unwritten-constitution#sthash.T9I5XZGS.dpuf"] (http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/britains-unwritten-constitution#sthash.T9I5XZGS.dpuf)

DodgyAgent
27th October 2015, 09:10
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.

And how many members of the Lords exactly were voted in?

DodgyAgent
27th October 2015, 09:12
Sneaky little barstewards are the Tories, but then we knew that all along:

Ministers accused of trying to sneak through new fracking rules | Environment | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/27/ministers-accused-of-trying-to-sneak-through-new-fracking-rules)

Human rights group challenges Government's change to ministerial code - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11954531/Human-rights-group-challenges-Governments-change-to-ministerial-code.html)

We need fracking.

MicrosoftBob
27th October 2015, 09:14
We need fracking.

Quite, leftie tree huggers can frack off

NotAllThere
27th October 2015, 09:16
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
27th October 2015, 09:21
Ah.

So you want unfettered one party statedom, so you?

No that's what the current Labour party want

MrMarkyMark
27th October 2015, 09:23
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 :smile.


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
27th October 2015, 09:47
. 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
27th October 2015, 10:09
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 :tongue

NotAllThere
27th October 2015, 10:24
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
27th October 2015, 10:27
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.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBBXKYWEIZM

OwlHoot
27th October 2015, 10:56
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 :nerd

DodgyAgent
27th October 2015, 11:03
If the Ruskies want Scotland they can have it.

No reason to object. :smokin

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

MicrosoftBob
27th October 2015, 11:06
If the Ruskies want Scotland they can have it.

No reason to object. :smokin

Surely if we're going to give Scotland to anyone it should be Venezuela, then Scotland can have the socialism it deserves

MrMarkyMark
27th October 2015, 11:08
Surely if we're going to give Scotland to anyone it should be Venezuela, then Scotland can have the socialism it deserves

Surely anyone that can afford to pay for them.
Especially now the price of oil has tanked :eyes

darmstadt
27th October 2015, 11:17
Surely if we're going to give Scotland to anyone it should be Venezuela, then Scotland can have the socialism it deserves


Surely anyone that can afford to pay for them.
Especially now the price of oil has tanked :eyes

And Venezuela has a shitload of oil (and more than their fair share of extremely attractive women it has to be said)

MrMarkyMark
27th October 2015, 11:18
and more than their fair share of extremely attractive women it has to be said)

Guess we might have to think of somewhere else then.
I wouldn't want to pollute that blood line :smokin.

DodgyAgent
27th October 2015, 11:33
And Venezuela has a tulipload of oil (and more than their fair share of extremely attractive women it has to be said)

You might not be able to look at them for much longer
Report: US military worried Russia might target underwater cables - Europe - Stripes (http://www.stripes.com/news/europe/report-us-military-worried-russia-might-target-underwater-cables-1.375218)

:happy

darmstadt
27th October 2015, 12:12
You might not be able to look at them for much longer
Report: US military worried Russia might target underwater cables - Europe - Stripes (http://www.stripes.com/news/europe/report-us-military-worried-russia-might-target-underwater-cables-1.375218)

:happy

Damn, have to get that satellite link up and running, again!

AtW
27th October 2015, 12:55
So, Gideon got slapped in the face and now will have to "lessen the impact", this means that he will also need to raise more money from somewhere to cover the shortfall.

Expect to see this "archaic" situation of dividends tax band being different from income tax band to be reviewed with great prejudice.