1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Oh dear, diddy-widdums!

Discussion in 'Personal' started by lexus300, Oct 27, 2015.

  1. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    George Osborne said he would rethink his cuts to tax credits after the House of Lords on Monday handed the chancellor a stinging defeat in a vote that has led Downing Street to urgently review the role of the unelected chamber.
  2. RedQuilt

    RedQuilt Star commenter

    Yes but he can't just take the 'stinging defeat' with any sense of responsibility he, and the gvmt, are playing the blame game by saying that the Lords decision might be unconstitutional.
  3. lanokia

    lanokia Star commenter

    More evidence, if it was really needed, that we need some sort of constitutional settlement for this country.

    So the government will now force changes on the House of Lords because of one defeat. Hell, if the executive branch of the US government did that everytime the Senate voted them down... it'd be chaos in the USA. Our government needs to grow up.
    cally1980 and RedQuilt like this.
  4. grumpydogwoman

    grumpydogwoman Star commenter

    Yes, it's not as if the upper chamber exists to curb the wilder excesses of the Commons, is it? (Amongst other things.)

    I'd regard it as a dereliction of duty if, thinking Osborne's plans thoroughly misguided, they hadn't attempted to put a stop to them.
  5. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    What they did was indeed common sense, something that is lacking in the tory government.
    grumpydogwoman likes this.
  6. xena-warrior

    xena-warrior Star commenter

    My faith in... everything is restored :)
    grumpydogwoman and RedQuilt like this.
  7. yfel_endwerce

    yfel_endwerce Established commenter

    It wasn't "unconstitutional" nor was it "breaking with tradition" simply because of the actual format of the proposed legislation.
    Something that was actually pointed out by Tory peers.
    grumpydogwoman, RedQuilt and lexus300 like this.
  8. xena-warrior

    xena-warrior Star commenter

    Wonder how popular the Lords would be though if they voted against something the bien-pensants were in favour of. Then there'd be demands for their abolition.
  9. magic surf bus

    magic surf bus Star commenter

    It'd be easy to think of the upper house as being full of dozing Lord Crumbling Stately-Piles of pre-Reformation inbred ancestry, but over 80% of them are life peers whose titles were approved by the PM of the day. Old codgers they may be, but there's a fair bit of expertise in there, including political and economic, and party-wise the Tory and Labour peers are evenly balanced.

    If they occasionally slam the brakes on ill-conceived legislation then all power to their arthritic elbow - it's what they were put there for. Also good to see the old establishment rounding on the yapping young whippersnappers in the Commons and giving them a clout with the metaphorical walking stick.
  10. grumpydogwoman

    grumpydogwoman Star commenter

    What does the House of Lords do?
    The House of Lords is the second chamber of the UK Parliament. It works with the House of Commons to:

    • make laws
    • check and challenge the actions of the government, and
    • provide a forum of independent expertise

    • How very dare they say boo to a goose!!!!
  11. Middlemarch

    Middlemarch Star commenter

    I am thinly-read on these matters - but can someone explain to me why the Lords exists if it isn't to occasionally chuck out **** legislation?

    If, as Cameron et al appear to be suggesting, it is supposed to merely nod through everything passed in the Commons - WHY are we paying for it to exist at all?
    Flere-Imsaho likes this.
  12. emilystrange

    emilystrange Star commenter

    apparently, by convention, they are not supposed to interfere with financial legislation. however, the form that this bill was in meant that they 'could' interfere with it.
    conventions however aren't law...
    someone somewhere wrote that cameron has been warned against flooding the lords with tory peers just to get what he wants, because that would put the queen in a difficult position.
  13. yfel_endwerce

    yfel_endwerce Established commenter

    Whilst I know that ths is an increasingly unpopular view in modern society, one of the proven advantages of an unelected upper chamber is that they are free from the constraints of elections/re-elections, selection/de-selection and at worst can merely get their hands smacked by the more political types in the lower house.
    This gives them much more freedom to act upon those things they believe to be of importance.
    Yes it can also be a drawback too
    grumpydogwoman likes this.
  14. colpee

    colpee Star commenter

  15. Memphismojo

    Memphismojo Established commenter

    Ha ha! Very true.
  16. Memphismojo

    Memphismojo Established commenter

    Yes. They are not so constrained by having to be popular and can think things out more clearly than most politicians.

Share This Page