Should the Government be able to over-rule the House of Lords?

[PeneloPeePitstop]

In essence this is about the Welfare Reform Bill. I don't wish to debate whether or not you agree or disagree with the content of the Welfare Reform Bill but what I am interested to know is:

The Lords have voted against many elements of the Welfare Reform Bill as it stands. The government plans to over-rule this opposition in parliament using financial privilege.

Is it right that the government is using an archaic law, kept for in case of emergency, in order to force through reforms that have been strongly opposed by the public and the House of Lords - including Conservative and Lib Dem peers?

If so is there really any point to the House of Lords any more? Does anyone view this as harmful to our democratic process as I do?

In fact these moves could be perceived to be dictatorial in nature, and against the ethos that the government works for the people of the country.

Surely being able to dismiss the House of Lords is the first step to doing whatever they choose, whenever they choose?

Of course. The government were elected. The house of lords aren't. They shouldn't have any say.

The majority of changes to the welfare state in the welfare reform bill are hugely popular with the general public. Sure, there are some things that they need to rethink but being pressured by a group of unelected peers and archaic god botherers who speak for nobody isn't going to help the economy.

The peers are there to examine bills thoroughly for obvious problems rather than block the policy of the elected government. The Parliament Act is there for a reason and the last person that used it was a certain T Blair over the rather non-crucial fox hunting ban back in 2004. Calls to make the Lords an elected chamber would, by definition, give more power to the Upper House and make it far more politically motivated than it already is.

The relationship between the Lords and the Commons is about far more than one disputed Bill (if you look at recent history, it's not hard to find many Bills, from Govts of both colours, which have been repeatedly returned)

I'm not sure what you mean by archaic procedures or financial provisions.

The Lords can only return a Bill to the Commons for revision three (?) times. This has been in use over the years - nothing financial or archaic about it (but stand ready to be corrected).

Are you trying to suggest that the Lords should be the "upper" house, or that we should abolish the bicameral system? For unless one of those paths were adopted, the role of the Lords (whether elected, appointed or inherited) cannot be much modified.

Thing is though.... this government wasn't elected. It doesn't have the mandate.

They are in power by default.

Regardless.... even if they did have the mandate this just appears to be very wrong.

This isn't a party politics issue - what Blair did was also wrong.

That post suggests you think the current parliamentary system for UK is cowed as it legitimately returns a Government such as this.

How would you alter it?

This is a hard question, because Parliament itself has many problems.

The electoral system is screwed. It should be proportional, and therefore more representation to begin with.

I understand the need to a coherent party stance, but the party whip system is out of control - MPs should be allowed to vote with their conscience.

The Lords should be a fully elected upper house of experts.

MPs should be more represenative of the electorate: right now they are, by a vast majority, white, male, oxbridge, middle-class, middle-aged, wealthy, white men.

PeneloPeePitstop - The government was elected. You might not like it, but that is the way it works in this country. They got the biggest share of the vote and were allowed to form a coalition. If they weren't elected they wouldn't be in power now. And the Tories actually got more individual votes in 2010 (10,703,654) than Labour did when it won outright in 2005 (9,552,436) because Labour squewed the constituencies in their favour, so I guess Labour weren't really "elected" in 2005?

Besides, the welfare reform act is there because of Labour's 13 years of profligate borrowing and debt build up. So ask Labour why there cuts are necessary (they have also admitted they would make similar cuts and not reverse those being made).

Besides, the welfare reform act is there because of Labour's 13 years of profligate borrowing and debt build up. So ask Labour why there cuts are necessary (they have also admitted they would make similar cuts and not reverse those being made).

Labour didn't 'profligate borrow', or build up huge amounts of debt.

This is a timeline of UK historical deficit:

www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/deficit-debt-government-borrowing-data#_

The national debt (as percentage of GDP) has risen since Labour were in power, but is at a historical low point:

www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/downchart_ukgs.php?chart=G0-total&year=1692_2011&units=p&state=UK

The welfare reform act is there because the Tories are ideologically committed to a small state, lower public spending, privitisation, and letting the poor starve.

The financial privilege law is an ancient rule. I believe it was necessary at the time because the Lords was a financially wealthy, privileged group of hereditary peers, who might block financial legislation which would impact them more than they liked. (iirc)

However the current situation is very different, in fact almost reversed, with the large majority of the cabinet being mad up of extremely wealthy millionaires, and the lords replaced with expert life peers.

ttosca - I agree!

I'm also pressing an imaginary 'Like' button on ttosca's post.

I confess I hadn't given much thought to the Lords and Bishops until the wrb debacle. I was impressed both that the Lords had actually done more homework on the facts than the Government (remember Freud going "Ummm, aaahhh, estimates, I have been told" against Lord Patel's solid numbers & case histories?) and their greater commitment to the wellbeing of British people.

I don't see the point in an elected or appointed second House, since it would inevitably have the same political composition as the Commons. That, presumably, is why the Coalition is currently trying to abolish them while, simultaneously, creating sixty (?) new Conservative Lords. If they can't get rid of 'em, they want to own them.

Neither do I agree the Welfare Reform Bill is primarily a fiscal matter. But that's at the heart of why I disagree with the Govt over this, isn't it? :(

If you had an elected "upper" house, then there would be an interesting change in the dynamics of Parliament.

I don't see how you could have someone that is both "fully elected" and "expert", unless you mean an electoral college system. And I suppose that could in turn lead to maintaining the Commons as the "ruling" house.

BTW: I've seen from the news and on here that I was over-dismissive of the use of a financial provision for keeping Bills moving. I need to learn more about this. Can anyone signpost any good briefing notes about it?