Finance or Welfare

[Hope]

The Government are arguing that the HoL should not stop/block/delay the Government's proposed cuts to tax credits on the grounds that this is a Finance Bill.  Do people agree with them, or is it a Welfare Bill which the HoL has every right to block/stop/delay?

[Outrider]

I think the idea that if it were purely a finance bill the Upper House shouldn't have a say is preposterous in the first place - what's the point of having a second chamber if it can be bypassed?

As it is, as with so many bills, the impacts are so wide reaching that it's difficult to justify saying anything is 'purely' a financial bill.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

The correct term would be Money Bill as defined below in the Parliament Act. It should be noted that the actual Finance Bill/Act, which is the Budget, is not normally declared to be a Money Bill. I don't think the term Welfare Bill has any defined meaning.


"A Money Bill means a Public Bill which in the opinion of the Speaker of the House of Commons contains only provisions dealing with all or any of the following subjects, namely, the imposition, repeal, remission, alteration, or regulation of taxation; the imposition for the payment of debt or other financial purposes of charges on the Consolidated Fund, the National Loans Fund or on money provided by Parliament, or the variation or repeal of any such charges; supply; the appropriation, receipt, custody, issue or audit of accounts of public money; the raising or guarantee of any loan or the repayment thereof; or subordinate matters incidental to those subjects or any of them. In this subsection the expressions "taxation," "public money," and "loan" respectively do not include any taxation, money, or loan raised by local authorities or bodies for local purposes.[3]"

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The Government are arguing that the HoL should not stop/block/delay the Government's proposed cuts to tax credits on the grounds that this is a Finance Bill.  Do people agree with them, or is it a Welfare Bill which the HoL has every right to block/stop/delay?

I'm hearing Gordon Brown's attempts at tax and NI changes were blocked by Tory peers so that would render any complaint about what the Lords might be set to do hypocrisy.

[Aruntraveller]

I don't think the term Welfare Bill has any defined meaning.

Perhaps the Tories should stop using the term "Welfare Bill" then. Nicky Morgan referred to it as such on the Marr show on Sunday morning.

You can't really blame other politicians for thinking of it as a Welfare Bill if government ministers are themselves referring to it as such.

Anyway it's clearly a welfare issue and I'm with Outrider on this - if we've got a second chamber it may as well do something useful rather than remaining in it's usual somnolent state.

[Nearly Sane]

If the Speaker designates it a Money Bill then by the Parliament Act, it doesn't need Lords assent even if they wanted to withhold it. This has been the case since 1911. I am not sure though that even referring to it as a bill is correct as it seems to be a statutory instrument, in which case I don't know if there is any precedent for it being declared a Money Bill . (It's a long time since I did Constitutional Law). 


As to the term welfare bill, it is obviously a bill about welfare but that has no special definition in law and based on the definition of a Money Bill posted earlier, it could be argued that if there was such a bill then it might meet the criteria while still about welfare.

[Jack Knave]

I think they should do it as it is for the people not for some expedient reason to better themselves.

[wigginhall]

If people didn't want cuts to tax credits, they should have voted for a party that promised not to cut them.  For example, the Tories.   Oh, hang on. 

[Hope]

Anyway it's clearly a welfare issue and I'm with Outrider on this - if we've got a second chamber it may as well do something useful rather than remaining in it's usual somnolent state.

Trent, as far as I can see, the HoL does more than the HoC.  We may not agree with its make-up, but it does seem to do a great deal more real work than the Commons.

[Aruntraveller]

Anyway it's clearly a welfare issue and I'm with Outrider on this - if we've got a second chamber it may as well do something useful rather than remaining in it's usual somnolent state.

Trent, as far as I can see, the HoL does more than the HoC.  We may not agree with its make-up, but it does seem to do a great deal more real work than the Commons.

Possibly they do - but that's only like saying Charles Manson is slightly more appealing than Harold Shipman.

[Nearly Sane]

Of the MPs I know well, none do less than 60 hrs weeks, often many more.

[Aruntraveller]

Does that 60 hours include their extra work for private health companies, hedge funds, finance houses, tobacco firms, etc?

Ok being harsh there - whilst I accept some MPs work hard - there is evidence enough available that some are spending time doing other work that does not count as part of an MP's workload.

[Nearly Sane]

 

Does that 60 hours include their extra work for private health companies, hedge funds, finance houses, tobacco firms, etc?

Ok being harsh there - whilst I accept some MPs work hard - there is evidence enough available that some are spending time doing other work that does not count as part of an MP's workload.

Undoubtedly some do and there should be greater control over that but none of the MOs I know have much chance for anything other than their job. I certainly wouldn't do it as ir's a shit job for not that great pay.

[Hope]

Possibly they do - but that's only like saying Charles Manson is slightly more appealing than Harold Shipman.

Are you suggesting that a second, revising chamber shouldn't exist?

[Aruntraveller]

Possibly they do - but that's only like saying Charles Manson is slightly more appealing than Harold Shipman.

Are you suggesting that a second, revising chamber shouldn't exist?

No - I don't know what on earth gave you that idea. Needs reforming is all. Which I accept is easier said than done.

[Nearly Sane]

Well done anyway in this case to HoL

[Jack Knave]

Of the MPs I know well, none do less than 60 hrs weeks, often many more.

That proves nothing, if what they do is of no real worth.

[Nearly Sane]

Of the MPs I know well, none do less than 60 hrs weeks, often many more.

That proves nothing, if what they do is of no real worth.

Of course using such a vague term here as 'real worth' makes sensible approaches to this quite difficult. Could you expand?

[Nearly Sane]

A little disappointing that the Labour peers abstained of the 'fatal' motion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think we were all meant to be impressed by certain people's chutzpah of sneaking something in with some menaces.

As Brits we are supposed to love those who are a little bit wheee
a little bit whaaaaaaay.

Finding out there are limitations to what one can do because of an overstretch of cleverness is always hard.

Everything said and done now is to protect egos and blind revenge.

If anything I think their arses have been saved and at the end of the day if individual personal ambitions are thwarted but the party survives....that's what counts.

[Hope]

No - I don't know what on earth gave you that idea. Needs reforming is all. Which I accept is easier said than done.

My question would be - would an elected second chamber - which would probably be party political in make up - have given the Government a bloody nose on this matter in the same way as the existing HoL did last night?

[Hope]

A little disappointing that the Labour peers abstained of the 'fatal' motion.

I think it was Earl Howe who pointed out that all 3 'party' amendments were effectively 'fatal' motions, as they would all cause the April 2016 introduction date to be delayed.

Now what we need is a massive letter and email campaign to get Osbourne and Cameron to understand that if they are going to introduce these cuts they have got to occur concurrently with the new measures that are designed to mitigate their impacts - not 3 or 4 years ahead of them.

[Aruntraveller]

No - I don't know what on earth gave you that idea. Needs reforming is all. Which I accept is easier said than done.

My question would be - would an elected second chamber - which would probably be party political in make up - have given the Government a bloody nose on this matter in the same way as the existing HoL did last night?

Well again as I have not suggested an elected second chamber I don't know why you are asking me that question. Reform could take other paths.

For example you could stop MP's becoming peers - and have a more representative range of people sitting in the Lords. I know that it does already have cross bench members but the make up is still too 'Party political' for my liking - and if threatening noises being made are acted upon it is likely to become more so.

[Hope]

For example you could stop MP's becoming peers - and have a more representative range of people sitting in the Lords. I know that it does already have cross bench members but the make up is still too 'Party political' for my liking - and if threatening noises being made are acted upon it is likely to become more so.

Trent, are you suggesting, as I have done on many occasions, that people are still appointed to the second chamber (be that called the HoL or something else) even though that retains the current problem of its status/powers?

Re. the threat to appoint additional party political members, is there anything that the public can do to stop this?  A genuine question that is directed at all here, not just yourself.

[Aruntraveller]

Sorry Hope I'm not sure I understand  your first question. I certainly don't have any real issue with appointment rather than elected members - but it would rather depend on the criteria for appointment. A level of transparency and rigorous application of acceptable standards would be required, that is currently missing in my view.

As to your second question - I'm sure certain organisations (38 degrees for example) will do their best to ensure that the issue is raised and opposed.