UK: Lords defeat tax credit cuts passed by Commons

[FiveParadox]

Across the pond in the United Kingdom, the House of Lords has done something that they have not done in over a century, and some are saying that it has caused a "constitutional crisis." The Lords, the mixed appointment-hereditary upper house, has rejected a financial regulation that had been proposed by the government, and passed by the elected House of Commons.

The government, led by the Right Honourable David Cameron and his Conservatives, had proposed to cut tax credits for low-paid workers across the United Kingdom. The measure passed the elected Commons by 325 to 290, despite several Conservatives breaking ranks and voting against the government. The Commons has, since then, also moved to ask the government to provide transitional financial support to workers who are going to have their tax credits withdrawn.

However, on October 26, 2015, the House of Lords passed a motion deferring approval of the cut to tax credits, pending the government's responses to a financial institution's analysis of the impact of the cuts. The Lords also called on the government to provide transitional funding for at least three years to workers whose credits would be withdrawn.

The government is now threatening to ram through troubling reforms to the Lords, including the possibility of removing any role whatsoever of the Lords in reviewing secondary legislation (i.e., any regulations that cabinet introduces that are subordinate to primary legislation). These reforms have been explored further in a report that Mr. Cameron has commissioned from the Right Honourable The Lord Strathclyde C.H., P.C., who has also mused that several more than one hundred peers should be thrown out of the upper house for defying the government.

The House of Lords currently consists of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, 24 additional bishops of the Church of England, the Lord Great Chamberlain, the Earl Marshal, 90 hereditary peers elected to represent the hereditary peerage (i.e., the traditional aristocracy), and a variable number of "life peers" appointed by the Queen on the advice of the prime minister.

What is interesting here is that the powers of our own Canadian Senate are based on the powers of the Lords as they existed at 1867. Since then, the power of the British upper house has been severely restricted; the Lords cannot delay financial bills for more than 30 days; they cannot delay any other public bill for more than one year; by convention, they cannot oppose bills that formed part of the government's election platform.

None of these changes apply retroactively to our own Senate, which enjoys many of the powers that the House of Lords held nearly 150 years ago. Today, the Senate can defeat any bill passed by the Commons, without precipitating the defeat of the government (as ministers are responsible only to the elected Commons). The Senate can only be overruled on amendments to the constitution requiring provincial consent, if at least 180 days have passed since the Senate defeat.

Sources: The Telegraph (here), Lords Hansard (here)

 

[taxslave]

Archaic system that needs to be abolished.

 

[gerryh]

Good for the House of Lords. Would be nice to see Her Majesty sit her Prime Minister down and get hime to screw his head on straight.

 

[FiveParadox]

It's a particularly interesting situation because while yes, the Lords are not an elected chamber, (a) the Conservatives said during the election campaign that they would not cut tax credits for low-paid workers, and then reversed their position after forming government; and (b) opinion polls show that the people agree with the rejection of the cuts. That does not change the fact, however, that the people elected the Commons, and the Lords have overruled them...

This is not unlike a year or two ago, here in Canada, when the government's own Conservative senators rejected the Conservatives' proposal to attack the financial autonomy of trade unions. The Senate heard major concerns at its legislative committee, heard major concerns from stakeholders and Canadians in general, and then forced the Conservatives (who held a majority in the Commons) to redraw the legislation so that it would be more palatable to stakeholders, and the public interest.

These situations are, perhaps, a sign that there is a legitimate constitutional role for an appointed revising chamber to play, provided that they are generally deferential to the elected chamber, and only stand their ground on defeating government bills when they are clearly adverse to the constitution, the public interest, or the government's own elected mandate. Food for thought.

 

[Blackleaf]

The Lords are nothing but a bunch of mainly Left-wing meddlers who do all they can to try and scupper sensible Tory policies that would be good for this country. They're also a bunch of crooks and cronies, many of whom have only been elevated to the Lords as a reward for giving Labour or the Tories or the LibDems millions of pounds in donations.

It's not just the Lords which needs to be cut down to size. The Commons does, too. It's amazing how many politicians Britain has. With around a mere 65 million people, the House of Lords is the second-largest legislature in the world after China's. There are, officially, an incredible 822 - yes, 822 - peers in the House of Lords, and that's excluding the 39 peers on leave of absence or otherwise disqualified from sitting. In comparison, the USA's equivalent of the House of Lords, the Senate, has a mere 100 members, even though the US has a population of 322 million. Canada's upper house has 105 members, with the country's population being around half that of Britain's. In France, a country with a population just slightly smaller than Britain's, its upper house has a fixed 348 members. Yet Britain's upper house has 822 members!

It's similar with the Commons. There are 650 MPs in the Commons. In contrast, the US House of Representatives, its equivalent of the Commons, has a mere 434 voting members representing 322 million people. France, with its population similar to Britain's, manages to get by with a lower house consisting of just 577 members.

 

[gerryh]

The Lords are nothing but a bunch of mainly Left-wing meddlers who do all they can to try and scupper sensible Tory policies that would be good for this country. They're also a bunch of crooks and cronies, many of whom have only been elevated to the Lords as a reward for giving Labour or the Tories or the LibDems millions of pounds in donations.

It's not just the Lords which needs to be cut down to size. The Commons does, too. It's amazing how many politicians Britain has. With around a mere 65 million people, the House of Lords is the second-largest legislature in the world after China's. There are, officially, an incredible 822 - yes, 822 - peers in the House of Lords, and that's excluding the 39 peers on leave of absence or otherwise disqualified from sitting. In comparison, the USA's equivalent of the House of Lords, the Senate, has a mere 100 members, even though the US has a population of 322 million. Canada's upper house has 105 members, with the country's population being around half that of Britain's. In France, a country with a population just slightly smaller than Britain's, its upper house has a fixed 348 members. Yet Britain's upper house has 822 members!

It's similar with the Commons. There are 650 MPs in the Commons. In contrast, the US House of Representatives, its equivalent of the Commons, has a mere 434 voting members representing 322 million people. France, with its population similar to Britain's, manages to get by with a lower house consisting of just 577 members.

Yes, well, the brits aren't really known for their over all intelligence. See your, so called, astronaut as an example.

 

[FiveParadox]

The Lords are nothing but a bunch of mainly Left-wing meddlers who do all they can to try and scupper sensible Tory policies that would be good for this country. They're also a bunch of crooks and cronies, many of whom have only been elevated to the Lords as a reward for giving Labour or the Tories or the LibDems millions of pounds in donations.

The United Kingdom should look to upcoming reforms being made to our Senate here in Canada as being instructive on how to introduce a more non-partisan, merit-based appointment process for peers. The Right Honourable Justin Trudeau P.C., M.P., the Canadian prime minister, is introducing a panel of eminent Canadians, who are going to be responsible for preparing a list of Senate nominees for the attention of the prime minister.

Our prime minister over here has also cut formal ties between the Liberal caucus in the Senate, and the Liberal government caucus in the Commons; this, too, could help the Lords start to exercise a less partisan, more independent role in scrutinizing legislation, if peers were not beholden to the political instructions of party leaders as they too frequently are now.

It's similar with the Commons. There are 650 MPs in the Commons. In contrast, the US House of Representatives, its equivalent of the Commons, has a mere 434 voting members representing 322 million people. France, with its population similar to Britain's, manages to get by with a lower house consisting of just 577 members.

That being said, there is a benefit to having a larger legislature in systems, such as ours, that use single-member plurality as the electoral system. The smaller each electoral district, the more likely it is that individual members of the Commons can more accurately represent the views of their riding, and develop a relationship with constituents. This key function of the Commons can become blurred and lost if the electoral districts become too large.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

The United Kingdom should look to upcoming reforms being made to our Senate here in Canada as being instructive on how to introduce a more non-partisan, merit-based appointment process for peers. The Right Honourable Justin Trudeau P.C., M.P., the Canadian prime minister, is introducing a panel of eminent Canadians, who are going to be responsible for preparing a list of Senate nominees for the attention of the prime minister.

I am sure they will be mostly Lieberals.

Our prime minister over here has also cut formal ties between the Liberal caucus in the Senate, and the Liberal government caucus in the Commons; this, too, could help the Lords start to exercise a less partisan, more independent role in scrutinizing legislation, if peers were not beholden to the political instructions of party leaders as they too frequently are now.

If you believe that, I have some land in Florida for sale. I can even get you some financing from my Nigerian prince cousin.

 

[FiveParadox]

I am sure they will be mostly Lieberals.

On December 5, 2015, the Honourable Maryam Monsef P.C., M.P. (Peterborough—Kawartha), the Minister of Democratic Institutions, announced that the appointments panel is going to be responsible for naming independent candidates for the prime minister to consider, with no official affiliation with any party. A less partisan Senate, as per his election promise.

If you believe that, I have some land in Florida for sale. I can even get you some financing from my Nigerian prince cousin.

Well, it's true; the prime minister has not even appointed a leader of the government in the Senate, for the first time in the existence of the upper house. Instead, the Honourable Dominic LeBlanc P.C., M.P. (Beauséjour), the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, has been appointed as a special liaison to the Senate on legislative agenda of the government.

 

[taxslave]

On December 5, 2015, the Honourable Maryam Monsef P.C., M.P. (Peterborough—Kawartha), the Minister of Democratic Institutions, announced that the appointments panel is going to be responsible for naming independent candidates for the prime minister to consider, with no official affiliation with any party. A less partisan Senate, as per his election promise.


Well, it's true; the prime minister has not even appointed a leader of the government in the Senate, for the first time in the existence of the upper house. Instead, the Honourable Dominic LeBlanc P.C., M.P. (Beauséjour), the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, has been appointed as a special liaison to the Senate on legislative agenda of the government.

That remains to be seen. Non partisan like the supremes aren't?

 

[FiveParadox]

That remains to be seen. Non partisan like the supremes aren't?

The Supreme Court of Canada is an envy of the world. Our honourable justices on the Supreme Court have demonstrated a stalwart commitment to judicial independence and non-partisanship. Consider, for example, the fact that most of the current Supreme Court was appointed by The Right Honourable Stephen Harper P.C., and yet that same Supreme Court ruled against Mr. Harper's government in many very high-profile cases.

 

[darkbeaver]

The Lords smell revolt.