Will The Government Use The Parliament Act Here?

[ToraToraTora]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-34599183
Given that the last 2 uses, both by His Tonyness were both on irrelevancies, it would seem that this this would at least have the credibility of it being necessary to override a largely unelected and obstuctive "upper house".

[New Judge]

Apparently not (at least not with the measures in their current form).

This was my thought but as I discovered the other day, these changes are proposed to be implemented by means of a "Statutory Instrument" and not primary legislation. The PA can only be used for primary legislation.

[Jackdaw33]

The simple answer is to create enough Tory peers to command a majority. The mere threat of that in 1832 and 1911 was sufficient to make the Lords think again about their opposition.

[ToraToraTora]

ok JD, I'll take the robes!

[Jackdaw33]

In both the occasions I mentioned it was the threat to create enough Liberal peers to overcome Tory opposition in the Lords.

[youngmafbog]

Never mind that. Lord TTT - it has a certain ring !

[ToraToraTora]

yeah but JD you sowed the seed now, forget Lord YMB, I'm thinking Baron TTT

[mikey4444]

I think the Government would be foolish here to use the PA, if indeed they are able to. All they need to do is to tone down the timetable a bit, and the Lords will pass this. If Members if his own party have reservations about this legislation, then perhaps dave should listen.

[Hypognosis]

@ToraToraTora

I am ill-equipped to answer, not being versed in parliamentary mechanics but the article made much of the fact that, had they put these cuts in a finance bill, it would have been immune from Lords interference.

So why didn't they take that route? Too slow?
Is it fair to describe the "technical tweak" approach as a "shortcut"? (Notwithstanding this unexpected trip hazard).

Meanwhile, when will journalists add, to their election build-up repertoire, a question along the lines of "and what changes are you planning but not recealing in your manifesto?"

"They also argue that these cuts were not included in the Conservative manifesto and thus peers are not bound by the Salisbury-Addison convention under which they do not block the firm commitments of an incoming government."

Worth a separate thread perhaps: should Political parties be held to the Trades Description Act? Or, differently worded, should governments be legally restricted to *only* changing legislation as detailed in a manifesto?

"We will make the 12bn in cuts required to balance the books" was the election promise. They never said where, even when pressed to do so.

I would dearly love to see the stats on tax-credits beneficiaries who actually voted Tory, at this point.