HiFi Subjectivist ¦ Audio Forum ¦ NVA User Group

The Parliament Act 1911 also provides for the provisions should the Lords block a non-finance public bill. S.2 (1) states that if the Commons pass a bill “in three successive sessions” and it’s rejected by the Lords, then after the Lords block it for a third time, the Speaker of the Commons is then able to send the bill to the monarch for Royal Assent, without the Lords' consent.
https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/constitutional-law/the-house-of-lords-decides-law-essays.php

So what's the effin'point?

Last night the government suffered a heavy defeat in the House of Lords over its controversial Brexit legislation.
Peers voted overwhelmingly to remove a section of the bill that would allow ministers to break international law - by 433 votes to 165.

Today, the government said, to paraphrase them, "no problem, we'll just put it back in at the next reading.

Peers also voted to remove another clause, allowing ministers to override parts of the Brexit withdrawal agreement relating to Northern Ireland, by 407 votes to 148. Other clauses in the controversial section of the bill were removed without a vote.

Same answer, a government spokesman said in a statement: "We will re-table these clauses when the bill returns to the Commons."

The people of this country have indicated that, in the main, they disagree with the UK breaking international law, as reflected by a large number of articles in news organs of all political stripes.

The House of Lords has now made it very clear that they are in complete agreement with the people.

The government's reply seems to be, "but we might not be able to make this mess we've created work without breaking the law, so please fuck off and kindly keep your opinions to yourselves. We're in charge."

The problem with that is, they really aren't in charge, not even of their own party when you count the Lords' votes up.

As of 29 November 2019, the composition of the actual Lords membership, in terms of party and group affiliation, is shown in the chart below: before the Conservatives started stuffing it with even more of their chums, and Brexit-buddies, earlier this year.


https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/lln-2019-0161/

slinger wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 3:31 pm

The Parliament Act 1911 also provides for the provisions should the Lords block a non-finance public bill. S.2 (1) states that if the Commons pass a bill “in three successive sessions” and it’s rejected by the Lords, then after the Lords block it for a third time, the Speaker of the Commons is then able to send the bill to the monarch for Royal Assent, without the Lords' consent.
https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/constitutional-law/the-house-of-lords-decides-law-essays.php

The people of this country have indicated that, in the main, they disagree with the UK breaking international law, as reflected by a large number of articles in news organs of all political stripes.

Wishful thinking. Newspaper articles don't count (and nor should they). The only thing that counts is the number of votes for and against in the House of Commons. The people gave the Tories an overall majority of 80 something seats.

You know all that, I know. I'm just in a boring mood

My point was, that newspapers (for instance) are virtually all politically motivated at best, politically controlled at worst. And the left-wing rags, along with the right-wing rags, and even the ultra-right-wing Spectator, don't have a good word to say about the proposition.

Even the right-wing Daily Express has spoken against the UK breaking international law, if only because they reckon it might end up causing a problem for the Royal Family.

Even if the Tories have an 80 seat majority, those MPs were put there to enact the will of their constituents. The fekkers work for us, in theory. They don't run the country, they are there to listen to public opinion and act upon it.

And now I've said that the "LOL" smiley is going to get REALLY overused.

Unfortunately, a "free vote" is as rare as solid gold rocking-horse shit these days, and the Tory majority is constantly whipped to support whatever the government wants to do, which seems to be to make lots of money for themselves and their close chums and not a lot else.

I know we will probably end up arguing about, and criticising whichever party is "in charge," but as someone who's been pretty politically active since my late teens, I've never encountered such a disgusting bunch as are in charge now.

Thatcher's government was bad, but I can almost appreciate now that although a lot of them (in my opinion) were complete and utter c*nts, at least they were up from about their c*ntery.

This mob lie, cheat, obfuscate, ignore the rule of law, and grant themselves powers allowing them to grant themselves powers.
I think I'd rather have the c*nts back than the amoral crooks we've got today.

[EDIT}
I'll stop bangin' me drum and get down off the orange crate now.

When Boris is finally removed from #10 he could earn a few quid promoting his forthcoming book " masters of incompetency"
Every time I think they can't get worse, they come up with another example of stupidity compounded by arrogance. The latest is below is in the link below

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... dApp_Other

slinger wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 4:23 pm They don't run the country, they are there to listen to public opinion and act upon it.

Not really. They are our representatives not delegates. Arguably, the better for it, as we would still have capital punishment and still be waiting for equality and discrimination laws if we let the general public decide. Brexit, anyone?

slinger wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 3:31 pm
So what's the effin'point?

Wasn't this fine to stop the practice of "stuffing the Lords" i.e creating a load of Lords who were on your side when the Lords kept rejecting your legislation?

Mind you, we could live in a country where it was acceptable to stuff the administration and the judiciary. As JB Priestley (I think) wrote, "Two cheers for democracy".

terrybooth wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 7:37 pm As JB Priestley (I think) wrote

Nope, it was EM Foster, so much for my English 'O'-level.

Company announcements you'll never hear.

"We will not tolerate nepotism."
-Trump Inc

So where are the 'Leaders' then to replace the current wankers. where have they all gone those figureheads and characters of yesterday.
Who would you put in your government 'fantasy football team' to lead us out of oblivion.

I'd say Noddy, Big Ears, Kermit and Miss Piggy would do a better job than Boris & his cronies.