Hollis is now turning to the government’s impact analysis. (See 3.29pm.) It is not an analysis, and it does not look at impact, she says.

:/

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/l...Assessment.pdf

Oh... we should just scrap the whole law making debacle then if the govt can do as they please then?

i'm just saying that the government can, the lords can bounce it back a couple of times, but if the government want it implemented, it will happen. The lords can't block anything, they can merely delay

And a fatal motion would mean what in this scenario?...

All the lords can do is delay, nothing more

Parliament Act 1911

The result was the Parliament Act 1911, which removed from the House of Lords the power to veto a Bill, except one to extend the lifetime of a Parliament. Instead, the Lords could delay a Bill by up to two years. The Act also reduced the maximum lifespan of a Parliament from seven years to five years.

Parliament Act 1949

The Parliament Act 1949 further reduced the Lords' delaying powers to one year.

But the Lords
some members want to stop the Cogs turning
on it.


Its the numbers against it that can Stop it.
not been done for a 100years or something


They are live Online
and the Parliament Ch. on TV
now,
if you can stand their Slowness



Its the Bishops who are the Trouble makers.

Live from the lords...
http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index...f-7bb6dff6d398

Again, i will state that all the lords can do is delay things. The government may change its mind, but if they don't they can push it through eventually no matter what the lords think on it.

'APPENDIX 2: DEBATING NEGATIVE INSTRUMENTS

The Procedure Committee recently agreed a new procedure for debating negative statutory instruments (SIs). This Appendix reminds Members of the three options now available for debating negative SIs.

Prayer motion (fatal)

A Member can table a "prayer" against a negative SI. Under the standard negative procedure, the SI is annulled if the prayer motion is agreed by the House within 40 days of the SI being laid. The 40-day clock stops running for recesses of more than four days.
Prayer
Title of SI Baroness X to move that a Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the [Regulations/Order], laid before the House on [date], be annulled (SI 2009/xxxx).

The Government Chief Whip endeavours to find time for any Member who tables a prayer in the "Motions relating to delegated legislation" section of the House of Lords Business document and contacts his office with fair notice before the expiry of the 40-day period.'

http://www.publications.parliament.u...it/80/8005.htm

the government just creates more tory peers, if the lords think they can mess with them

They may attempt to yet that tactic might be expected and exposed.

I think the proposed tax credits changes suck, but if the government have the will to push it, they will do it.

Well, we shall see.

Of Course
slow the cogs up.

Exactly, we are in agreement here.

Motion to totally reject tax credit cuts defeated by majority of 211

The first amendment, to reject the tax credit cuts for good (the “fatal” one), has been defeated by 310 votes to 99 - a majority of 211.

Well, that was a waste of time wonder what will if anything happen on Thursday.

:facepalm:

Kizzy, that was only the libdem version of the amendment. Labour's one and the crossbench ones haven't been voted on yet.

its all about gentlemen's agreements, so I'm not surprised. I still believe the government would be wise to at least tone down their proposals. If they don't it will haunt them later

Delayed in the House of Lords by 307 votes to 277

Yes 30 days delay

Osborne will be foolish to brush aside these defeats for this disgraceful measure.

Government defeated in Lords on tax credits - Summary and analysis

'George Osborne, the chancellor, has signalled that the government is going to partially back down over tax credits after peers inflicted a double defeat on the government, voting for amendments to delay implementation of the tax credit cuts until ministers have produced a scheme for “full transitional protection” for those who will lose out. (See 7.56pm and 8.54pm.) Osborne said that he “would listen” and that he would respond to the peers’ demands with some sort of transitional arrangements.

He would give details in the autumn statement, he said. At this stage it is not clear quite what he means, or how extensive those transitional arrangements might be, but the new measures will still have to get through parliament and anything less than a substantial package would be likely to fail. The debate showed quite how much opposition there now is in the Conservative party to the current plans. Lord Lawson, the Conservative former chancellor and a figure usually supportive of Osborne, joined those in the Lords saying the tax credit cuts policy needs to be amended. Lawson said the lowest earners needed greater protection.

(See 7.26am.) During the debate Lady Meacher, a crossbencher, claimed that some Tory MPs were now “livid” about the proposals and that the government had lost its majority for them in the Commons. Until now ministers have indicated that they will not abandon the cuts, but that they will introduce alternative measures to mitigate the impact on those who might lose out. Whether that would amount to a U-turn or not is a matter for debate, although experts have said that the only effective way to compensate the losers is to amend the way the cuts will be implemented.'

I was confident of this outcome because these cuts are singularly the biggest faux pas this government has taken thus far.

Here is the key quote from George Osborne.

Tonight unelected Labour and Liberal lords have defeated a financial matter passed by the elected House of Commons and David Cameron and I are clear that this raises constitutional issues that need to be dealt with.

However, it has happened and now we must address the consequences of that. I said I would listen and that is precisely what I intend to do. I believe we can achieve the same goal of reforming tax credits, saving the money we need to save to secure our economy, while at the same time helping in the transition. That is what I intend to do at the autumn statement. I’m determined to deliver that lower welfare, higher wage economy that we were elected to deliver and that the British people want to see.

They were not elected to deliver this, and the British don't want it.