The Great NHS debate

When making a post, please ensure it complies with this site's Main Rules at all times.
  • The HOL has no power at all to stop a manifesto pledge (party in power) non whatsoever.

    This is fact.

    An unelected chamber can never intervene/attempt to stop what the voters directly voted for. This is how the EU Commissioners operate. We dumped them.

    The government can, if it chooses, pass bills et aL to the HOL for revision etc. But that does not take away the power of the Cabinet in pushing through the bill regardless.

    There can not be a situation whereby say: the people vote for the TORYs because their manifesto pledged - PRIVATISATION OF THE NHS - for example.... the unelected HOL can never block that because this will mean the UNELECTED control the elected.

    There would be chaos.

    8| "If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change".

  • I'm not sure how the HoL lines up along party lines, but generally they do a reasonable job of scrutinising bills.

    Not helped imho by the clergy, personally I'd get rid of them and have an age ceiling.

    But your admitting you told porkies old bean, or just manipulation of the truth, sounds better 😂😂

    There are way too many Lords but I agree the HOL fulfils an important function

  • There are way too many Lords but I agree the HOL fulfils an important function

    It is also a fact that the hereditary Lords were more effective. They did a great job of holding the government to account.

    I do not need Fact Checker because I observed - via my employment - a large number of Criminal Justice Bills the Lords - mainly hereditary peers - held the government to account.

    8| "If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change".

  • The HoL has a massive Tory majority over Labour so it has tended to not fully block 'out of manifesto' Tory Acts as we saw when it eventually climbed down a few months back after getting numerous climb downs.

    But anyone suggesting the HoL would allow a Labour government to rip up its manifesto and bring in Marxism is just spreading bullshit in panic.

  • The very same windfall taxes the Tories use

    You and others can make up these imagined massive changes Labour in plans will do after an election but it's just junk. Those that know the UK Constitution know if a radical change isn't in the manifesto then it don't get through the House of Lords

    That’s hardly on obstacle! If the Lords send it back a third time, the Commons can just vote to implement the legislation anyway - under the Parliament Act.

  • That’s hardly on obstacle! If the Lords send it back a third time, the Commons can just vote to implement the legislation anyway - under the Parliament Act.

    Nope, it isn't as simple as that. The Parliament Act cannot be used on a bill in the same Parliamentary session - and some of those run for years.

    The HoL can put in such a long delay for these project fear radical changes you pretend will happen that with the inevitable delays with court challenges they would never be in effect before another election.

  • Nope, it isn't as simple as that. The Parliament Act cannot be used on a bill in the same Parliamentary session - and some of those run for years.

    The HoL can put in such a long delay for these project fear radical changes you pretend will happen that with the inevitable delays with court challenges they would never be in effect before another election.

    The Parliament Acts | Institute for Government
    What are the Parliament Acts and what do they do?
    www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk

    [EXTRACT]

    Generally, if a public bill (other than those that are exempt for the reasons set out above) is introduced and passed in the Commons in two successive parliamentary sessions, it can then be sent for Royal Assent under the Parliament Acts as long as certain conditions are met.

    These conditions, all of which must be met, are that:

    • The bill has been rejected by the House of Lords in two successive sessions – meaning either that the bill has not completed its passage in the Lords; or that the Lords decline to progress the bill; or that the Lords has insisted on amendments that the Commons refuses.
    • At least one year has elapsed between the time in the first session that the Commons gave the bill its second reading; and the time in the second successive session that the Commons gave the bill its third reading.
    • The Lords received the bill at least one month before the end of the two successive parliamentary sessions.
    • The bill does not change between the two sessions, other than:
      • changes that are needed because of the time elapsed during the process, or
      • changes to reflect amendments made by the Lords in the first session, even if they were not agreed by the Commons (but whether to include any such changes in the bill in the second session is entirely at the discretion of the government).

    Practically speaking, these requirements mean that a bill must be delayed by the Lords for at least 13 months (across two sessions) for the Parliament Acts to be used. But the circumstances in which the Lords have done enough for the Speaker to certify that they have “rejected” the bill in the second session are far from clear – unless they simply vote it down on second or third reading.

    A Parliamentary session is normally for one year, and that is the prerogative of the House of Commons.

  • The HOL can never stop any Bill. The Commons allows them to do their duty of REVISING.

    The Commons can do away with the Lords. This is proof alone.

    8| "If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change".

  • Any change to the Constitution cannot be made with a simple majority vote.

    It would be very difficult to introduce a constitution like the US has , as you say in would need to command overwhelming public support to have any legitimacy

    In the years after its introduction there would be a large number of court challenges which would ultimately decide what the words actually meant

    It probably find itself at odds with some current laws & that would have to be dealt with

    All that said I do believe there is a case for having one

  • Normally for one year but often not. Because when a session ends then the government loses all the progress on bills that have not yet had Royal assent.

    Boris ran one that was about 3 years

  • If someone asserts something as being a fact (as he did) and it's false then they can expect robust rebuttal.

    What I wrote was the truth.In true terms mass immigration has cost us £110b since 2007. I would therefore suggest the majority of immigra nts are indeed useless for our economy. You may not have noticed, but our infrastructure is creeking at the sides because of a population explosion. The tax revenue from this immigration isnt enough to expand the infrastructure, so please explain why you think importing people rather than training our own people is a good thing?

    The intelligent are being oppressed so the stupid don't get offended

  • What I wrote was the truth.In true terms mass immigration has cost us £110b since 2007. I would therefore suggest the majority of immigra nts are indeed useless for our economy. You may not have noticed, but our infrastructure is creeking at the sides because of a population explosion. The tax revenue from this immigration isnt enough to expand the infrastructure, so please explain why you think importing people rather than training our own people is a good thing?

    Where was that figure from ?

  • Where was that figure from ?

    The figure is believable but Bibbles is being less than honest here. The false statement I challenged was not about the outturn cost of immigration (where we largely agree) it was this pile of poo from planet Bibble

    '. . Meanwhile we will just continue to allow in millions of foreigners (most of which will be useless) . . .'

  • The figure is believable but Bibbles is being less than honest here. The false statement I challenged was not about the outturn cost of immigration (where we largely agree) it was this pile of poo from planet Bibble

    '. . Meanwhile we will just continue to allow in millions of foreigners (most of which will be useless) . . .'

    I ask because it would appear to be a difficult figure to calculate

  • It's a very difficult figure to estimate. The immediate and medium term effects of an average legal immigrant are positive to the economy but then that's to ignore some secondary effects and that in the long term they become a net drain (as do all old people). And then there are other secondary effects such as jobs they create, contributions to society and their children.

    As I said it's believable I didn't say I believed it.

  • It's a very difficult figure to estimate. The immediate and medium term effects of an average legal immigrant are positive to the economy but then that's to ignore some secondary effects and that in the long term they become a net drain (as do all old people). And then there are other secondary effects such as jobs they create, contributions to society and their children.

    As I said it's believable I didn't say I believed it.

    All the positives you mentioned can be supplied by our own people. They were before mass immigration, and they can be now, Of course, we mustn't forget the cultural damage and creation of ghettos as a result of Blairs open door policy

    The intelligent are being oppressed so the stupid don't get offended

  • The figure is believable but Bibbles is being less than honest here. The false statement I challenged was not about the outturn cost of immigration (where we largely agree) it was this pile of poo from planet Bibble

    '. . Meanwhile we will just continue to allow in millions of foreigners (most of which will be useless) . . .'

    Your lefty insults continue but I won't lower myself to your levels. The figure stated was from the Reform party, who I choose to believe. I suspect you take your figures from the Guardian

    The intelligent are being oppressed so the stupid don't get offended

  • Your lefty insults continue but I won't lower myself to your levels. The figure stated was from the Reform party, who I choose to believe. I suspect you take your figures from the Guardian

    So seems you wish to forget there were two pieces of BS in your challenged post

    continue to allow in millions of foreigners

    most of which will be useless)

    As for your claim that Reform supplied them I don't believe you.

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!