Tuesday 20 October 2015


Ah, that's why...we were wondering.
Certainly, he didn't quite get that one right, did he? H
Actually, that didn't quite work out either, did it?
Still they have faithful friends of the highest moral character who share British values.
I'm not sure that the Saudis or Chinese go THIS far with the shared values, but they more or less are with us.
That didn't exactly work out, did it?

Probably should have listened to this guy
Back to Dave again...

I've been somewhat amused today by the threats of the Tories to do something about the House of Lords. Normally the only thing the Tories want to do with lords is create more. But this is different.

You see, it seems that, to their credit, the Liberals intend to join the SNP and the Labour Party in voting against Osborne's cuts to working tax credits. Now that won't make much of a difference in the House of Commons as they have very few MPs, but it WILL make a difference in the Lords where they have a ridiculously high number of seats for a minor party. 

Given that the Tories don't have a majority in the upper house this means that it is possible that Osborne's bill will be defeated in the Lords. The proposed legislation is not a part of the finance bill (which the Lords cannot alter), nor was it in the Conservative manifesto (which would have meant that Lords' objections could simply have been overturned in the Commons).

Indeed if I remember rightly  it was another of these things that Cameron had promised that they would NO do, until they did them.

So, this means that quite legitimately (if the lords has any legitimacy at all...and the Tories think it does) the upper house can delay the implementation of Gideon's wicked plans to starve strivers out of their house and home and drum up business for Trussell Trust (Every Town Should Have One).

Or at least that is the theory. But never underestimate a Bullingdon Boy backed into a corner.

Not wishing to be thwarted by their estwhile partners in crime, the Libdems, the Conservatives appear to be threatening to suspend the House of Lords if they vote the legislation down.

So far, so weird.

Some things struck me as particularly interesting about this. 

First of all, not that it's important, but the rash of new Tory Lords, will have hardly managed to claim a few thousand pounds in expenses and settle down to their new blood colour, before they will find themselves wageless...  and heaved out of their posh dining rooms.

So just as Mrs Moan, Grand Duchess of Mayfair was getting her feet under the table, there she will be out of a job and IDS will have her down the dole tout de suite!

Secondly, the unionist parties and their faithful journos have been accusing Scotland of being a one party state... and when challenged about the complete ridiculousness of that accusation (given the facts of the case) they have complained that, despite all these stats, the single chamber system, set up in Edinburgh, designed to ensure that Labour would always be in coalition with the Liberals...and the "corrupted" committee system (so they seem to think), means that there is no proper scrutiny of policy.

Unlike, they say, the London parliament which has a second chamber.

Or at least they do till the Tories take the huff and suspend them.

People say that you REALLY couldn't make this up... but in the case of the the British Constitution that's exactly what they do!


  1. Just a wee bit outside the box curiosity here Tris.

    They had an Opposition debate on the Tax Credit Cuts that the Tories won AYES 295 to NOES 317.

    Now I seem to recall that the Tories won the election in May with a majority of 12 which raises the question how did they win the debate with a majority of 22?

    I have had a look down the list of NOE voters and they are all Tories or EX Tories (Carswell.)

    If you ignore the tellers TWO Labour for AYES and TWO Tories for NOE I'm left rather befuddled how a majority of 12 can turn into one of 22. There is only ONE conclusion that I can come to ...ABSTENTION!

    I seriously hope I am wrong here and have missed something somewhere but I don't think so.


  2. The House divided: Ayes 295, Noes 317.

    There are 650 members; 295 + 2 (tellers) + 317 = 2 (tellers) comes to 616. There were 34 people absent.

    I'm guessing these were people up at the palace kissing hands with the Chinese president.

    But maybe some people did abstain.

    I don't know how this affects Northern Ireland. They seem to miss out on a lot of IDS's legislation.

    I'm sure that it will become clear.


  3. Replies
    1. We've talked about it before Jim. There is very little democracy in the UK from the unelected head of state, to the FPTP system, including HoL, PC and unwritten constitution, which, it appears, can be suspend the HoL if it wants to...

  4. Nothing would make me happier than the HoL being abolished and replaced with an elected second chamber but frankly this threat to suspend it if they vote down this bill is the action of a tinpot dictatorship. There are strict rules about what the HoL can vote down and they are allowed to do so on this occasion.

    As for stuffing it with Tories, that's there long term plan either way. And then it will be a REAL one state state.

    1. Yes, I agree PP, but with an unwritten constitution, there's nothing to stop them doing whatever they want to. As you say, the HoL is restricted in its powers, and the HoC has means by which it can overcome unelected dissent. On this occasion the bill is not one that the Commons can interfere with. The Lords therefore has the power to reject it.

      I've always though it was amazing that Cameron was increasing the number of lords and wants to reduce the number of elected members.

      You wonder when the Eton Oxford people will reach the 20th, never mind 21st century.

  5. If things keep going the way they are,Cameron may well threaten to replace the HoL with the Chinese politbureau.....perhaps he already has!

    1. He's probably consulting with his new lord and master as we "speak" bringiton.

      How important he must be feeling.

  6. The Rev was asking for questions this morning and I think your Blog also asks one which is why do ordinary people vote for the Tories, any colour. By ordinary I mean if you are not among the wealthy, and nowadays that means being worth more than one or two million. All the rest of us, well we should not be their voting fodder.
    Someone on Wings asked that we find out why people voted NO. I think as I said on one of your listed blogs on the list at the side that some people actually cannot learn from other people's mistakes and have to make their own, trouble is we all suffer whilst they continue to make mistakes.

    1. I guess there are other right wing issues, Helena, besides wealth, which encourage people to vote Tory.

      In my experience (I know almost no Tories at all, so it is very limited), they tend to be greedy and grasping (as you say), snobbish, or racist.