Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

HoL and money bills

Re: HoL and money bills

Postby atticus » Mon Nov 02, 2015 6:53 am

You asked for an example. You have just given one.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19913
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: HoL and money bills

Postby atticus » Mon Nov 02, 2015 7:41 am

I do sincerely hope that the ape doing what the ape does exceedingly well has not driven stoaty off. That would be a real shame, and a big loss to this board.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19913
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: HoL and money bills

Postby Hairyloon » Mon Nov 02, 2015 9:59 am

atticus wrote:You asked for an example. You have just given one.

Sorry, I don't follow.

atticus wrote:I do sincerely hope that the ape doing what the ape does exceedingly well has not driven stoaty off. That would be a real shame, and a big loss to this board.

Agreed.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10116
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: HoL and money bills

Postby atticus » Mon Nov 02, 2015 10:03 am

Page 6, post 1.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19913
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: HoL and money bills

Postby Hairyloon » Mon Nov 02, 2015 10:23 am

atticus wrote:Page 6, post 1.

Yes, I followed that, but I am not seeing what is pedantic: there is a fundamental difference between "rarely" and "never" or between "should" and "must".
It is not being picky: it is the very crux of the discussion.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10116
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: HoL and money bills

Postby atticus » Mon Nov 02, 2015 12:02 pm

Thread locked. But now unlocked at the request of another member.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19913
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: HoL and money bills

Postby Hairyloon » Mon Mar 07, 2016 10:04 pm

The Lords have declined to reject cuts to Employment Support Allowance, although reports suggest that they were quite keen to do so.
It is not clear to me whether this is a "money bill": the earlier discussions suggested that the question is more complex than "is there money involved in this bill", and it certainly is not about taxation, so I don't know if that is the convention which they are avoiding breaching, or if it is more the case that they are flying with clipped wings after the fuss that was made before...
http://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/news/ ... uite#.dpuf

This comment sums it up fairly well:
Neil Gray, MP for Airdrie and Shotts wrote:“So the Commons did not offer ‘any further Reason’, which I found shocking. The Government could not come up with anything else to say—no empirical evidence, no logical argument, nothing socially responsible or of any consequence. It relied on a pseudo-constitutional technicality to explain the decision to remove £30 a week from the pockets of sick and disabled people on ESA WRAG … What message does that send from this Government to ESA recipients? It says, ‘We don’t need to justify why we are cutting your ESA, we just are. We just can and we just will. We trust that this reason may be deemed sufficient’”.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publi ... known/110/
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10116
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Previous

Return to Constitutional Law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest