Constitutional Niceties
Jan. 22nd, 2012 11:17 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ceemageThis query was inspired by the threatened rebellion on the Welfare Bill, but applies more generally.
The Salisbury Convention state that the House of Lords should not seek to oppose 'in principle' legislation which was foreshadowed in an election manifesto. (This is normally interpreted as allowing amendments, but not an outright rejection at 2nd or 3rd reading.) This is part of recognising the primacy of the elected chamber (i.e. the Commons) over the un-elected(*1) chamber (the Lords).
Has anyone given any thought to how this operates in the current situation of a coalition government? I would assume that, instead of the party manifestos, the coalition agreement would be the determining factor/key document? Has the Labour opposition and cross-bench peers in the House of Lords made any statements on this matter?
*1 Of course, the 92 remaining hereditary peers are technically elected these days, but the electorate is the 700+ other hereditary peers, so I don't feel this affects the argument too much.
The Salisbury Convention state that the House of Lords should not seek to oppose 'in principle' legislation which was foreshadowed in an election manifesto. (This is normally interpreted as allowing amendments, but not an outright rejection at 2nd or 3rd reading.) This is part of recognising the primacy of the elected chamber (i.e. the Commons) over the un-elected(*1) chamber (the Lords).
Has anyone given any thought to how this operates in the current situation of a coalition government? I would assume that, instead of the party manifestos, the coalition agreement would be the determining factor/key document? Has the Labour opposition and cross-bench peers in the House of Lords made any statements on this matter?
*1 Of course, the 92 remaining hereditary peers are technically elected these days, but the electorate is the 700+ other hereditary peers, so I don't feel this affects the argument too much.
