The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[StefanAVFC]

Can't even defeat the government when the DUP abstain.

[magnkarl]

Catastrophic government followed by an even more catastrophic opposition. For the Brexiteers, not the many.

[bickster]

6 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

For the Brexiteers, not the many.

That should actually be a slogan

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, StefanAVFC said:

Can't even defeat the government when the DUP abstain.

Think this gets the causation the wrong way round - the DUP probably abstained on that motion precisely because they knew it would be a warning shot over the bows, without actually leading to a defeat on a budget vote. 

[StefanAVFC]

4 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Think this gets the causation the wrong way round - the DUP probably abstained on that motion precisely because they knew it would be a warning shot over the bows, without actually leading to a defeat on a budget vote. 

AFAIR, 18 Labour MPs didn't turn up and vote. Also there were some rumours the DUP would vote against.

Just no excuse for it.

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, StefanAVFC said:

AFAIR, 18 Labour MPs didn't turn up and vote. Also there were some rumours the DUP would vote against.

Just no excuse for it.

But what I'm saying is, I doubt they would have abstained if Labour had enough MPs in the chamber to defeat the government. There are real and serious consequences to defeating a government on a budget vote. 

That's not to say that Labour shouldn't have more people in the chamber, but I don't actually believe it would have made any difference in this vote. I'm sure attendance will be higher now they've got the scent of blood in their nostrils. But defeats won't happen on a budget vote IMO. 

[StefanAVFC]

5 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

But what I'm saying is, I doubt they would have abstained if Labour had enough MPs in the chamber to defeat the government. There are real and serious consequences to defeating a government on a budget vote. 

That's not to say that Labour shouldn't have more people in the chamber, but I don't actually believe it would have made any difference in this vote. I'm sure attendance will be higher now they've got the scent of blood in their nostrils. But defeats won't happen on a budget vote IMO. 

It didn't matter that Farron and Cable didn't turn up to vote for the amendments in the Lib Dem's key policies, but the optics of it are bad.

[bickster]

25 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

But what I'm saying is, I doubt they would have abstained if Labour had enough MPs in the chamber to defeat the government. There are real and serious consequences to defeating a government on a budget vote. 

 

Not any more, no longer considered a confidence vote under the FTPA

[HanoiVillan]

30 minutes ago, bickster said:

Not any more, no longer considered a confidence vote under the FTPA

You're right, obviously the FTPA has some rules on what is considered a confidence vote. However, consequences don't have to be constitutional, they can also be in perception of legitimacy, chance of future survival etc. 

The idea that a government that can't pass its budget can't govern has been around for centuries. I doubt it would have no effect at all today. 

[bickster]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

You're right, obviously the FTPA has some rules on what is considered a confidence vote. However, consequences don't have to be constitutional, they can also be in perception of legitimacy, chance of future survival etc. 

The idea that a government that can't pass its budget can't govern has been around for centuries. I doubt it would have no effect at all today. 

I'm of the opinion that a new budget would be drawn up with some consultation and concessions to a party or parties that would enable a Finance Bill to get through Parliament first before any other more drastic measures were considered

[peterms]

On 13/11/2018 at 00:02, ml1dch said:

 

 

 

So, the promise of food shortages versus the guy with an allotment?

I'll go with Jezza.

[chrisp65]

5 minutes ago, peterms said:

So, the promise of food shortages versus the guy who appears to vaguely agree with her but lacks conviction and refuses to fully engage with the biggest issue in a quite some time?

It's choosing which of two shades of shit you'd like in your sandwich

and people don't like change and don't like being asked to vote again, again

[peterms]

14 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

It's choosing which of two shades of shit you'd like in your sandwich

and people don't like change and don't like being asked to vote again, again

The shit goes into composting to grow things, which improves the quantity and quality of what you get in your sandwich.  But you have to wait for things to mature, or else you just get a shit sandwich.

[HanoiVillan]

5 hours ago, bickster said:

I'm of the opinion that a new budget would be drawn up with some consultation and concessions to a party or parties that would enable a Finance Bill to get through Parliament first before any other more drastic measures were considered

That seems right, as long as the parties in the confidence and supply arrangement were open to making a good-faith effort to fix a budget disagreement. But what if one of the parties is using this loss to announce to the world that they are ending the confidence and supply arrangement?

[peterms]

6 hours ago, bickster said:

I'm of the opinion that a new budget would be drawn up with some consultation and concessions to a party or parties that would enable a Finance Bill to get through Parliament first before any other more drastic measures were considered

That's all a bit 19th century, rather Burkean.  From a time when we were on the Gold Standard.

The budget is no longer important.  It survives in much the same way Black Rod survives, and performs an equivalently useful function; ceremony.

We are told that the passage of the budget is uniquely important, but of course it's  not, since governments these days can finance anything they choose.  So the DUP abstaining on the Finance Bill is also symbolic, which is quite fitting for a party for whom symbols and myths and ceremony are really very important.

[snowychap]

24 minutes ago, peterms said:

We are told that the passage of the budget is uniquely important, but of course it's  not, since governments these days can finance anything they choose.

They'd have to introduce every single policy change or tax measure that they'd otherwise expect to automatically get through via a finance bill in individual legislation.

That would be a quite significant challenge, I'd have thought.

[peterms]

3 minutes ago, snowychap said:

They'd have to introduce every single policy change or tax measure that they'd otherwise expect to automatically get through via a finance bill in individual legislation.

That would be a quite significant challenge, I'd have thought.

There's a vast amount that can be done in secondary legislation.

[snowychap]

11 minutes ago, peterms said:

There's a vast amount that can be done in secondary legislation.

I'm quite well aware of the ills of secondary legislation. I've spent a goodly while on here declaring to people just how much of a problem it is.

You wouldn't be able to introduce the contents of a budget/finance bill via SIs unless via abusive use of Henry VIII clauses introduced re brexit.

Edited November 20, 2018 by snowychap

[peterms]

7 minutes ago, snowychap said:

I'm quite well aware of the ills of secondary legislation. I've spent a goodly while on here declaring to people just how much of a problem they are.

You wouldn't be able to introduce the contents of a budget/finance bill via SIs unless via abusive use of Henry VIII clauses introduced re brexit.

Depends what you want to do.  If you want to create a new "polluter pays" principle, that is going to need primary legislation.  If you just want to change tax rates, benefits, subsidies, which is what most budgets do, no problem.

[snowychap]

5 minutes ago, peterms said:

If you just want to change tax rates, benefits, subsidies, which is what most budgets do, no problem.

I don't think that's right.

Edit: Secondary legislation, surely, requires primary legislation to give it effect.

Edited November 20, 2018 by snowychap