Revisiting the 1911 Parliament Act

Is there any POD that sees the House of Lords retain its powers?

The Conservatives deciding to respect democracy in 1906 and not declaring that they would "continue to guide Britain's destiny from the House of Lords"?
 

kernals12

Banned
Is there any POD that sees the House of Lords retain its powers?

The Conservatives deciding to respect democracy in 1906 and not declaring that they would "continue to guide Britain's destiny from the House of Lords"?
Well based on your suggestion, it seems the house of lords either loses their powers De Facto or in an official sense. Seems like a distinction without a difference.
 
I'm pretty sure the House of Lords never blocked a budget approved by the Commons after the 1832 Reform Act, though I am open to correction. What they did was block non-budget related legislation, such as Irish Home rule.

If they had not touched the budget but stuck to blocking the government's plans for Ireland they would have at least kept to established political practices. This has butteflies for Irish history, but as long is it could get its budgets through, the government would have accepted defeat on other parts of its agenda and tried to reach a compromise.

In fact, the House of Lords is blocking big parts of the government agenda, on EU withdrawal, right now (in 2018).

Governments have been defeated in the Commons on non-budget legislation and remained in power. In parliamentary practice, governments are only removed by having supply (the budget) blocked or by explicit votes of no confidence.

The Parliament Act removes the Lords' ability to block money bills completely, but they can still vote down other government proposed legislation. After waiting a set period, originally two years but later changed to one year, the government can present the legislation for royal assent anyway by getting it through the Commons again. After 1911 this provision has not been used that much.
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
A lack of friction over the budget would bring in the people's budget of the previous year. Land tax and all that. The largest assault on parliamentary sovereignty are Statutory Instruments. Perhaps without the initial battle over the Lord's veto, there would be more resistance to these governmental rubber stamps.
 

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
What if the Lords are replaced by a (lets call it) Senate with a more restricted franchise than the Commons?
Remember, the lower House was elected by c.60% of the male population.
So, maybe the richest 10-20% vote for the Senate. As they pay (do they?) most of the taxes they should have a say over the spending of Public Money, shouldn't they?
 
What if the Lords are replaced by a (lets call it) Senate with a more restricted franchise than the Commons?
Remember, the lower House was elected by c.60% of the male population.
So, maybe the richest 10-20% vote for the Senate. As they pay (do they?) most of the taxes they should have a say over the spending of Public Money, shouldn't they?
Isn't that moving in the opposite direction?
 

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
As in taking away power from the House of Lords - yes.
As in having some responsible people keeping the spendthrift hoi poloi in the Commons under control - no.
 
As in taking away power from the House of Lords - yes.
As in having some responsible people keeping the spendthrift hoi poloi in the Commons under control - no.
I very much appreciate that distinction. Does the Britain of more than a century ago do so?
 

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
I believe there were some sort of ideas for replacing the Lords with .. something ... floating around at that time. But sadly I know very little about this. Also, the first thing you lose is your memory :)
 
Last edited:
Top