ignorant question about UK system, if you please

[steve2470]

Before I ask this question, please know that this is a theoretical question and I do not think Cameron and Tories would do this. As some of you know, I have the greatest respect and affection for the UK.

Theoretical question: Let's say the Tories and Lib Dems joined to sponsor a bill in the House of Commons that would replicate the 1933 Enabling Act made famous in Germany. Let's say, for theoretical purposes, that 100% of that coalition's MP's would vote for it.

What recourse do Labour and the other parties have ? Could they defeat it in the Commons ? Thanks for your time.

[muriel_volestrangler]

1. If 100% of the coalition MPs voted for it, it would get through its Commons stages

since just a majority of votes cast in a division is needed. The House of Lords would need to pass it too; currently, the make-up of that is:

Conservative 28%
Labour 31%
Lib Dem 12%
Crossbench 23% (ie no party affiliation at all)
Bishops 3% (yes, we're still a partial theocracy)
Other parties 4%

So the coalition does not have enough votes to force something through the Lords. A constitutional measure such as this could be blocked by the Lords until a new general election. If the coalition got back into power then, it would have a mandate to enforce this, and the Lords would have to give way. Or they'd need support from crossbenchers or Labour peers in the Lords (or for some of them to abstain, anyway). Finally, the monarch in theory has the option to refuse to sign legislation that Parliament has passed. I think it's about 300 years since they've done that, though.

[steve2470]

2. thank you so much for your thorough answer !! nt

[tjwmason]

3. muriel gave a very thorough answer

I'd just add that such an act would be unable to remove the requirement that a parliament last five years maximum without the explicit agreement of the Lords (in which the coalition has no majority, as noted above).

The Lords has the power to delay most legislation, no power over financial legislation, and still retains veto power over legislation affecting the length of parliaments. This was last used in 1945, the 1935 parliament had its life extended (one year at a time) due to the war effort; in 1945 after VE Day but before VJ Day the Commons supported a further year's extension but the Lords refused to play ball.

Thus if such a bill were passed, it wouldn't be able to affect the requirement for the government to face the voters every five years (plus a few weeks for the election campaign).

Of course, even with British party discipline (which is far higher than in Congress), the thought that all M.P.s from any party would support such a bill is extreme.