What is the House of Lords for?

First off let's cut through some woolly thinking and explanations by commentators over whar happened in the Lords last Monday. Leaving aside the issue of what the Lords can and cannot do with statutory instruments, there are two limitations on the Lords that are relevant here. One is the Parliament Act of 1911 which forbids the Lords from blocking money matters undertaken by the Government. The other is the Salisbury Doctrine dating from the 1940s. This is an unwritten convention that forbids the Lords from obstructing any measure that was contained in the governing party's last election manifesto. Now the most dramatic interpretation of what happened is that the Lords offended both these constitutional restrictions. A different view says they offended neither. Supporters of the former view argue that the proposed tax credit cuts are a money matter and that the Conservatives' manifesto commitment to reduce the budget deficit is being challenged here. Those who take the latter view suggest this was a welfare, not a money matter and that the Tories did not include tax credit cuts specifically in their 2015 manifesto. In other words the measure was fair game. The problem here is that there is no one to adjudicate. Both interpretations are compelling and could be supported. So we need a person or committee, along the lines of the US Rules Committee, that can say whether something is subject to the Parliament Act or the Salisbury Doctrine ( which should be enacted to clarify it). Not difficult really. More seriously, we need to ask questions about the role of the Lords. It comes down to this simple question. If the Lords does not have the power to delay a decision and ask the Commons and the Government to re-consider, what is it for? Osborne joked it might be abolished, but it should be if it is to have no meaningful powers. OK some peers do excellent work improving legislation at Report Stage, but it does not need over 800 of them to do this. It is incontrovertible to say that we cannot have key decisions like this made by people who are completely unaccountable, however well intentioned they may be.

China comes to town

Two things strike me as interesting or thought provoking in the visit of President Shi this week. The first is that I notice that Jeremy Corbyn agreed to dress up in a frock coat suit for the banquet. I am glad to see this. he does need to stop fighting small battles and concentrate on major issues. China is a major issue, including our relations with them. Absenting himself would have been pointless. he does need to take part in political exchanges like this in order to gain the authority to speak about them. So, good for him. he can now speak his mind. The second question is whether we should be dealing with the Chinese leadership at all. I think the answer is yes. I take as my lesson the situation with Russia currently. By being understandably antagonistic we have forced the disreputable Putin into a defensive corner. Authoritarian regimes, when backed into a corner do not tend to make concessions, they simply become more defensive, paranoid and brutal. It may be painful to deal with the Chinese but I believe the best hope for any liberalisation of their regime is if we have dealings with them and they become exposed to a different way of doing things. Surely the Chinese should be impressed by the fact that Britain can, at the same time, appear militaristic, aristocratic and shrouded in our own history, and yet allow reporters such as the BBC's to ask provocative questions of visitors. Surely they see that the decision to allow investment in our nuclear industry is being made subject to democratic scrutiny. We don't have a perfect democracy but we it is a democracy and it does not threaten the integrity of the state. Making enemies of the Chinese will do no good to either country. We can become a critical friend and that is what we should be. I don't expect Jeremy Corbyn to concur, but I happy that he is taking part in the game and not just shouting abuse from the touchline.