Recently we saw /u/chainchompsky1 take to the press over the House of Lords because he is angry and rattled that people call out his hypocrisy.
The Lords is undemocratic Solidarity tell us, but time and time again Solidarity peers send back legislation passed by the democratically elected house, something they believe shouldn’t happen. Take the FTPA repeal or other common sense legislation, they keep amending and sending it back. In their ideal system this legislation passed by the elected commons would go to Royal Assent.
Solidarity are effectively signaling they are happy to be undemocratic- in their own view if it benefits the cause of the radical left.
> If we were to give it to them, nothing would get better for the pro democracy movement, quite worse in fact.
If the 13 Solidarity peers left the chamber, Prescription Charges would have Royal Assent and bills such as the Child Care Enhancement bill would have had Royal Assent faster. I am sure there are many other examples of bills passed by the elected Commons that would have Royal Assent faster if solidarity peers left instead of trying to hold it up. So once again according to their own logic things would get better for the so called ‘pro-democracy’ movement. But when it comes to holding up right-wing legislation they see themselves as some sort of experts in a belief they are right so they are justified to over rule the democratically elected representatives of the House of Commons.
Crossbench peer LeChevalierMal-Fait expressed concern at the “block voting” by Solidarity Peers who receive suggestions to vote a particular way which few have deviated from according to the recent house voting record. Mr Mal-Fait said he fears that the Lords risks losing its trust and independent image if this continues.
The paradox being that Solidarity as a party opposed to the institution’s very existence has no incentive to abide by the norms that hold the Lords within Britain’s constitutional settlement whereby under the Salisbury convention Lords would not block legislation with a clear popular mandate. They use their peers in the Lords to pursue maximal power above all else.
If one believes in the House Lords they would not take part or if they did, they would not attempt to frustrate legislation from the democratically elected house. But Solidarity has no principle, let’s remember chainchompsky’s position changes depending on who’s in government – we saw this with the state banquet. The same solidarity parties MP who said they would not vote on matters not relating to Northern Ireland to only flip flop for the goal of political power.
Solidarity’s participation in the Lords shows they have no principle and desire for only one thing- political power and influence. They are finding it hard to cope that a budget was created without them and despite their rising poll numbers, other parties do not want to work with them. As the exceptionally based Henry John Temple Foundation pointed out Solidarity are only concerned with one thing- control, control over our legislative chambers, and control over the lives of British people, even if they admit they are being undemocratic and control over your lives with their hard-left agenda which will wipe out your savings and tax you into oblivion. If a party is willing to admit to using methods they themselves consider to be undemocratic, in order to maximise their political power, can you imagine what a Solidarity government would do to further their pursuit of power? A truly chilling thought.