Lords veto powers 'to be curtailed' - BBC News
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35117990

Some review - started in October and has apparently finished before Xmas. I've seen longer reviews on Film 2015.

The Tories aren't even covering their tracks any more, the only question is how long before the public catches on?

It's a fine balance.
They're there to try and stop mistakes by the house of commons getting through, but at the same time the house of commons is elected to represent the population by the population.

Well that's an interesting thing. In principle, yes. In reality, very very few governments get anything near a majority vote. The current lot got in with, what, 25%? And didn't Labour in fact get more votes in total I think I read? Going by the rules you're right and that's fair enough, but frankly I think the HoL isn't the one that needs reform.

No, labour didn't get more votes.
In the past US presidents have been elected getting less votes than their opponent. G W Bush in 2000 was the last time it happened if I'm correct.

Looking at the BBC election page http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results
Conservatives 11.3 million votes
Labour 9.3 million votes
A total of 30.6 million votes cast
so
Conservatives had 37% share (of the vote)
Labour 30% share

Just read this. I'm not going to pretend I understand how Parliament works but this sounds very wrong and a way for the Govt to impose their will.

They can do that already using the Parliament act - I assume this is just a way of speeding up the whole process

IIRC those numbers are percentages of people who voted? If you consider the percentages as of people who could vote then obviously the numbers drop to I think the level I was thinking of. It depends how bothered you are about the people who didn't vote . It's the distinction between 'percentage of people who voted who think you should be in power' and 'percentage of the eligible population who think you should be in power'. Which you think is more representative of the population as whole is a fairly academic argument.

Personally I'm in favour of a) compulsory voting b) a 'none of the above' option and c) A more proportional system (although not necessarily PR). Frankly, FPTP is looking increasingly outdated in the modern world.

I think the point is that imposing the parliament act on a bill of itself requires a debate in parliament (on the act of pushing it through, not whatever the bill is about). The way the Tories are changing things means certain things can be pushed through without any debate at all, which can happen but is actually much rarer.

At issue was the use by the government of a statutory instrument rather than enacting a new act of parliament to make changes.
There are conventions and rules on when the Lords can and can't veto legislation. One of those is that the Lords effectively can't block a bill relating to finance that has been voted on and approved by the Commons. The case of the changes to tax credits the government used an SI which isn't a bill and so doesn't have the same amount of debate in the commons, even though it still had a vote. The prohibition against the lords interfering with finance bills doesn't apply to SI's (or that's the position the Lords have taken and which has so incensed the Tories).

On balance, I personally think the Lords were right.
While I have a lot of sympathy for the idea that and unelected house shouldn't mess up stuff that the elected one wants to, overall the Lords do serve a useful function. For one thing, the fact they don't have to worry about being elected means they are rather less swayed by the Daily Mail doing one for example - they are arguably in a better position to consider things that are necessary but likely to be unpopular (like pension reform for example).
Meh, the whole thing needs reformed (both houses and the entire electoral system) IMHO but we're unlikely to see reform other than just tinkering round the edges as those in power quite like how it works for them most of the time (on both sides of the political spectrum).

Frankly, we all know who was right, we all know what the Tories were playing at then and we know what they're playing at now.

Every third or fourth PM since the job was invented has provoked a constitutional crisis by threatening to force a controversial bill against he wishes of the lords (as happened with the Corn Laws and Irish Home Rule).

If we exclude various forms of sodomy, curtailing the powers of the House of Lords may be Britain's longest standing political tradition.

And then there's Tony Benn and Alec Douglas-Hume into the mix...