DAN ATKINSON: 計画（する） for elected Lords could backfire

By Dan Atkinson
Updated: 19:38 BST, 30 January 2011

試みる／企てるs have last year's 緊急 予算 and spending review 支配するd 違法な by our over-mighty 裁判官s under equality 法律制定 seem to have 立ち往生させるd.

But never 恐れる. At some point, the 司法の will （人命などを）奪う，主張する oversight of fis cal 政策, setting the 行う／開催する／段階 for an epic struggle with the elected House of ありふれたs echoing, in some ways, the 15-year 戦う／戦い over 支配（する）／統制する of the economy between 政府s and the 貿易（する） unions that ended in 1985.

At least the union barons were recognisable humans, 株ing many of the prejudices of ordinary people. There is no danger of the modern 司法の 存在 thus （刑事）被告.

Lords help us: A 委員会 will produce a 詳細な計画 for a おもに-elected 議会

But perhaps the more pertinent historical comparison is with the 対決 100 years ago when the House of Lords 封鎖するd the 1909 'people's 予算', which laid the 創立／基礎s for the 福利事業 明言する／公表する. This led to the 1911 議会 行為／法令／行動する, which stripped the upper house of its 拒否権 of 'money' 法案s.

In the new 最高裁判所, we have a much more powerful 21st Century upper house, and one that may 証明する even more difficult to subordinate to the elected 議会.

But in 平行の with this 開発, the real upper house may itself be 支援する in the 財政政策 game before too long.

Any day now, a 委員会 議長，司会を務めるd by 副 総理大臣 Nick Clegg is to produce a 詳細な計画 for a おもに-elected Lords. And while Clegg has said he hopes the basic 関係 between the two houses will not change, it is hard to see how a 議会 with a democratic 委任統治（領） co uld be 除外するd from 決定／判定勝ち（する）s on 税金 and spending.

Already, the Lords has 刻々と moved 支援する into the 領土 from which it was banished in 1911, most 顕著に since 1997 by 設立するing an 経済的な 事件／事情／状勢s Select 委員会. And this before a 選び出す／独身 投票（する） has been cast for a 選び出す／独身 '上院議員', or whatever the 非，不，無-lordly Lords will be called.

How would a two-議会 予算 過程 work? At 現在の, the （ドイツなどの）首相／（大学の）学長 usually 配達するs a 予算 in March which becomes the 財政／金融 行為／法令／行動する by 早期に August.

By contrast, under the US system, the 大統領 puts his 予算 提案 to 議会 usually in February, and then both the 衆議院 and the 上院 work out their own 見解／翻訳／版s of it. These then have to be 'reconciled' and さまざまな 財政／金融 法案s 認可するd by the start of October, さもなければ the 政府 runs out of cash.

More ominously, given our ありふれた 議会の traditions, Australia's (elected) upper house 拒否権d the 予算 37 years ago, 誘発する／引き起こすing a 憲法の 危機.

It is a 重要な fact of 経済的な 政策 that a 政府 unable to 勝利，勝つ a 投票（する） for '供給（する）'? -? 税金s? -? cannot 治める／統治する. Are we sure this '上院' lark is a good idea?