Or he could just get the fucking hint...

[denny]

Home Secretary Charles Clarke has criticised the House of Lords after it defeated government plans to outlaw the "glorification" of terrorism. [...]

It is the second time the Lords have voted against keeping the term in the Terrorism Bill. MPs reinstated it two weeks ago after the first Lords defeat.

Mr Clarke said he was "disappointed" and that he would seek to restore the term when the bill returned to MPs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4758258.stm

Is there any limit on how many times they can keep doing this for? It's starting to look like a process of attrition by tedium.

Comments

[dryad-wombat.livejournal.com]

Is there any limit on how many times they can keep doing this for?

That really is outrageous. He shouldn't be allowed to add it ad nauseum. WHat procedure does he have to go throught o get it re-added (again)?

[kelemvor.livejournal.com]

IIRC, Commons have to accept the Lords' third decision. Therefore, he can add the term for the third vote, and the Lords can take it out again at the third vote. After that, it stays out. Unless they want to use the Parliament Act.

[pooloftrees.livejournal.com]

From recent examples, they will just use the Parliament Act and give the Lords the 'V' sign...

[loopdisconnect.livejournal.com]

Yes I think i recall that when the lords' power was reduced at some point during history, the commons gained the power to push a bill through to be enacted into law despite the fact the lords had rejected it, it's a side effect of the thinking that the commons 'represents' the peoples' will as it is elected by democratic process, whereas the lords are hereditary peers, OH wait, WERE hereditary peers, now they are appointed by the government !