In reply to thomasadixon:
> The DUP are supporting the government. They, and the Tories, want the committees to have a majority that reflects this in certain situations, and they're making it so that this happens. This couldn't happen if they didn't have enough MPs to make it happen, it's only happening because of the way we all voted at the last election.
i repeat- if the majority on committee was made up of Tory + DUP MPs, then i'd accept that as within the rules. That is not what is being proposed. Stacking with Tories is not the same thing at all, for the reasons i set out and which you've not engaged with.
> So it is not going beyond our constitution at all, is it? If Labour plus SNP made a majority then would you be against them running things? I wouldn't, although I'd not have been happy with the election result.
No, not if the majority on committee was made up of a combination of labour and SNP members. If the SNP voted for labour to stack committees with enough labour MPs to ensure that government business passed without challenge, when the electoral outcome didn't allow for that, then i'd be every bit as disgusted at them as i am at the Tories and DUP. Because it is absolutely going beyond our current established arrangements- this is self evidently the case, else they wouldnt need a vote in the commons to change the rules to allow it!
> They're changing the rules (slightly) because Labour and the Lib Dems have made very clear that they'll do whatever they can to create turmoil, and so they're changing them to prevent those who lost the election from causing day to day problems for the sake of it. All those involved are elected, they are all up for election again and they will be held accountable at that time for the actions that they take. I can't see how it's undemocratic. Yes places with written constitutions often require supermajorities, so? Cats have whiskers, dogs bark, those are irrelevant facts too...
> Edit - to be a bit less facetious, do you think that our system is undemocratic and systems that require larger majorities for major changes are more so? Preventing 60% of voters from making a change is more democratic than 55% of voters being able to change things? Why?
> The electorate returned a certain set of MPs and a group of them, a majority, are running things. That's exactly how it's stood for hundreds of years. The maths doesn't make the Tories plus the DUP a minority, it shouldn't allow Labour plus SNP plus Lib Dems to have a blocking majority. Parties are partisan by their very nature, politics is partisan by its very nature, I can't see how you can complain about that part of the situation.
I repeat, again, if this was the Tories +DUP on the committees, fair enough. that's not what's being proposed, or else there would be no need to have a vote in the commons to enable it. the result of the election did not allow for the tories to stack the committees with their MPs; it requires them to be in a minority, which other parties can 'top up' to allow a majority and passing of the business in hand. if they put a Dupper on the committee, fair enough- if they are there by right, and vote to support the committee business taking into account the interests of their party and electorate, thats fine. if they swap the DUP member for an extra Tory, that's not fine.
and as to the stuff about labour and the lib dems 'creating turmoil'- nonsense; labour are HM official opposition, and have a constitutional role to hold the government to account. they will also be held to account by their electorate, very large swathes of which are pro-brexit. the idea that labour would mischief make to derail brexit is ridiculous- it would be electoral suicide. the Tories want to deny them their role using dirty tricks, and then blame the victim for it. Nasty, nasty politics.
As to the point about supermajorities- its because the 'rules of the game' are so important that it has to be made hard to change them- otherwise opportunists in a tight spot will find it impossible to avoid the temptation to rig the rules in their favour.