Parliament proposing/passing motion whose constituency effects depend on how a member voted

Question

Recent shenanigans in the United States and the recent cynical turn of UK politics have me wondering about the constitutional implications of a UK government attempting to pass a motion where negative effects are, as declared explicitly within the text of the motion, borne solely by those constituencies whose members vote against it.

Note that I am concerned in situations where no attempt is made to hide such an act, and that the motion it is explicit and precise in those effects.

What are the barriers to such a motion (other than the probable revulsion of principled MPs, if such exist in any given session)? Would the speaker have any influence in quashing the motion prior to it being put to the house? Are there regulations concerning inducements which might be brought to bear somehow? What other barriers might exist?

Answer 1

As noted in another answer, there is no limit from beyond parliament on the text of any Act passed by parliament. There are plenty of internal mechanisms that would make such an act very difficult. Parliament can pass such an Act, but it won't.

There are "British Values" as taught in schools and these nclude "Democracy" "The rule of law", "Individual liberty", and "Tolerance". Such an act would not be consistent with "British Values". The revulsion that would be felt by many MPs is not a minor point. Whips can control their parties but only up to a point. The Speaker can make it difficult for a bill. The Lords have the right to reject a bill and ask Parliament to "think again". Ultimately the commons can overrule the Lords, but a bill can be delayed for quite a long time, sometimes until after an election. Finally the Queen can withhold consent. This is not a normal part of the constitutional process, but in extreme circumstances, in which the Commons is clearly not functioning in the interests of the country she might decide to exert her reserve powers.

Then there is the practical effect of deliberately causing poverty in some regions. It leads to a rise in crime, a shifting of people who are able to move and the development of an underclass. This is not good for anyone, including those in the constituencies that are favoured by Parliament.

In a situation in which Parliament is acting against the interest of the country there is the risk of military take-over and martial law. This has happened in other countries and there is no fundamental reason why it couldn't happen in the UK. There is similarly the risk of international action. A government can be changed by force of another country (ie an invasion)

Then, as I indicated in another answer, the final check on the power of any government is the risk of violent overthrow. Most Americans will know what happened when the British Government introduced a system of taxes on the American colonies. When governments are seen to behave tyrannically, the response of the population is to revolt.

The UK is a mature political system, and the politicians are not power mad feudal warlords. They are motivated by the idea of making Britain and the World a better place (though they disagree on how to achieve this). Weird and punitive taxation systems that would cause a breakdown in social cohesion are not likely to be a vote winner for either party, and so won't happen.