Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctiloquus";p="
Not much is made about the hereditary Lords because there are also elected lords, albeit by the Government, and because the House of Commons have much more power.
|
I shall expand then. The House of Lords although its has been reformed and has lost many hereditary peers since Labour came to power still retains the Anglican Bishops (no other religion is represented in this way in Parliament) while there is a growing concern that the government's plans to appoint Life Peers to the Lords will simply ensure that it becomes flooded with "Tony's cronies" and that is hardly a way to fill a part of the legislature in a supposedly modern democracy. Blair and Labour targeted the H.O.L in 1997 realising that almost all Peers were Conservatives. It is
subordinate to the Commons but nonetheless carries out key roles. It revises legislation and keeps a check on Government by scruntinising its Bills. As it is unelected it is unaccountable to the electrate. It is also the Supreme Court of Appeal, with the Law Lords being the most senior Judges yet they are appointed by the Government. If the Lords don't like a Bill they can reject it, though only twice. If the Government rejects the Lords amendment it too can reject them, with a 12 month delay. Therefore the Lords play a crucial role in our political system. The H.O.L defies any rule book on democratic and secular politics, an anomaly in British public life.
Thanks btw SS found that extremley useful.