The English Aristocracy? These guys in the upper house are life politicians. I mean are we in 2002AD or 1782AD?

Barry, they can still introduce laws right? In an era of pseudo-democratic representation, that is mind boggling. Like a boys club gone crazy.

It's a class system. How is that different from India's caste system?

But there you go.

Isn't the Blairy-eyed one trying to do away with the House of Lords? Or has that fallen by the wayside?

Well Blair is allegedly *trying* to do a lot of things, few of which he has or will.
I am strongly against the idea of hereditary peers.

i thought they were doing away with the house of lords?guess thats what they want in the uk then.government should express the will of the people it purports to represent.but as much as i disapprove of any monarchy,i would never compare them to india's caste system.that is a truly screwed up situation there.

Ok, the house of Lords dosnt have much say about anything, I think they can only delay things, not sure for how long but not very.

Next the actual people in there rotate so you wont have the same people for fifty years.

So much has been said about the english caste system already, sigh, im just bored of thinking about it, some people actually see it as more rigid than the indian one,like Geoarge Orwell who I think described him self uppermiddle lower class, or something complicated anyway, sort of sarcasticaly of course.

Right - as far as I'm aware...

We still have 92 hereditary peers, 12 Law Lords, and a few Lords Spiritual (Bishops of the Church of England). The rest of the house is Life Peers and they are appointed, basically, by the Prime Minister. There are certain convetions that operate though. Once they are retired any former PMs or Chancellors of the Exchequer are appointed Life Peers for example.

As to their powers, they have the ability to delay a bill for a year effectively. Once they have done this three times over the Executive is allowed to invoke the Parliament Act and bypass them. Mostly this is far too long-winded as it delays contraversial legislation by 3 years. So a compromise is normally reached where the Lords get a few key ammendments and then they let it pass. Or sometimes the Exec just drops the matter - this happened to Thatcher a lot.

Also they are unable to touch financial legislation, the Parliament act means it completely bypasses them. And it is convention that they don't argue with anything in the parties manifesto when it comes up as a bill.

So their powers are limited, but they are still one hell of a potent force in UK politics - something not many people realise.

[ 03-02-2002: Message edited by: Barry the Sprout ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:

So their powers are limited, but they are still one hell of a potent force in UK politics - something not many people realise.

<hr></blockquote>

Hell yes. A frightening concept. ;)

I'm in complete agreement with Barry - and I think it's a shocking way to go about things, how anyone can say we're a democracy is beyond me.
The House of Lords has managed to seriously delay legislation being passed - they can draw the process out to last nearly a whole term of government.
Hereditary peers have no place in this day and age, but I don't agree with life peers either - it's the idea that the PM more or less appoints someone to do a job for the rest of their life and the rest of us can like it or lump it - no sorry, that ain't democracy.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Epona:
I'm in complete agreement with Barry - and I think it's a shocking way to go about things, how anyone can say we're a democracy is beyond me.
The House of Lords has managed to seriously delay legislation being passed - they can draw the process out to last nearly a whole term of government.
Hereditary peers have no place in this day and age, but I don't agree with life peers either - it's the idea that the PM more or less appoints someone to do a job for the rest of their life and the rest of us can like it or lump it - no sorry, that ain't democracy.<hr></blockquote>

My sentiments exactly, whatever they want to call it, a choice where the people have no other say makes it not a democracy.

Now, I a going to actually buck the trend a bit here and say that I think Life Peers do have a very definite place in the constitution...

I don't like the way they are appointed obviously. The decision at the moment comes almost straight to the Prime Minister without any intervention from other people almost. So Yorick is right to an extent - at present it is a bit of an old boys club. So that needs to be changed, but how you do it is beyond me I am afraid.

My point is though that with the purpose of the House of Lords in mind it is a good idea it is unelected. Also I would say that an unelected second chamber is essential considering the current role of the House of Commons (rubber stamp anyone?). The House of Lords is only really able to get amendments to an act, it is rare that they will completely stop a bill. The only time that will happen is if there isn't enough political support for the government of the day for them to get heavy handed. So I would say that the House of Lords plays an advisory role, rather than a legislative one. I think this is extremely consistant with it being unelected, as long as it is is chosen in the right way. If we could fill the House of Lords with Doctors, Scientists, Musicians, Authors, and general members of the public from all walks of life, then it would work I think.

However getting there is a different story...

Personally I think the House of Lords is more of a tradition than anything else. One worth hanging on to, its part of our national identity. The same with the monarchy or the Grenadier Guards.
Though the House of Lords don't really affect people in Scotland because of the Scottish parliament. That brings me onto something else. The people of Scotland are better represented than the people of England. If our Member of the Scottish Parliament fails in something we can go to our Member of Parliament in London or vice versa. Isn't democracy there to make sure everyone is just as well represented as everyone else?
Also the laws are different in Scotland. For example a person of 16 can get married without their parents consent here. While in England you have to be 18. In England I think you only need one piece of evidence to bring them to trial for a crime. While in Scotland you need two. Thus we are two different countries and in Scotland case with two different governments.
I think i should add that i don't like this system and think the United Kingdom should be one country with the House of Commons (elected by the people) and the House of Lords (from their birth right) with the monarcy (keeping the tourists coming).