Why doesn't UK get rid of its House of Lords, etc.?

The House of Lords are a bit like grandparents. They're old, wear funny clothes & wigs, complain about young people, no-one knows exactly what they do all day and are hopelessly out of touch with the modern world, but they've been around for so long that you've grown quite attached and can't imagine what life would be like without them...

Because... "it does nothing in particular, but does it very well".

Gilbert and Sullivan

Given our antiquated system, we need some kind of second house and there's no easy way of doing this.

KP

The major bone of contention with the House of Lords, for many people, is that it's unelected.
I should think that the reforms over the next few years may change all that..............

Whilst it does have a lot of clever and knowledgable members, it does have it's ditherers as well.
It's primary job is to act as a kind of sounding board and offer guidance to the government. Also it can force ammendmants in proposed legislation.

Because the House of Lords objects to being abolished. However by opposing this perfectly reasonable and long overdue reform they have sealed their fate.

Old and knew wrote


I don't think so! As the House of Commons rejected all the proposed alternatives regarding Lords reform, Tony Blair said ok we'll have a fully appointed chamber. I think his reasoning is that a totally unelected upper chamber full of the pm's appointees will soon become so irrelevant that it will probably vote for its own abolition.

But you have to keep them . . . it's like the monarchy, invaluable and unique comic relief . . .

Sounds like the Canadian Senate.
The sober second voice.........They have never, not once in Canadian history stopped a bill voted in by the Parliment.

You're just jealous really Setanta. That and guilt feelings about so cruelly spurning the mother country that tenderly nurtured you.

A quick question for you folks who are more knowledgeable about the history than I am (which would be, um, just about everyone out there): is the British monarchy still around because some of them, centuries ago, had the foresight to cede some of their power to people below them so that they wouldn't end up headless and powerless?

I mean, the Queen may not have any real power, but the family seems to be doing all right out of the deal...

(Sorry about the off-topic Q, Ms Boogie. If'n I don't ask when it occurs to me to ask, I'll never ask at all...)

Reminds me of the Bavarian Senate - until December 1999, there was also a Senat (chosen by social and economic groups [ somehow appointed by some PM or the church or the industry something else irrelevant] in Bavaria, but following a referendum in 1998, this was abolished. (None of the other German Länder [states] ever had had a second chmber. The second chamber of the Federal Parliament is the Bundesrat (link ).

patio dog
patio dog, you're forgiven because that's a very astute observation. Clever of them, wasn't it, making it possible for their survival to continue to accumulate wealth without any risk, responsibility or any real power.

Why didn't we colonials think of that?

BBB

I suggest that you consider the history of "relations" between the monarchy and Parliament (founded by Edward I in 1295, and modelled upon a similar convocation by his father's enemies, the de Monforts, in 1265), in the light of "dragged kicking and screaming . . . "

Hmmm. Apparently the dude was big in making land a commodity, too... Thankee, sir.

That is a very good question Patio. The answer imo is mostly yes, with a little bit of no.

Cromwell effectively put an end to Charles I's power by removing his head. That was a pretty revolutionary thing to do in the 1640s. That's the no bit.

If Cromwell's son hadn't been an imbecile, things might have turned out differently. But since the restoration of the monarchy I think its fair to say there has been a bit by bit process of transfering power from the monarch to a ruling elite who swear allegiance to the monarch, providing the monarch lets them get on with doing the ruling.

At the same time the ruling classes have been clever in knowing just when its necessary to give a bit, in order to stave off revolution from below. After all no one wants a revolution do they? So that's yes.

Today, sovereignty lies with "Crown in Parliament", the Royal Mace (which is not a spray can dear boy) symbolises this and lies across the despatch table separating the government and oppostion parties.

Personally, I'm in two minds about all this. I'm interested in the process as to how our democracy came about. And I suppose quite proud that we have achieved it without massive slaughter. I acknowlege the Queen as Head of State, in fact I think she's done a good job over the last 1/2 century + , but I think its an outrage that MPs have to swear allegiance to "the Queen, her heirs and successors" before they can take their seat.

The real power lies with the Prime Minister, who BY ROYAL PREROGATIVE, can if he so wishes, make treaties with foreign governments or declare war or do pretty much anything he wants, without recourse to the people or their representatives, AS WE HAVE SEEN RECENTLY. On the other hand, not having a written constitution has certain advantages, as I'm sure Setanta will explain

I don't think its off topic. Reform of the House of Lords is part of constitutional reform we are talking about.

Let me ask this. G W Bush is Head of State and Commander in Chief correct?

It may not seem unreasonable as an elected representative or whatever to swear an oath of allegiance to that person, as HofS and CinC.

But what if the oath was not to the office but to W? And to W's offspring.

And his offsprings offsprung.

And as W was never elected anyway, you could look forward to Ms President Chelsea Clinton. Which on second thoughts might be a good idea.

The Prez takes the following oath (or makes an affirmation thereof) upon inauguration:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Those entering military service also take an oath (or make an affirmation) to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. In fact, most offices of state and local government require that the office holder make a similar oath or affirmation. Our "monarch" is the Constitution. Additionally, Article I, Section 8, which enumerates the powers of the Congress reads, in part:

The Congress shall have Power . . .

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress . . .

In 1973, the Congress, in response to accusations that Lyndon Johnson acted illegally in the "escalation" of the Vietnam War, passed the War Powers Act, the opening paragraph of section two of which reads: It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

In theory, at least, the Prez does not have the power to make war without reference to the elected representatives of the people. In practice, however, a President could involve the United States in a conflict under terms of the War Powers Act, and then turn to Congress before the expiration of the specified term to his actions, and demand a resolution or a declaration of war, pleading the necessity of the situation. The Shrub got a go-ahead from Congress in advance. In large measure, he was trading upon his "political capital" which was a residue of the September 11th debacle. He is now trying to wrap himself in that tattered flag for the election campaign, and constantly beating the drum of "steady leadership." I can only observe that General Braddock showed the steadiest leadership as he marched his troops deeper into the murderous woods at Turtle Creek in 1755--a young George Washington showed steady leadership in extricating the survivors. Steady leadership is only desirable if it leads toward a demonstrably good end.

We don't have a House of Lords, but for comic relief and consternation with aging life members of an exclusive club, we have the Supremes. We don't have a monarchy, but we did have the Kennedys, and now we have the Bush clan. Who might be said to be better off is a matter for bizarre speculation.

A point made by Kevin Philips in his book "The Cousin Wars" might also be considered. His argument is that the Congregationalist in New England intended the American Revolution to "correct" the defects in the revolution of the 1640's and this time do it right. Although they did not get every thing they wanted, the American Federal governement reflects in part what the Independents or at least their descendent thought the British government should have looked like under Cromwell.