On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 11:10:09 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

Not so. The House of Lods was an affont to the British people. Stopping
the hereditory land owning peers was paramount. The form after can, and is,
being worked out.

One advantage the hereditary peers had over the HoC was that their
justification or opposition to something wasn't based upon trying to
extend their own political career, as happens so often in the HoC.
There is merit in having reviewers of legislation who aren't dependent
upon the whims of the electorate every 5 years.

And let us not forget that the HoL is not a law-making society. It is
a law-shaping society. The HoC puts forward proposals for the statute
book which are passed thru the HoL (generally speaking - there are
exceptions such as the finance bill which the HoL can't touch by
virtue of precedent). The HoL can debate and revise the proposals,
which are then passed back to the HoC.

When you see some of the dickhead proposals which are spouted by
Blunkett and others you get to feel glad that there is a 2nd chamber.

I happen to wonder how this country ever managed to get thru the last
800 years or so with the HoL which is so obviously broken.

Andrew

Do you need a handyman service? Check out our
web site at http://www.handymac.co.uk