The Queen's Speech at the state opening of parliament (source UK Parliament)
It is common for a democratic parliamentary system to have a bicameral legislature, with a directly elected lower chamber and a second, revising chamber. The United Kingdom is unusual in that its second chamber is largely nominated rather than elected, and those that are not nominated are drawn from the hereditary aristocracy.
There has been much debate in the past 13 years about how the House of Lords should be reformed – with the expulsion of most of the hereditaries a notable change – but the British system is still archaic compared with most other countries.
You can find the archive of Federal Union articles on reform of the House of Lords here.
Loading ...
I think that, if hereditary peers are removed, then the House of Lords can become quite useful if it remains nominated. That is, political veterans, and experienced independents in lots of other sectors would have an input. Leaving the party politics of the lower chamber. Just a thought
@Peter:
The Hereditaries were removed unlawfully. Each Hereditary was a peer by dint of holding a Letter Patent – an Act of Parliament in itself. It is unlawful to repeal multiple Acts with a single Act.
The so-called “nominated” peers are whipped, just like the MPs. Even the so-called independents, who have bought/donated their way into their peerage, are beholden. So there is no independence there whatsoever, and party politics is well and truly established in the upper house.
The Hereditaries were propagandised against as being doddering old fools. In reality, they were an inconvenience to successive governments because they couldn’t be whipped.