General Chat

Bishops are all learned men who would otherwise have no access to Parliament. I think they bring another perspective to debate.

The sooner the unelected bunch of expenses claiming fat cats go the better.

I'm all in favour of an elected second chamber, though.

The Lords is an essential part of our constitution as a revising chamber with the power to delay legislation, other than finance Bills, for a year and so stop the Commons passing ill-thought out legislation in haste.
It used to be appointed on merit and expertise.
However, in recent years it has been corrupted by a spate of political appointments as successive Prime Ministers have attempted to make the Lords mirror the Commons by appointing Life Peers.
The elevation of MPs who have been thrown out by the electorate to a place where they can claim a £300 per day attendance allowance is not on.
This has also led to the Lords numbers being excessively large (as is the Commons).
Ideally, IMHO, the Lords should be non-political and definitely not elected.
The role of the Bishops is also questionable, except as a sort of moral compass and a symbol of traditional Christian ethics.

The strongest part of our democracy is the fact that we have never had a constitution.

Sorry but I really can't be bothered to put that into essay form because I didn't think this was an exam.

Sorry, I thought this was a chat board not a pedant's board.

I said, if you bothered to read the first line - they could stop it - albeit only for up to a year.
As for your opinions/lecture - sorry haven't got time to read ....life to live.

I never said The House of Lords could veto a Bill, I said they could stop it - albeit only for up to a year.
Here's a concise factual description - not my opinion:

Parliament Act 1949
The Parliament Act 1949 reduced the Lords' delaying powers to one year.

The Parliament Acts define the powers of the Lords in relation to Public Bills as follows.

Money Bills
Money Bills (Bills designed to raise money through taxes or spend public money) start in the Commons and must receive Royal Assent no later than a month after being introduced in the Lords, even if the Lords has not passed them. The Lords cannot amend Money Bills.

Other Commons Bills
Most other Commons Bills can be held up by the Lords if they disagree with them for about a year but ultimately the elected House of Commons can reintroduce them in the following session and pass them without the consent of the Lords.

Bills not subject to the Parliament Acts
Bills prolonging the length of a Parliament beyond five years
Private Bills
Bills sent up to the Lords less than a month before the end of a session
Bills which start in the Lords

Salisbury Convention: ensures that Government Bills included in the election manifesto can get through the Lords when the Government of the day has no majority in the Lords. (Also known as the Salisbury Doctrine.)

Bring back the Hereditary Peers, I say. At least they weren't placemen.

:-D :-D

They'll be alright when they get Jeremy Kyle in there.

As I see it, and my education is so average I can't show it off, neither chamber can completely over-rule each other and neither can they over- rule the queen who, in her turn, cannot over-rule them. This, I think, is the basis of our democracy.

I could have sworn the House of Lords overturned Osborne's plans to cut Tax Credits, and Cameron tried to get the House of Lords powers cut.

The House of Lords can vote on Bills before they become law.

From last October's Telegraph:
"According to senior Tories, the Lords have inflicted defeats on the government on 70 per cent of occasions since May's election."

Sounds to me like they can wholeheartedly stop Bills, not just revise them.

What?

I think you have just said what I did in different words. Not sure I know what the difference between a moderating body and a revising chamber is and, anyway, they are not the absolutely correct definitions but if it makes you happy to pick holes, feel free.

A lot of politicians & their electorate are rarely sure what they really want until some smart individual puts it on their lap.

I am quite interested in watching Jeremy Corbyn at the moment. It is intriguing me how he is standing aside from all the shenanigans and I think he is waiting until the time is right to do whatever it is he plans to do.

One of the contenders for leadership of the Labour Party has stated that they may consider having another referendum. And the point of that is? Europe don't want us back, they never really wanted us in the first place so why go to all that trouble?

There is also a petition on-line, signed by some academics, calling for the House of Lords to decide if we leave the EU. They can't do that, it not what they are for. The House of Lords is a moderating body for the House of Commons, they just do not have that kind of power. That is what democracy is about.

Even if they had that power over Great Britain they don't have it over Europe who are only too pleased to see the back of us it would seem.