[thechat] House of Lords (was: US Elections)

[Freda Lockert]

>>  So it seems in a way they're similar to the US's Supreme Court? Can
>>  they really prevent legislation from going through?

Only for a limited period, the government can force legislation
through if it decides to. A bill that's been rejected in the Lords in
one session can be reintroduced in the next, and the Lords can't
reject it again. The Lords can't prevent the annual Budget bill from
going through at all, they can only try to persuade the lower house
to amend it. If the government chooses to represent the bill again,
they probably have to lose something else from the agenda for the
following session, because of time constraints, their choice.
>
>They are more like (again, correct me if I'm wrong), the US senate.
Only in that they're the upper house, the US senate is elected.
>
>I understand some of the positions are now
>filled by elections,

Unfortunately, no, most of the peers have been replaced by the
current government's cronies. Some of them actually talk sense,
through real experience, there always were a few of those.
>
  (cf.: the
>queen's ability to drop prosecution against Paul Burrell),

The Queen doesn't have that power; the case against Burrell was
dropped because he didn't reveal a conversation with HM to his
defence, and the monarch can't be required to appear in her own
courts, as witness or defendant. The prosecution would have been
given details of the conversation in Burrell's statements, and would
likely have given the case up then, even though there's other
evidence that there was a case to answer.
>
>>>  until now, I thought they were just a bunch of old poofters who
>>  liked to be listened to in sort of an honorary fashion.
>>  Is it different than that? How?

The Lords is still the senior appellate court, five of the Law Lords
hear appeal cases.


Freda