3 ms·
From the article, the House of Lords doesn't "make our laws". Also "Membership was once a right of birth to hereditary peers but, following a series of reforms
by mibbitier 14y ago
From the article, the House of Lords doesn't "make our laws".
Also "Membership was once a right of birth to hereditary peers but, following a series of reforms, only 92 members (as of 1 July 2011) sitting by virtue of a hereditary peerage remain."
Further reforms are in the pipeline as regards the house of lords.
Unfortunately what we saw under the Labour government was "cash for honours", and politicians making their cronies lords. Which IMHO is far worse than hereditary peerages.
The vast majority in the UK are very favorable toward the Royal family (As you'll see later in the year).
- JonnieCache 14y ago>"Membership was once a right of birth to hereditary peers but, following a series of reforms, only 92 members (as of 1 July 2011) sitting by virtue of a hereditary peerage remain." Importantly, they will not pass on their peerages to their children. There are no longer hereditary peerages in the UK, it's just that they didn't strip the current ones of their titles. There are still members of the clergy in there though, which is wrong. IMO the unelected house of lords is often the most effective part of our government. I don't like it but I find it very difficult to argue against.
- Tyrannosaurs 14y agoGiven the odd make up of the Lords I don't necessarily object to religious leaders being part of it, just that there are quite so many of them and that they all come from one religion.