In case you've not been listening to the UK news, we have a bit of a corruption scandal at the moment: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7850428.stm

The Lords concerned are Lord Moonie, Lord Truscott, Lord Taylor and Lord Snape.

Such wonderful names, with a rhythm of their own... I couldn't resist turning it into a poem.

Lord Moonie, Lord Truscott, Lord Taylor, Lord Snape
Such careless misfortune to be caught on tape
Suggesting ways of amending legislation
In return for a minimal consideration
(A small sum of money, such trifling amount
You'd need a degree in mathematics to count)

Lord Taylor stood up and he spoke to the House
Looking like butter would never melt in his mouth
He sounded sincere and he seemed so dismayed
To find out that this isn't the way laws should be made
Lords Moonie and Truscott and Snape too assured
That they'd all done what should be done by a Lord

But now that the Met shortly will be called in
These peers will soon see avarice is a sin
And when they're locked up, I have very small doubt
They're the kind who is sure to use bribes to get out
So I'm kind of hoping that I'll be the jailer
To Lord Moonie, Lord Truscott, Lord Snape and Lord Taylor

Addendum:
As I work for the Guardian, the worst of their crimes
To me: that they were caught by the Sunday Times

How I wish that last verse would come to fruition...but I sense a 'fudge' coming on!  ::)

I expect after a bit of huffing and chuffing the peers will close ranks and after a suitable time it will be swept away

Admittedly, I don't know a whole lot about the Parliament.  Are the Lords elected now, or are they still hereditary positions?

Neither.. the hereditary peers are no longer allowed to vote in the House of Lords, but it is made up of appointees.

Funnily enough, it is actually more representative of the popular vote than the Commons has ever been.  The other thing about the Lords is that because you can't be ejected from it, peers feel that they don't have to toe the party line anything like as much as MPs.  By and large, when the Lords throw out some legislation that the Commons has voted for, there's a good reason & it's bad law.

Is the UK Parliament similar to the US Congress?

Is the UK Parliament similar to the US Congress?


Phil may be the best one to answer this...

I've no idea what half our shysters 'elected representatives' do most of the time, let alone how it works in America... ;)

Is the UK Parliament similar to the US Congress?

The parallels aren't really that close...

The UK Parliament has two parts: the House of Commons and the House of Lords.  The Commons is the elected chamber, where the largest party (nearly always) forms the government.  The government chooses what laws are going to be voted on, and if passed in the Commons, the bill then goes on to the Lords for revision.  If the Lords choose not to pass the legislation, as happens on rare occasions, the Commons has another go.. if the Lords refuse to pass a bill a second time, the third time through the Commons the government can opt to use The Parliament Act, which basically asserts the supremacy of the Commons (as the elected chamber) over the Lords (which isn't elected), and the bill will be passed without the agreement of the Lords.

Most of the work of the House of Lords is in revising and amending legislation - there are a lot of peers who are ennobled simply because of their experience in a particular area, and this does help in making better law.  But... they're not paid for it, they get no office/research staff.. well, any staff.  Working peers tend to do so out of a sense of duty; the problem comes for those who aren't independently wealthy and can't afford to spend lots of time reviewing all the new stuff.  That's where this lot have fallen foul, in taking money from people who want the law changed to suit them - though it's worth remembering that the peers don't introduce legislation themselves, though if a relevant bill is going through parliament, they may be in a position to introduce amendments for their paymasters.  Which is not the general idea...

The parallels aren't really that close...

The UK Parliament has two parts: the House of Commons and the House of Lords.  The Commons is the elected chamber, where the largest party (nearly always) forms the government.  The government chooses what laws are going to be voted on, and if passed in the Commons, the bill then goes on to the Lords for revision.  If the Lords choose not to pass the legislation, as happens on rare occasions, the Commons has another go.. if the Lords refuse to pass a bill a second time, the third time through the Commons the government can opt to use The Parliament Act, which basically asserts the supremacy of the Commons (as the elected chamber) over the Lords (which isn't elected), and the bill will be passed without the agreement of the Lords.

...


Actually this is sort of close.  The US congress has two parts The House of Representatives and the Senate. A bill is presented to the House of Representatives, if it passes it goes to the Senate, if it passes the Senate it goes to the President to be signed.  If it doesn't pass the Senate it can be sent back to the House for revisions than passed and sent back to the Senate.  In our case the House cannot override the Senate.  But the President can veto a bill which in turn can be overridden by a vote by 2/3 vote of the House and Senate. 

Neither.. the hereditary peers are no longer allowed to vote in the House of Lords, but it is made up of appointees.

Funnily enough, it is actually more representative of the popular vote than the Commons has ever been.  The other thing about the Lords is that because you can't be ejected from it, peers feel that they don't have to toe the party line anything like as much as MPs.  By and large, when the Lords throw out some legislation that the Commons has voted for, there's a good reason & it's bad law.


I don't know.  I prefer a more direct republic myself.  We need to get rid of our Electoral College too.