Erm, peerage is no longer hereditary.... Lords are appointed.
As I mentioned, I'm not 100% up to date with UK politics... I assumed they were hereditary by the name. My mistake, I apologise.
Moreover, the Lords is NOT the equivalent of the Senate any more than the Commons is the equivalent of the House. You really need to stop viewing Parliamentary systems through the veil of a Presidential system. It's getting tiresome.
In the sense of being an upper chamber and lower chamber, they are the same. Once you go beyond that, however, there are profound differences. Such as the constituency for the Lords, and the actual powers both wield.
We're planning to introduce a written one soon, but I'm somewhat sceptical.
Well, I wish you luck with that. I think you could only benefit from having an official, short document that can be cited as evidence of your rights.
Well Homicide Act 1956 layd statutory boundaries, however, by and large we are common law system, which works exceptionally well,
Given how our Supreme Court works, indeed, it can work exceptionally well. ...even if later Courts tend to fudge previous decisions quite a bit. Such is the flow of the river of progress, though, I suppose.
and we probably have the best jurisprudent system in the world, being the progenitor of a quarter of the world's judicial systems.
I do know that the British and American systems are by far the most emulated, yes. Our Constitution(which was partly inspired by the British in turn) is often used as a base for others, and I wouldn't be surprised if the British legal system is similarly the base for other countries'.
Though as I said, I think we can all learn from eachother... and so I wouldn't completely discredit the fact we probably also have some good ideas we can export to the rest of the world as we import theirs.
HoL isn't bad actually; they protect our constitution.
Much has changed from my reading up on them then.. I guess by merit of being appointed, they're no longer self-righteous bastards, and are "Lords" - in the sense of the fat noble who's selfish in every sense of the word - only in name?
All you need to force an election is to pass a motion of no confidence in the commons, that just needs a single vote majority.
That's exactly my problem with it; how easy it is for the government to change, and thus making it susceptible to short-term issues and above all, populist fury. Though the appointed upper chamber does mitigate this, yes?
The only problem is the fact both chambers aren't equal... thus defeating the idea of mutual checks on eachother.
Most of the time the PM is removed by their own party (as was the case with Thatcher and Blair - as soon as the party in power realises they have a lame duck PM and a credible alternative it's knives out time).
Which does keep them indirectly accountable to the people, yes. What I'm requesting is more direct accountability of Executive Power, as well as making the Executive balanced between his accountability to the legislature and the people as a whole.
That's as great an explanation of that one internet image that explains Christianity is absolutely bonkers terms...
):
