I could very well be the only person on this board interested in this, but the House of Lords has refused to pass the Government's Constitutional Reform Bill, which would have abolished the ancient constitutional office of state (Lord Chancellor) and made the judicial system in the United Kingdom dependent on potentially political appointees.

They defeated the bill by combining the Tories with the Crossbenchers to form an unlikely majority.

The House of Lords sent the bill to its committee for review.

The Government attempted immediately to use the Parliament Act to force the bill through, but enough Labour MP's in the House of Commons said they wouldn't support the move, and the attempt was aborted for lack of support.

The Government's last alternative is to make the Queen appoint enough new Labour lords to form a majority that would overwhelm the coalition that defeated the bill; however, the Government's popularity is at an all time low, and it's speculated that the Palace could actually rebuff their demand for more appointees to the Lords.

The Parliament Act has been used only six times in history to defeat the Lords, and the Sovereign's right to appoint new Lords has been used on two occasions to force reform through the Upper House.

This link is a conversation with the Lord Chief Justice, explaining why he felt the Reform Bill was a mistake:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/audio/39...ce08_woolf.ram

Although you don't hear much about it in the US, it has been front page news in the UK and the Commonwealth for months. The Blair Government attempted to force the reform without talking to the judiciary at all to get their opinions of the move, and the rumour is that Blair didn't even tell the Queen about it until he was driven to the Palace to explain all the fuss.

 

We were discussing this in a brief moment of comparative governments in my Political Science class today. But I had no idea that Blair was avoiding the judiciary in this push to do away with the House of Lords. :shocked: That's pretty bold in and of itself.

I was under the impression that the House of Lords could only prolong debate over legislation; that they do not have the power to block legislation on their own. :huh: Is this correct?

At any rate, with regard to this particular bill, it seems like the Labour Party split over the issue, as you've mentioned above.h:

Very interesting.

 

He's not trying to do away w/the House of Lords. He is trying to do away with the Law Lords who sit in the House of Lords as the Supreme Court.

Many of us regard the Law Lords as a constitutional boon because they are an integral part of "the Legislature" which consists of the Queen in Parliament. Unlike the American system, the British and Commonwealth system allows all parts of the authority to talk to each other and arrive at legislative theory. Since every branch of government cooperates in the legislation, legislation is seldom later defeated.

The most odious part of the Bill did away with the ancient constitutional "Great Officer of State" called the Lord (High) Chancellor. For centuries the Lord Chancellor has maintained a direct link to the judiciary and the Sovereign, and he has proved very important in the Cabinet as the voice of the judiciary when the Government are not properly focused on the constitution or the law.

A Government of the day can use the Parliament Act to defeat the Lords and send a bill directly to the Queen. However, this is not done with impunity, and it has only happened six times in all of history. It requires the Government to muster its own party MP's behind the move to defeat the Lords, and the Government must stop to consider that when a bill is forced past the Lords in this fashion, it goes directly to the Queen and you multiply thousand fold that there will be serious questions about the bill.

Her Majesty does, after all, have the right to demand the Government's attention at any time. Even a powerful leader like Margaret Thatcher was hauled into the Palace to explain the Westland Helicopter scandal to a furious monarch, and supposedly Mr Blair has also been hauled in a couple of times recently.

 

The "great offices of state" must be constitutionally provided for in some fashion.

Great Offices of State

The Lord High Steward,
The Lord High Chancellor,
The Lord High Treasurer,
The Lord President of the Council,
The Lord Great Seal,
The Lord privy Seal,
The Lord Great Chamberlain,
The Lord High Constable,
The Earl Marshall,
The Lord High Admiral.

This doesn't mean that a single person has to hold the office, rather that the office is so important that it must be provided for in the modern world.

The words "Prime Minister" on the other hand, appear only once in British legislation, and Parliament has always continued the legislative myth that the world and the country could perform very nicely without a government, cabinet or Prime Minister.

The current Prime Minister also holds the office of "First Lord of the Treasury" and this is his sole real connection to the constitution outside his seat in the House of Commons. There are several Lords of the Treasury who perform the duties of the ancient office of Lord High Treasurer.

A favourite among American authors is Lord High Admiral and how it was handled in World War II, when six people together formed the commission. You had the First, Second and Third Lords of the Admiralty, who were civilian members of the government, and the First, Second and Third Sea Lords who were naval professionals.

It might sound scary, but the constitution has worked for about 1500 years, and proved a bastion of liberty that is the foundation of all modern democracy.

 

Oh... so that's how the Judiciary is integrated into the House of Lords. I'm beginning to see this more clearly now.

Let me add that in 130 hrs of lecture thus far, we spent about 45 mins today, discussing primarily the structure of the House of Commons...h: Only now am I getting a grasp on just how different our two systems are. :eek3:

Wow.

 

By the way...even if Blair could get all of his Labour back bench behind him, the delays built into the Parliament Act mean that he would be facing a general election before the bill passed, and it would become an issue in the election.

All the polls show that the electorate really wonders what the hell's going on w/the Reform Bill, and I don't think he'd want to risk it.

If they wanted, the House of Lords could keep it in select committee for two years.