[Acrylic-bob]

With the Labour Party (old and new) the abolition of the House of Lords always was, and still is, part of their ongoing class war. No matter how Bleuuugh and his chums try to dress it up and spin it. This has nothing to do with furthering the aims of representative democracy, as is amply demonstrated by the fact that Their Lordship's House is now mostly peopled with appointees. The House of Lords has served as an effective break on the excesses of the executive since the 13th century and has added a moral and humanist dimension to some of the more dictatorial legislation that governments of differing political persusions have tried to foist upon us.

It worked precisley because the hereditory peerage were not elected or appointed or beholden to any one party, they sat in the House of Lords because it was their duty to sit in the House of Lords and that duty they passed on to the next in line. I am not arguing that the hereditory peers were always apolitical and impartial, they were not because no one can be, but they were the closest thing that we could get to altruistic impartiality. Now, the appointees will bend whichever way the party who appointed them dictates - is that democracy?