Lords: The Aging House of Horrors?

London is all abuzz right now about a scandal in the House of Lords where three senior peers apparently agreed to accept cash from a newspaper reporter posing as a lobbyist in exchange for promises to use their influence to get legislation passed. The four lords involved, who are unpaid, but receive expenses, deny wrongdoing. The House of Lords is a mystery to most Americans. It is the upper chamber in parliament. Formerly, it was the aristocracy of Britain--the dukes and earls and barons and such. Reforms in 1999 however ended the tradition of inherited seats. Now, people are nominated for the Lords based on service to the nation. The chamber is supposed to be a collection of "wise heads" who temper the reactionary way of the more powerful lower chamber, the commons. In truth, the Lords are more symbolic than anything. They can suggest legislation for the Commons to consider and they can delay but not stop legislation. They can't actually do or prevent anything on their own. Traditionally, the Lords have been given great deference but in the wake of this scandal, referred to by some papers as "rent a lord", public support seems to be weakening for a non-elected chamber. One newspaper letter called the Lords the "ageing house of horrors." In the end, I suspect not much will change, however. For whatever reason, the British are deeply attached to their institutions, even those which appear to be a bit archaic. One does wonder how much good can be wring from further tinkering with the structure of this institution. It seems that the ancient hereditary body was at least as competent as this bunch.