> We're studying British Government in AP Comparitive Politics right now, and unfortunately, we basically have to teach ourselves. And the textbook we use is very vague at some points, and causes a few questions to come to my mind:

I'll do my best.

> 1) *How* exactly does the whole "disproportional representation" thing work? The book talks about the fact that Labour can take only 40% of the vote, but end up with a majority of seats in the House of Commons, or that the Conservatives can take a third of the vote, but get only 20% of Commons seats. What the book does not say is *how* this happens. Can someone explain that to me?

OK, you have 663 (I think) constituencies, each of which represents roughly 10,000 people, and sends one MP to the House of Commons. A party needs to have a majority of MPs, but not neccessarily a majority of the overall vote. If you have a 100% of the vote in one constituency and 49% in another (assuming only two candidates), then you get one MP for 75% of the vote. If you got 60% in each constituency, you would have two MPs with a total of 60% of the vote.

Essentially, you need more than half of the votes in more than half of the constituencies, So I suppose you could form a government with only 25% of the vote.

> 2) Am I correct in saying that seats in the House of Lords are hereditary like property and wealth are?

Sort of. You have hereditary peers (as you describe) and life peers (who are appointed, and don't pass the title to their children). In an effort to make the House of Lords more democratic, the vast majority of hereditary peers have been stripped of their voting rights, and the number of life peers have been increased dramatically. There are also moves afoot to make voting rights in the House of Lords subject to popular election.

> 3) Other than method of appointment/election, what exactly *are* the differences between the House of Commons, and that of Lords? Do they have separate powers? What are they?

Complex. Parliament (Commons) drafts a law, argues about it and finally sends a Green Paper (or maybe a White one - I forget) to the Upper House (Lords). They then argue about it, and decite whether or not to ratify it. If they don't, it all starts over again. If they do, it gets passed to the monarch for Royal Assent (which can technically be refused, but not practically) and it becomes law. However, the Lords cannot propose a law, only ratify ones proposed by the Commons. Essentially, this provides a system of checks and balances between people who need to do what is popular so they get re-elected, and people who don't.

Then, Lords are not allowed to vote in elections, and can't enter the House of Commons, unless also elected as an MP (in which case they must give up their seat in the Lords).

The Lords also appoint (from their own number) the supreme legal body of England and Wales (but not Scotland) - the Law Lords, who have the power to declare any law unjust and start proceding to have it stricken from the statute books. Parliament can also do this, but it's a far more complex business.

However, other than in issues of legislature (ones of politics or administration, for example), the Lords can do very little except try to embarrass the government.

> I find it frustrating that such simple questions are not really explained in our book. For what it's worth, most of the chapter is about the prime minister, and about policymaking. Very little about how Parliament actually works.

Simple? Well, I hope that that has been of some help. Feel free to ask for any clarification.

> The Other "Many thanks for any help any one gives" Matthew

winter"A British parliamentary procedures thread? It must have been months since the last one..."mute