The effectiveness of the HOL

Party unity in the HOL is more relaxed because:

• Peers do not need a party machine to remain in post, as they are unelected/ 
• This robs the government's ability to discipline or enforce the 'whip' on the HOL. 
• This is an advantage because before the hereditary were abolished. there was dominance of them in the HOL:
  • This meant that the Conservatives effectively enjoyed an in built majority in the Lords. 
  • E.g. Thatcher used the HOL to back the Poll Tax. 
• However, the Labour Govt of 1997, confronted a consistently hostile 2nd chamber. 
• Therefore, the HOL's checking power was used in a highly partisan way. 

The HOL has gained more legitimacy because:

• The removal of most hereditary peers has encouraged members of the HOL to assert their authority. 
• As a result, peers are more willing to challenge the govt, because they now feel that the Lords is more constituted. 

However, it could be argued that HOL is still illegitimate because:

• They are an unelected chamber, and therefore do not represent the consent of the people. 
• They have an input in the legislative process, but the people have not really allowed them to do so. 

Until 2000, the Conservative Party mainly had control of the Lords:

• This meant that the Conservatives enjoyed an in built majority in the Lords, and ready made support from them. 
  • E.g. During the 1979-1997 Conservative Govts, the average of the no. of Lords' defeats per session was just over 13. 
• This was due to the majority of the Lords being hereditary peers, and therefore alligned with the Tories. 

However:

• Since the hereditary peers has been abolished, the current composition of the Lords has been a balance between the Conservative and Labour representation. 
• Some peers argued that they had a duty to check the government of day. 
• This was because the HOC had become so ineffective in this respent, due to landslide majorities.