Evaluate the Various Arguments Concerning Reform of the House of Lords (40 marks)
The House of Lords is the upper house in the Uk’s Parliament, whose role is to scrutinise the legislation that the House of Commons make and propose amendments. Although all legislation has to go through the House of Lords their power has been limited in recent years and many have strong arguments against them. Some argue that in a liberal democracy like the United Kingdom it is undemocratic to have a wholly unelected second chamber. Others have praised the Lords for becoming the defenders of social minorities in recent years. It is clear that in the British political scene the House of Lords is a polarising issue.
Firstly we must consider the arguments that …show more content…
If we let these people into our political system regardless it further proves the point the system is undemocratic as unelectable people will be getting a place in our countries legislature. Further to this the House of Lords cannot be seen to bring true outsiders into politics as in essence, most of the peers come from an extremely narrow social background. Although to counter this point it would bring political outsiders into politics, independents. This is most likely good for the system as our First Past the Post voting system has left the electorate with two parties who could realistically create a government, neither of which being in the centre where the majority of British people are. One issue that has not been discussed however is who appoints these people. Should it be a fully appointed chamber, those who make the appointments would have a monopoly over peers and it could lead to corruption, which is thankfully rare in British politics. Currently the House of Lords is not made up of wholly appointed people as there are currently roughly 90 hereditary peers. Hereditary peerage was passed on through generations, however the House of Lords Act 1999 under Tony Blair removed the …show more content…
The obvious point to make about a fully elected House of Lords is that it is democratic. We live in a liberal democracy and so it is only fair that the legislature branch should be chosen by the people. A key point to consider would be how the Lords are elected. If it was through the First Past the Post system then it would serve no purpose as it would just mirror the Commons and nothing would get done. It is likely for this reason, an elected second chamber would opt for a proportional representation system such as the Single Transferable Vote. A proportional representation system would be important as no party should have a majority in the House of Lords. This would also allow for smaller parties to get in and could increase politically participation as people would know that their vote matters. Of course it could have the adverse effect and create voter fatigue as there would be too many elections and less political participation would harm the whole country. When compared to the idea of an appointed second chamber, this would certainly eliminate the possibility of corruption which gives it a huge advantage. Some would argue the biggest harm this would do to the British political system would be that a powerful second chamber would mean less could get done. Checks and balances on the government are, of course, important and the government
The House of Lords is the upper house in the Uk’s Parliament, whose role is to scrutinise the legislation that the House of Commons make and propose amendments. Although all legislation has to go through the House of Lords their power has been limited in recent years and many have strong arguments against them. Some argue that in a liberal democracy like the United Kingdom it is undemocratic to have a wholly unelected second chamber. Others have praised the Lords for becoming the defenders of social minorities in recent years. It is clear that in the British political scene the House of Lords is a polarising issue.
Firstly we must consider the arguments that …show more content…
If we let these people into our political system regardless it further proves the point the system is undemocratic as unelectable people will be getting a place in our countries legislature. Further to this the House of Lords cannot be seen to bring true outsiders into politics as in essence, most of the peers come from an extremely narrow social background. Although to counter this point it would bring political outsiders into politics, independents. This is most likely good for the system as our First Past the Post voting system has left the electorate with two parties who could realistically create a government, neither of which being in the centre where the majority of British people are. One issue that has not been discussed however is who appoints these people. Should it be a fully appointed chamber, those who make the appointments would have a monopoly over peers and it could lead to corruption, which is thankfully rare in British politics. Currently the House of Lords is not made up of wholly appointed people as there are currently roughly 90 hereditary peers. Hereditary peerage was passed on through generations, however the House of Lords Act 1999 under Tony Blair removed the …show more content…
The obvious point to make about a fully elected House of Lords is that it is democratic. We live in a liberal democracy and so it is only fair that the legislature branch should be chosen by the people. A key point to consider would be how the Lords are elected. If it was through the First Past the Post system then it would serve no purpose as it would just mirror the Commons and nothing would get done. It is likely for this reason, an elected second chamber would opt for a proportional representation system such as the Single Transferable Vote. A proportional representation system would be important as no party should have a majority in the House of Lords. This would also allow for smaller parties to get in and could increase politically participation as people would know that their vote matters. Of course it could have the adverse effect and create voter fatigue as there would be too many elections and less political participation would harm the whole country. When compared to the idea of an appointed second chamber, this would certainly eliminate the possibility of corruption which gives it a huge advantage. Some would argue the biggest harm this would do to the British political system would be that a powerful second chamber would mean less could get done. Checks and balances on the government are, of course, important and the government