Essay Plans
First section is Parliament then it’s Constitution then it’s PM.
, Assess the arguments for and against reforming the House of Lords
The House of Lords can be viewed as a ‘revising chamber’. Over half the time in the Lords is devoted to examining in detail legislation sent to it by the Commons. In this way it serves as a useful check on the government by
making them think again Powers of the upper chamber are defined by the 1911 and 1949 Parliament Acts. In relation to legislation it can veto bills for up to a year, but on the third occasion the elected Commons can force
it onto the statute books against the Lords’ will. Currently in the UK most members/peers in the HOL are appointed by the IAC and sit in the HOL for life while 92 hereditary peers still exist with 29 archbishops, many
believe this system of appointment is undemocratic as no other modern democracy apart Canada have a system where legislative powers is passed on as a birth right. This essay will argue that although the HOL is
undemocratic due to its unelected nature, it’s benefits outweighs the drawback it has.
FOR = An elected chamber would have increased credibility and public AGAINST = A non-elected house allows for specialist knowledge, its Overall against as it would be
support and therefore would be in a better position to challenge the growing members can be chosen on the basis of experience and expertise, careeristimpossible to maintain and ensure
power of the government and the PM. It would also have greater powers as politicians would be no benefit to the political system. For example the the specialist knowledge gained from
an equally powerful second chamber would be able to veto laws leading to current House of Lords contains experts such as Lord Sainsbury and Lord the appointment of peers which
better legislation and the ability to check the Commons and prevent an Sugar. Another argument against is gridlock prevention as two Co-equal would therefore limit the Lords
elective dictatorship- full bicameralism requires two equal chambers. For chambers would be a recipe for government gridlock, if both Houses have aability as the revising chamber to
example in the USA both houses of Congress; House of Representatives and mandate who is right? For example the policies of Democrat President scrutinise and hold parliament to
the Senate, are co-equals and there is no "upper" or "lower" chamber and no Obama like Obama Care were repeatedly blocked by a Republican dominated account, it would also slow down law
hierarchical relationship between them. This would limit government Congress. making processes and weaken
dominance. government power.
FOR = An elected chamber would allow for wider representation through the AGAINST = A non-elected house allows for descriptive representation as it is Overall against as Lords is
use of different electoral systems and dates to ensure representation meets difficult for elected peers to make sure they resemble the social makeup of representative in nature due to the
the current view of citizens, this would reduce the dominance of the South. If it society as the makeup of the Commons demonstrates. For example only 1% way seats are allocated based on
was elected using a system of proportional representation it would allow of MP's elected in 2005 represented an ethnic minority and most are career seats in the Commons, the argument
small parties to have more influence on the legislative process. The Greens politicians, Charles Kennedy, for instance, was elected as an MP at just 23. for a more proportional that is
have benefited from the use of the Additional Member System for the Scottish The current chamber more closely mirrors the popular vote at the last representative HOL isn’t strong
Parliament and Northern Ireland Assembly, and UKIP from the use of party list general election than the Commons. For example the Greens also have 1 seat enough to out weight it’s other
for the European Parliament. in the House of Lords while the Lib Dems have 100. drawbacks.
FOR = An elected chamber would grant democratic legitimacy, the only basis AGAINST = In a non-elected house, appointed members are less partisan, Overall against, as a lack of
for legitimate rule in a democracy is popular consent delivered through allowing Lords to think for themselves and are able to tackle unpopular long partisanship is important in the lords
competitive elections. Electing the second chamber would provide it with an term decisions. For example the current Lords rejected the old Labour to prevent government from
electoral mandate with the backing and consent of the public. Another government’s bills frequently whilst commons only defeated government dominating parliament. If an elected
argument is that an appointed second chamber is not accountable to public once! Voting apathy would also increase with a new set of elections, second chamber leads to a
opinion, by electing the second chamber they would become more responsive Parliament has one democratic house, no public desire for another which government with a majority in both
to public opinion and take into account the possible impact of their actions on would damage the credibility of the 2nd house. For example voting turnout is house it would effectively lead to an
the public. For example there are still 92 hereditary peers in the House of Lords already low and even if we exclude MEPs there are at present 969 elected elective dictatorship with no checks
and all Lords are life peers office holders above local level in the UK. Do we really need an additional or balances in place to protect
400+? civilians.
In conclusion, If there was ever a time to reform the Lords it would be now: the current chamber sits in limbo as a half-way house after Labour’s last attempt at reform in 1999; as a result of the 2005
Constitutional Reform Act the office of Lord Chancellor has been has been stripped of its legal and legislative functions, and the Law Lords are moving to a new home at Middlesex Guildhall.
Introducing elections would be the final step in the process of tidying up some of the anomalies of the old House.
First section is Parliament then it’s Constitution then it’s PM.
, Assess the arguments for and against reforming the House of Lords
The House of Lords can be viewed as a ‘revising chamber’. Over half the time in the Lords is devoted to examining in detail legislation sent to it by the Commons. In this way it serves as a useful check on the government by
making them think again Powers of the upper chamber are defined by the 1911 and 1949 Parliament Acts. In relation to legislation it can veto bills for up to a year, but on the third occasion the elected Commons can force
it onto the statute books against the Lords’ will. Currently in the UK most members/peers in the HOL are appointed by the IAC and sit in the HOL for life while 92 hereditary peers still exist with 29 archbishops, many
believe this system of appointment is undemocratic as no other modern democracy apart Canada have a system where legislative powers is passed on as a birth right. This essay will argue that although the HOL is
undemocratic due to its unelected nature, it’s benefits outweighs the drawback it has.
FOR = An elected chamber would have increased credibility and public AGAINST = A non-elected house allows for specialist knowledge, its Overall against as it would be
support and therefore would be in a better position to challenge the growing members can be chosen on the basis of experience and expertise, careeristimpossible to maintain and ensure
power of the government and the PM. It would also have greater powers as politicians would be no benefit to the political system. For example the the specialist knowledge gained from
an equally powerful second chamber would be able to veto laws leading to current House of Lords contains experts such as Lord Sainsbury and Lord the appointment of peers which
better legislation and the ability to check the Commons and prevent an Sugar. Another argument against is gridlock prevention as two Co-equal would therefore limit the Lords
elective dictatorship- full bicameralism requires two equal chambers. For chambers would be a recipe for government gridlock, if both Houses have aability as the revising chamber to
example in the USA both houses of Congress; House of Representatives and mandate who is right? For example the policies of Democrat President scrutinise and hold parliament to
the Senate, are co-equals and there is no "upper" or "lower" chamber and no Obama like Obama Care were repeatedly blocked by a Republican dominated account, it would also slow down law
hierarchical relationship between them. This would limit government Congress. making processes and weaken
dominance. government power.
FOR = An elected chamber would allow for wider representation through the AGAINST = A non-elected house allows for descriptive representation as it is Overall against as Lords is
use of different electoral systems and dates to ensure representation meets difficult for elected peers to make sure they resemble the social makeup of representative in nature due to the
the current view of citizens, this would reduce the dominance of the South. If it society as the makeup of the Commons demonstrates. For example only 1% way seats are allocated based on
was elected using a system of proportional representation it would allow of MP's elected in 2005 represented an ethnic minority and most are career seats in the Commons, the argument
small parties to have more influence on the legislative process. The Greens politicians, Charles Kennedy, for instance, was elected as an MP at just 23. for a more proportional that is
have benefited from the use of the Additional Member System for the Scottish The current chamber more closely mirrors the popular vote at the last representative HOL isn’t strong
Parliament and Northern Ireland Assembly, and UKIP from the use of party list general election than the Commons. For example the Greens also have 1 seat enough to out weight it’s other
for the European Parliament. in the House of Lords while the Lib Dems have 100. drawbacks.
FOR = An elected chamber would grant democratic legitimacy, the only basis AGAINST = In a non-elected house, appointed members are less partisan, Overall against, as a lack of
for legitimate rule in a democracy is popular consent delivered through allowing Lords to think for themselves and are able to tackle unpopular long partisanship is important in the lords
competitive elections. Electing the second chamber would provide it with an term decisions. For example the current Lords rejected the old Labour to prevent government from
electoral mandate with the backing and consent of the public. Another government’s bills frequently whilst commons only defeated government dominating parliament. If an elected
argument is that an appointed second chamber is not accountable to public once! Voting apathy would also increase with a new set of elections, second chamber leads to a
opinion, by electing the second chamber they would become more responsive Parliament has one democratic house, no public desire for another which government with a majority in both
to public opinion and take into account the possible impact of their actions on would damage the credibility of the 2nd house. For example voting turnout is house it would effectively lead to an
the public. For example there are still 92 hereditary peers in the House of Lords already low and even if we exclude MEPs there are at present 969 elected elective dictatorship with no checks
and all Lords are life peers office holders above local level in the UK. Do we really need an additional or balances in place to protect
400+? civilians.
In conclusion, If there was ever a time to reform the Lords it would be now: the current chamber sits in limbo as a half-way house after Labour’s last attempt at reform in 1999; as a result of the 2005
Constitutional Reform Act the office of Lord Chancellor has been has been stripped of its legal and legislative functions, and the Law Lords are moving to a new home at Middlesex Guildhall.
Introducing elections would be the final step in the process of tidying up some of the anomalies of the old House.
