The House of Lords does not perform its functions efficiently and should be replaced
The House of Lords is the second chamber of UK Parliament. It plays a crucial role in
examining bills, questioning government action and investigating public policy. Currently in
the UK most members in the House of Lords are appointed by the IAC and sit in the House
of Lords for life while 92 hereditary peers still exist with 29 bishops. Therefore, a lot of
people believe that this system of appointment is undemocratic as no other modern
democracy has a system where legislative powers is passed on as a birth right. Therefore, it
can be said the House of Lords is efficient, but it also can be said that it is undemocratic and
therefore should be reformed.
It can bee seen that an elected chamber would grant democratic legitimacy, the only basis
for legitimate rule in a democracy is popular consent delivered through competitive
elections. Electing the second chamber would provide it with an electoral mandate with the
consent of the public. Another argument is that an appointed second chamber is not
accountable to public opinion, by electing the second chamber they would become more
responsive to public opinion and take into account the possible impact of their actions on
the public. For example there are still 92 hereditary peers in the House of Lords and all Lords
are life peers. In a non-elected house, appointed members are less partisan, allowing Lords
to think for themselves and are able to tackle unpopular long term decisions. For example
the current Lords rejected the old Labour government’s bills frequently whilst commons
only defeated government once! Voting apathy would also increase with a new set of
elections, Parliament has one democratic house, no public desire for another which would
damage the credibility of the 2nd house. For example voting turnout is already low and even
if we exclude MEPs there are at present 969 elected office holders above local level in the
UK. Overall against, as a lack of partisanship is important in the lords to prevent government
from dominating parliament. If an elected second chamber leads to a government with a
majority in both house it would effectively lead to an elective dictatorship with no checks or
balances in place to protect civilians.
Furthermore it can be said that an elected chamber would have increased credibility and
public support and therefore would be in a better position to challenge the growing power
of the government and the PM. It would also have greater powers as an equally powerful
second chamber would be able to veto laws leading to better legislation and the ability to
check the Commons and prevent an elective dictatorship- full bicameralism requires two
equal chambers. For example in the USA both houses of Congress; House of Representatives
and the Senate. This would limit government dominance. A non-elected house allows for
specialist knowledge, its members can be chosen on the basis of experience and expertise,
careerist politicians would be no benefit to the political system. Overall against as it would
be impossible to maintain and ensure the specialist knowledge gained from the
appointment of peers which would therefore limit the Lords ability as the revising chamber
to scrutinise and hold parliament to account, it would also slow down law making processes
and weaken government power.
All in all it can be said that the House of Lords doesn’t need to be replaced, as it is efficient
and hard to change. On the other hand it is not, as democratic as it could be and therefore it
The House of Lords is the second chamber of UK Parliament. It plays a crucial role in
examining bills, questioning government action and investigating public policy. Currently in
the UK most members in the House of Lords are appointed by the IAC and sit in the House
of Lords for life while 92 hereditary peers still exist with 29 bishops. Therefore, a lot of
people believe that this system of appointment is undemocratic as no other modern
democracy has a system where legislative powers is passed on as a birth right. Therefore, it
can be said the House of Lords is efficient, but it also can be said that it is undemocratic and
therefore should be reformed.
It can bee seen that an elected chamber would grant democratic legitimacy, the only basis
for legitimate rule in a democracy is popular consent delivered through competitive
elections. Electing the second chamber would provide it with an electoral mandate with the
consent of the public. Another argument is that an appointed second chamber is not
accountable to public opinion, by electing the second chamber they would become more
responsive to public opinion and take into account the possible impact of their actions on
the public. For example there are still 92 hereditary peers in the House of Lords and all Lords
are life peers. In a non-elected house, appointed members are less partisan, allowing Lords
to think for themselves and are able to tackle unpopular long term decisions. For example
the current Lords rejected the old Labour government’s bills frequently whilst commons
only defeated government once! Voting apathy would also increase with a new set of
elections, Parliament has one democratic house, no public desire for another which would
damage the credibility of the 2nd house. For example voting turnout is already low and even
if we exclude MEPs there are at present 969 elected office holders above local level in the
UK. Overall against, as a lack of partisanship is important in the lords to prevent government
from dominating parliament. If an elected second chamber leads to a government with a
majority in both house it would effectively lead to an elective dictatorship with no checks or
balances in place to protect civilians.
Furthermore it can be said that an elected chamber would have increased credibility and
public support and therefore would be in a better position to challenge the growing power
of the government and the PM. It would also have greater powers as an equally powerful
second chamber would be able to veto laws leading to better legislation and the ability to
check the Commons and prevent an elective dictatorship- full bicameralism requires two
equal chambers. For example in the USA both houses of Congress; House of Representatives
and the Senate. This would limit government dominance. A non-elected house allows for
specialist knowledge, its members can be chosen on the basis of experience and expertise,
careerist politicians would be no benefit to the political system. Overall against as it would
be impossible to maintain and ensure the specialist knowledge gained from the
appointment of peers which would therefore limit the Lords ability as the revising chamber
to scrutinise and hold parliament to account, it would also slow down law making processes
and weaken government power.
All in all it can be said that the House of Lords doesn’t need to be replaced, as it is efficient
and hard to change. On the other hand it is not, as democratic as it could be and therefore it
