House of Lords and Commons

REFORMS OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS AND COMMONS. Over the years, there has been a lot of problem over the very fact that the house of lords are not elected and are relatively independent of party and contains members with particular skills, expertise and interest in this kind of activities which in turn has created tensions between the commons which is a legitimate elected body, regarding their function, performances and their composition. But if we take parliament to be a collaborative set of processes in which both houses are involved it seems inappropriate to consider one house separate from the other. Perhaps this explains why the processes of reforms over the years has been a very difficult issue tackling.
Reforms of electoral system
The hereditary House of Lords was widely perceived as undemocratic. The present mixture of hereditary and appointed members was intended as an improvement, but some people think it is even worse because it gives too much power to the Prime Minister of the day. It remains hard to reach a consensus on what to do about the House of Lords. http://stvaction.org.uk/house_of_lords_reform
This is seemingly the simplest and most democratic option, leaving us to be governed by the fully elected House of Commons, but it would be desirable to improve the Commons’ power to scrutinise Government legislation, perhaps by increasing the powers of cross-party committees. To avoid the risk of an elected dictatorship, it would also be essential to curb the power of the Commons to prolong the life of Parliament without elections * Introduction * Electoral system in general – how it was before * Reforms of the house of commons – pros and cons * Reforms of the house of lords – pros and cons * What problems have been encountered reforming them separately * Why will one without the other create problem * Possible solutions * conclusion
Sources and outline
Electoral reform is change in electoral systems to improve how public