The House of Lords
Should the hereditary peers in the House of Lords be removed?
For a long time there has been a debate on whether or not The House of Lords should be democratically elected. Since the government was formed the Upper House consists of hereditary peers and life peers, among others, though the number of hereditary peers has decreased. These people do not have to worry about politics and electioneering, and therefore they often revise and debate problems. No matter what they say they will not risk losing their seat in the next election. For an outsider a system like the Westminster may seem undemocratic and unfair. It may also seem like the citizens in England want to change this tradition, because in the last party manifestos in June 2012 all of the three big parties in the UK promised a democratic reform of this house (http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/house-of-lords-reform). Would UK have a more democratic and better governmental system if the peers in the Upper House were elected?
Throughout the years the House of Lords has lost several of its powers. To this day it is more of a question on how it is composed compared to the powers it has. In the beginning the peers inherited their place from a family member, but this was changed with the 1958 Act where Life Peers were introduced. The number of hereditary peers gradually decreased, and with the House of Lords Act 1999 only 92 hereditary peers remained. However, the idea of a fully elected house is the “dream” for many. They want all of the members to work for their seat and win the people’s trust. By having general elections, as they have in The House of Commons, the representation will be more spread. This would also give more people an opportunity to practice politics on a higher level. The role of the Upper House would become more important and they would get bigger responsibilities like amending legislation. With today’s system the Lords only create debate and discussion, without being able to actually
For a long time there has been a debate on whether or not The House of Lords should be democratically elected. Since the government was formed the Upper House consists of hereditary peers and life peers, among others, though the number of hereditary peers has decreased. These people do not have to worry about politics and electioneering, and therefore they often revise and debate problems. No matter what they say they will not risk losing their seat in the next election. For an outsider a system like the Westminster may seem undemocratic and unfair. It may also seem like the citizens in England want to change this tradition, because in the last party manifestos in June 2012 all of the three big parties in the UK promised a democratic reform of this house (http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/house-of-lords-reform). Would UK have a more democratic and better governmental system if the peers in the Upper House were elected?
Throughout the years the House of Lords has lost several of its powers. To this day it is more of a question on how it is composed compared to the powers it has. In the beginning the peers inherited their place from a family member, but this was changed with the 1958 Act where Life Peers were introduced. The number of hereditary peers gradually decreased, and with the House of Lords Act 1999 only 92 hereditary peers remained. However, the idea of a fully elected house is the “dream” for many. They want all of the members to work for their seat and win the people’s trust. By having general elections, as they have in The House of Commons, the representation will be more spread. This would also give more people an opportunity to practice politics on a higher level. The role of the Upper House would become more important and they would get bigger responsibilities like amending legislation. With today’s system the Lords only create debate and discussion, without being able to actually