Politics of it all aside ...
Britain being the class society it is, and the House of Lords being the historical institution it is that was only ever to be entered if peerage was aqcuired through birthright.
Should commoners be allowed to sit in the House of Lords ... and if so should it be renamed to something different?
Or should commoners never be allowed to sit in the House of Lords and be gratefull that their acquired title will lead to other opportunities that go with the acquisition of a title?
Answers on an oversized postcard please :-)
2007-01-31 23:37:09 · 9 answers · asked by Part Time Cynic 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Etiquette
lousy punctuation ... don't point it out, just add your own commas please :-)
2007-01-31 23:37:56 · update #1
Spoonrake: correct me if i'm wrong but i thought that someone with an acquired peerage could sit in the House of Lords now, only their peerage does not carry on through the generations ...which is what makes a mockery of the system. There was peerage well before there were ever governments, they are corrupt in their own circles, it's the way of the world. But some in the House of Commons just feel they are too superior to be a commoner. It shows the corrupt mentality that is rife in the House of commons today. Don't blame the House of Lords for that!
2007-02-01 00:23:47 · update #2
It depends on who creates the peerages.
If the Monarch is creating the peerage, then that person should be able to sit in the House of Lords whether the title is hereditary or not.
If it's the government of the day, then no, since the Prime Ministry will simply stack the House of Lords with non-hereditary peers who will vote his way out of loyalty. This undermines the purpose of the House of Lords, which is to act as a "check and balance" to the House of Commons.
2007-02-01 00:28:58 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The House of Lords is an old, established political and to an extent, social system. Athough from the democratic view all people ought to be allowed an equal chance of sitting, it would probably be impossible to change the way things or done, or abolish it entirely.
Simply a guess on my part....
--That Cheeky Lad
2007-02-01 00:29:58 · answer #2 · answered by Charles-CeeJay_UK_ USA/CheekyLad 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If commoners were allowed to sit in the house of Lords, it would just be another house of commons, we would end up with two governments.
I think that there should be no one in the house of lords as I think it should be abolished.
1. because the politicians (appointed by the people) who act for a specific area in our country cannot get on with the job of acting for us when the houses of lords keep on throwing possible new laws back into the house of commons arena.
2. The house of Lords is not voted upon by the people so it should not be there. The days of the common people being kept in their place will never be over whilst we still allow this country to be classist. Some people with titles in Britain are disgustingly rich, we would do well to remember that the majority of people who have titles in this country have them because of the Norman invasion, i.e., our lands were stolen.
2007-02-01 00:02:41 · answer #3 · answered by Spoonraker 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The only way people should be able to sit in the House of "Lords" is by merit - popular vote or recognised expertise.
Personally, I'd like to see all titles abolished, but at the very least there should be no privileges granted just because you're the Bishop of This, or the Earl of That, particularly when it comes to governing the country.
2007-01-31 23:43:56 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think that a need exists for a second chamber in Westminster
and renamed the Upper House of Parliament. Members of which should be elected by the public.
2007-02-01 01:23:47 · answer #5 · answered by Sam 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i imagine Sri Vidya Rajgopalan has given the most ideas-blowing answer. regardless of the indisputable fact that the answer is amazingly lengthy. enable me clarify you briefly. Ram outfitted a Bridge extremely of deliver because he concept, if contained in the conflict with Ravana better military of Varana is needed then it will be user-friendly to convey reinforcement by skill of a Bridge Than to deliver deliver.
2016-12-03 07:46:22 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The house of lords should be got rid of.
2007-01-31 23:41:48 · answer #7 · answered by Ollie 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
There is no such thing as commoners, only idiots who think there are. Royalty are parasites, they are no different to the mafia, and all such vermin should and will be, wiped off the face of the earth. God save the queen? Somehow I dont think so, she is going straight to hell where she belongs.
2007-01-31 23:47:48 · answer #8 · answered by ByeBuyamericanPi 4 · 0⤊ 3⤋
They are the only ones that should be allowed IMHO
2007-02-01 00:52:29 · answer #9 · answered by Daniel T 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋