Should we have elections for the House of Lords?

Question

Given that the turnout for a General Election is so low anyway, how would having an elected House of Lords serve any purpose except to cost us more in polls and admin? They don't do anything except sit there and snooze anyway....

Answer 1

No, normal people like you and I are never represented in Parliament because the system is rigged. No matter which party you vote for you are denied the right to select a candidate who will represent your interests. Candidates are selected by committees and made to toe the party line.

In Britain, 88% of all M.P.'s are lawyers, hardly a representative sample of the population, and we in effect, boot one set of lawyers out of office, and vote another set in.

The House of Lords should be a hybrid parliament and made up in three equal sections. Hereditary peers, Political peers and the People's Peers.

The People's Peers should be selected not by committees, but at random and by the same computer system that is used to select members of the public for jury service.

I believe that if someone can follow the evidence and arguments in a murder trial, they can also determine whether proposed legislation is in the interest of the people they represent - us.

At least it would be democratic.

Answer 2

The ONLY reason why the present government, (such as it is), wishes to change the House of Lords, is to ensure that every tiny piece of largely worthless legislation goes through without question.

They see the House of Lords as the conservative party, which may be true to some extent.

However, there are Lords of all political persuasion, and Lords of no political persuasion (the cross-benchers), whilst there are Lord Peers and Lords Spiritual (the Bishops); all of whom have a particular view to offer.

Of one thing I am quite certain; the Lords work very hard to ensure that new law is GOOD law, and not rushed through on the whims of the lower house, for purely for political or ideological purposes.

The Lords are the ONLY people in government who don't get paid to do it, and that tells you something about their commitment to public-service, at a time when they should be enjoying their retirement.

If the lower house had half the mental (rather than physical) energy of the Lords, we might have a better government than the rather silly one we have now.

Answer 3

Yes Michael, of course we should get rid of the Lords so that the Commons can be even MORE wasteful and daft in their legislation. Naturally, their being Conservatives (Tony's cronies?) is a valid reason for abolishing them. Who wouldn't agree with getting rid of someone just because YOU don't like their political views? No matter if you're talking crap. I might as well call for the complete abolition of the Commons because I don't agree with Blair. It's as stupid a argument as the one you put forth.

We desperately need to have an Upper House. Can you imagine the rampant profligacy were the Commons allowed free reign?
I can't see any reason for further reform other than annoyance at the Lords doing its job - blocking ill thought out legislation.

Answer 4

No we shouldn't, this is just another step toward its abolition, and another step toward a totalitarian Government. What is the point of having two elected houses? One of the main purposes of the H.O.L. was to act as a check and balance on an over powerful H.O.C. which may try to pass through unconstitutional legislation, or legislation that is down right bad/dangerous for the country. By and large, prior to this governments meddling they have done that for countless years.

An elected second chamber would simply increase the danger I have referred to above, ie. a big majority of one party in the commons, and large number from the same party in the Lords. Although they would soon stop calling it the Lords, and the abolition of the Monarchy would soon follow. We have already seen how this Government have packed the Lords with cronies, further undermining the integrity of our tried and tested system of government.

These changes are based around the politics of envy, a total disrespect for the traditions of this country, and an attempt to remove unwelcome opposition to an over-powerful commons. The Blair government have been seen to sideline/ignore the commons, and even the Cabinet, keeping discussion within a tiny cohort of tried and trusted favourites, in order to help it steam roll initiatives through the commons.

An elected H.O.L. would simply be seen as competing with the H.O.C. as both would be elected houses. This state of affairs would then allow them to put the next phase into operation, which would be to propose the removal of the H.O.L. using the grounds that they themselves had brought about.

Have you noticed, the left leaning TV media, the BBC in particular, are allowing this revolutionery act to take place without hardly a peep, and without any voices of dissent.

I hope people understand that our system of Government, our democracy, is facing its greatest ever threat by a creeping 'left wing' totalitarianism, moving us as we sleep toward a 'Federal States of Europe'.

Answer 5

Why don't we get it over with and just rename ourselves the United British States.

2 Elected houses
A new supreme court
Proposed 'Highway Patrol'
Proposed 'FBI like' department

Tradition goes a long ways here in the UK and we're currently ditching everything that makes us the United 'Kingdom'. I'm not in favor disbanding the house of Lords though the cleanup of the House by removing non-participating member was the right move.

Wow Tony, what a cool solution to the current House of Lords issue. I like it - very innovative!

Answer 6

If we accept that a House of Lords (or Senate perhaps?) is required, why not have it indirectly elected using the votes cast at a general election - seats allocated to parties on a proportional system by, say, region.

Answer 7

Yes - but how will the House of Lords function as a review and revision chamber with a fully elected body?

Answer 8

Elections???...Oh no our lords are not that democratic. we've been promised an elected 2nd chamber for years and we are nevertheless waiting. the lords are chosen yet no longer by means human beings.

Answer 9

It seems to defeat the principal of having a house of lords if it is an elected body'

Answer 10

There shouldn't even be a house of Lords. I don't see them as politicians so they shouldn't even have a say in what happens in politics. I hate them all anyways because most of them are Conservative so more the reason to call for it to be removed.