2007-03-11 12:22:22 · 8 answers · asked by ? 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
My preference would for a House of Lords populated solely by the Law Lords and Hereditary Peers from old families.
The rational is as follows:
1. The Law Lords because of their wisdom, experience and ability to guide The House.
2. Although many politicians may begin with idealist good intentions, there is often a conflict between following their consciouses and enjoying successful careers. The increase in wealth of relatively modest MPs in the governing party is frequently far in excess of the accumulation of their Parliamentary salaries.
By having the old titled families in the House of Lords, one is assured of the following:
a. Being already very wealthy, they will be much less vulnerable to political or financial pressure and will be more likely to vote based on conscience and principles.
b. Having many generations of roots in this country, their loyalty to the Country, its people, traditions and culture is less likely to be in doubt than a less established person.
2007-03-11 12:53:41 · answer #1 · answered by Clive 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The one great beauty of the House of Lords, back in the day, was that they were not elected, and had an independant viewpoint. Unfortuneately, or, maybe, not, there was a bias towards a conservative stance - hence the earlier reforms which did away with hereditary peerages.
Having an elected upper house, in my opinion, ties the peer to a party.
Having appointed peers is similar.
I don't have an answer except to go back to the old system, because that is the only one which was truly independant of governmental influence, and there were, in fact, many fiercely left wing peers despite the conservative tendency.
2007-03-11 14:50:59 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Just how long has the House of Lords been going, and why should the House of Commons change the system. Just how much will this cost and who will pay for it? Yes us the people ! So it about time for the Govenment all of it, started to listen to what we want before we change the House of Commons or even better get rid of it . The House of Lords are OK at least they listen , that's why the Commons whant it changed.
2007-03-11 14:57:19 · answer #3 · answered by Stephen A 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It is actually a sham. It might as well be abolished. I will explain. If elected, I read that the main parties will put candidates forward. That is to say it will be packed with Labour and Con Lords under the whips, so in an important vote, they will just rubber stamp whatever they are asked to stamp. Which defeats the object of an independent House of Lords. Another nail in Democracy's coffin. Dead!
2007-03-11 13:40:36 · answer #4 · answered by K. Marx iii 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, it should revert to what it was, a correction and balance mechanism. Although appointed by the government and both opposition parties, it showed a great deal of independence even with the whips in place.
2007-03-12 04:53:47 · answer #5 · answered by thevoice 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm confused by all this. I've been in this country for 5 years and still don't understand what each one does.
2007-03-11 12:25:43 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think we have too many legislative organs as it is...
2007-03-11 12:45:02 · answer #7 · answered by knight2001us 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
who would gandalf the grey vote for?
2007-03-11 12:25:36 · answer #8 · answered by crunchymonkey 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋