What do you think of the House of Lords not being directly elected by the people?

Question

Isn't this very undemocratic? I, for one, would like more involvement as a citizen in our government and to have less party loyalty in Parliament. Once a PM is in power, he or she will have full power that is virtually unchecked because all bills will pass without a problem.

And some of the seats in the House of Lord are still hereditary which I object to.

Comments?

The whole point is for leaders to be afraid of public opinion so that they are accountable to the people. The last thing citizens want is for unelected people to have control, which can only lead to corruption.

Answer 1

It has served this country well for hundreds of years until the
bloody socialists messed around with it!

Answer 2

Hereditary peers, like the Monarch, are taught from their childhood of their duty to the people of Britain. Human nature dictates that some will be flawed, but nevertheless in general our hereditary peers have served this country far better than our elected politicians.

As is written elsewhere in these answers, standing for election is to an extent a popularity contest. Equally, the party system diverts MPs away from what they think and what their constituents want.

The revamped Lords still maintains the old values to an extent but, given that up until the police investigation you could merely BUY your place, it is to a large extent discredited.

Parliament pre-Blair was a much more accountable place than it is now. The Prime Minister used to appear regularly and the House of Lords was where the checks and balances lay.

Our rights and freedoms have been systematically eroded by "New" Labour and will continue to be until they are removed from power.

It won't be long - on the News the other day the current situation was described as "like watching the collapse of Major's Government, but in fast-forward".

Answer 3

The worst thing to happen was getting rid of most of the hereditary peers. Before you start shouting, they were the last bastion of democracy and common sense that we had in this country. Peers understand people better than you might think. They don't live in ivory towers and those with great estates actually talk to their workers and tenants and know what their problems are.
It is not the peers who are the problem, it the the johnny come latelys and politicos who wouldn't know what independence of mind was if it hit them in the face.
Think about it. When France was sending its aristocracy to the guillotine (and boy, did the average French citizen have a grievance) and Russia replaced its repressive Tsarist regime with an even more repressive regime and, since then, various other European countries have become republics but the UK remained exactly the same. Our constitutional monarchy, along with countries such as Holland, Norway and Denmark seem to work ok. Don't mend what's not broken.

Answer 4

Government is about making hard and sometimes unpopular decisions. If your ability to cling to power is based upon some kind of popularity contest, you'll make the decisions you think will get you elected again, and not the decisions that you ought to make, for the best outcome.

Having unelected lords, just like unelected judges, means that they're not afraid of public opinion, they're not afraid of party leaders or of anything that might be used to remove an MP. They don't indulge in the same yaa-boo-sucks politics as the MPs, and they're not afraid of agreeing with their opponents if they believe them to be right.

There is a far better standard of debate in the House of Lords, and they ought to be left alone. In fact, I'd see about bringing back all the hereditary peers if I could. It would do something to redress the balance of recent governments stacking the upper house with their political cronies.

There's more to representative and responsible government than just getting elected.

Answer 5

Sometimes the belted Earls have a greater grasp of reality then our so called elected representatives. It is good not to have a second chamber not dependent on the goodwill of the ruling government. At the moment it is one of the few checks on the stupidity of the House of Commons which is why the elected politicians want to emasculate it. An elected second house will only serve to increase the power of the government. I am not suggesting the House of Lords is free from stupidity but it does take a more measured look at proposed legislation

Answer 6

The House of lords lost it`s right to hereditary seats some years ago,,of the 1,400+ tittled persons in the UK less than 300 still have the right to take office in the House of Lords,,although the tittle will be passed on from one generation to another for older tittles the new ones being dished out will only stand for one generation,,their sons and daughters will have no right of passage,,
Most pears who sit in the House are appointed by the government as either ex MPs or business leaders as well as church leaders and leaned professionals,,eg,at least one heart surgeon and one noted paediatrician,,they are elected by the standing government and have earned a place,,
As for electorial voting for the House of Lords I am not 100% sure about that ,,if you check out thier history you will notice that most government white papers are returned to the House of Commons for reapraisal,as it usually gets a big thumbs down from the House of Lords,
The house of Lords has traditionally been a checking point for government and never rubber stamp anything,,,

Answer 7

i 'm not always in favour of the house of lords but i think they are essential. due to the fact they are not elected they do not need to worry about being in favour. over the years they have done a great deal to save the nation for the ineptitude of the elected governments. not to mention PM's as bad as the current Emperor Gordon Brownaparte. hereditary or not . we do need them this is why we also have the house of COMMONS it was not called that by chance..

not all elected government works. we need a balance , i think it is found this way. the elected government holds most of the power !! now look at the mess the country is in

Answer 8

Having a House of Lords helps maintain a balance in our government. Unfortunately, due to a large percentage of the Lords now being made up of ex M.P.s and being affiliated to one political party or another, they are losing the one good reason for having them and that is impartiality. They are not altogether useless since on occasion a bill is returned to the Commons for amendment.

Answer 9

I agree with you completely. i think some thing power full needs to be there to regulate movements by the government. i understand the principal. i just think that the wrong end of the social scale is in place. the lords do not! speak for the people. and frankly have proved as corrupt as the government. (the house of commens is a joke! frankly) i mean!! at the moment we have a sittuation where an illegal immigrant walks into this country and is entitled to legal aid, and yet a British servicemens family are refused it for the inquest into he's death. the man died serving he's country, and this government is allowed to insult he's family like that??.......the lords are not there for the things that matter to the people. they are just there to keep the establishment in controle. i think there is an argument for people from the ground to regulate the government, and i think we have all seen ' particularly from this labour government' that very strict corruption laws need to be put in place. the labour party seems to be alive! with crooks and nest featherer's and yet! there is nothing in place to stop it effectively. I'm all for scrapping the lords and replacing it with some thing more within the 21st century, and made up of ground level people. there seems to be all!! regulation....but not where it aught to be.

Answer 10

Sorry I do not agree with your observations , the House of Lords, is made up of top professionals in their own field of expertise and it has done great service to this country for many years,and continues to do so. The removal of some hereditary titles was, a correct way to go,but I feel we now have, Suitable balance in the House,

Answer 11

nicely, the BNP stood in in basic terms over 0.5 of the seats and have been given a million.9% of the votes. PR usually has a 5% shrink off factor. The BNP does no longer have have been on condition that. on the ecu election, with PR, the BNP did no longer get sufficient votes to benefit 5% at a uk regular Election. UKIP would have have been given truly truly some seats, had the ecu vote been taken in. however the UKIP vote falls away in a suited election, with the aid of fact human beings see them as a one coverage celebration.