Should we keep the house of lords?

Watch
Poll: Should the House of Lords exist?
Yes, it should exist (12)
44.44%
No, we should get rid of it (7)
25.93%
Emm... We should replace it with an elected chamber. (8)
29.63%
RuWill2001
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
Simple question; Yes or No?
0
reply
Jonathan Crane
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
No. Any house where Bishops are automatically given a say in the running of the country is outdated and unnecessary.
1
reply
El Salvador
Badges: 21
#3
Report 5 years ago
#3
Yes and no.

It's good to have a House of Lords that doesn't cost anything and doesn't meet and doesn't have any power but a group of people who could advise and lobby the government. It's almost meritocracy.
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 5 years ago
#4
As much as there's a bit of sentimentality attached to it, I want to see a House of Lords that's entirely appointed for life terms. I don't think hereditary peers or bishops are defensible. I would like to see a revising chamber of some of the foremost people in our society, appointed on the basis of merit. Perhaps there should be some scope for appointing Government ministers to the body for the length of their tenure in office, giving them some degree of parliamentary accountability without creating long-term political appointments.

It's baffling to suggest the UK should be run with a unicameral parliament. It's quite simply ineffective, and throws the baby out with the bathwater. I do not see any great merit in it being elected either, as that simply replicates the Commons and creates a rival institution which would be more comfortable with using procedure to assert authority.

We ought to have a strengthened Parliament Act to ensure the continued supremacy of the Commons, and we should pension off some of the Lords to reduce the size of the institution.
0
reply
hektik
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#5
Report 5 years ago
#5
(Original post by RuWill2001)
Simple question; Yes or No?
I think it would be really cool if we got rid of them and filled the chamber with rival groups of goblins.
0
reply
username1221160
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6
Report 5 years ago
#6
Keep but it needs reform. Ditch the bishops, hereditary peers and those who buy their way in with party donations.
0
reply
JeremyOU
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#7
Report 5 years ago
#7
(Original post by L i b)
As much as there's a bit of sentimentality attached to it, I want to see a House of Lords that's entirely appointed for life terms. I don't think hereditary peers or bishops are defensible. I would like to see a revising chamber of some of the foremost people in our society, appointed on the basis of merit. Perhaps there should be some scope for appointing Government ministers to the body for the length of their tenure in office, giving them some degree of parliamentary accountability without creating long-term political appointments.

thats the idea of the house of lords, it is already like that.

It's baffling to suggest the UK should be run with a unicameral parliament. It's quite simply ineffective, and throws the baby out with the bathwater. I do not see any great merit in it being elected either, as that simply replicates the Commons and creates a rival institution which would be more comfortable with using procedure to assert authority.

hear, hear

We ought to have a strengthened Parliament Act to ensure the continued supremacy of the Commons, and we should pension off some of the Lords to reduce the size of the institution.

aye
good stuff
0
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#8
Report 5 years ago
#8
No


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Farm_Ecology
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#9
Report 5 years ago
#9
(Original post by L i b)
I would like to see a revising chamber of some of the foremost people in our society, appointed on the basis of merit.
Completely agree. I think there would be a lengthy discussion as to what would be grounds to be a part of the House of Lords, and who members would be appointed by.
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#10
Report 5 years ago
#10
Keep it, but substantially reform. It should not be elected.

Cap numbers, and make appointments more merit-based rather than on the PM's whim. Remove the remaining hereditaries and Bishops. A new Parliament Act that gives the Lords a delay, not a veto, over secondary legislation.
0
reply
Arbolus
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#11
Report 5 years ago
#11
(Original post by Farm_Ecology)
Completely agree. I think there would be a lengthy discussion as to what would be grounds to be a part of the House of Lords, and who members would be appointed by.
Agreed. As an interim measure, I would suggest simply expanding the role of the House of Lords Appointments Commission. It's already responsible for nominating the vast majority of non-partisan peers (and has done a fairly good job of it so far), so I see no reason that it can't also take over from the PM the nomination of party affiliated peers and gradually fade these out altogether.

Since the appointments themselves are still formally made by the Queen as part of the royal prerogative, this probably wouldn't even need any legislation to implement. An order in council would likely be sufficient.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 5 years ago
#12
I have a mild preference for an elected chamber but it's a needless fight and so were i PM, i'd be unlikely to bring through unless it was near the end of my second or third term and i wanted to bow out in glory after pissing off half the party.

It's much more important to me that we cut the number back to say 500 (75% for parties, 25% for cross benchers).

I'd not mind bringing back the law lords, if they have the time then it's more efficient.
0
reply
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report 5 years ago
#13
Would like to see a House which had little power to control the passage of legislation but which contained many with specialist knowledge who could review legislation. i.e. the current House is terrible (hereditary peerages should be scrapped entirely ASAP) but I can't support an elected chamber either.
0
reply
Arbolus
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#14
Report 5 years ago
#14
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
Would like to see a House which had little power to control the passage of legislation but which contained many with specialist knowledge who could review legislation. i.e. the current House is terrible (hereditary peerages should be scrapped entirely ASAP) but I can't support an elected chamber either.
The Lords needs to have some power to control legislation, otherwise whoever controls the Commons could simply ignore it if they don't like what they hear. It would become just another think tank.



Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#15
Report 5 years ago
#15
(Original post by Arbolus)
The Lords needs to have some power to control legislation, otherwise whoever controls the Commons could simply ignore it if they don't like what they hear. It would become just another think tank.



Posted from TSR Mobile
Yes, but I feel the current procedure, even with the Parliament Acts, is too stringent.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How are you feeling about starting university this autumn?

Really excited (64)
21.84%
Excited but a bit nervous (132)
45.05%
Not bothered either way (36)
12.29%
I'm really nervous (61)
20.82%

Watched Threads

View All