Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Should we keep the house of lords? watch

  • View Poll Results: 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%

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Simple question; Yes or No?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    No. Any house where Bishops are automatically given a say in the running of the country is outdated and unnecessary.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Keep but it needs reform. Ditch the bishops, hereditary peers and those who buy their way in with party donations.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    No


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
 
 
 
Poll
Are you going to a festival?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.