How it Works0 min ago
Abolishing The House Of Lords
This poll is closed.
Should the House Of Lords be abolished?
- No, replace it with something democratic. - 139 votes
- 41%
- Yes, abolish it (and don't replace it). - 122 votes
- 36%
- No, leave it as it is. - 51 votes
- 15%
- No, replace it with something appointed. - 30 votes
- 9%
Stats until: 13:43 Sat 21st Dec 2024 (Refreshed every 5 minutes)
© AnswerBank Ltd 2000 - 2024. All Rights Reserved.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by AB Editor. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
No, not really. Most people would like to remove them on democratic grounds as they're unelected. I don't know if they still have the 90 hereditary peerages in there.
They're a funny one as mostly they just rubber-stamp the government bills, but occasionally they take on the role of learned elders and kick something back on moral grounds.
They get the bills after the commons and then send back with changes, challenges, or OK it.
They're a funny one as mostly they just rubber-stamp the government bills, but occasionally they take on the role of learned elders and kick something back on moral grounds.
They get the bills after the commons and then send back with changes, challenges, or OK it.
It should be elected on a PR basis using the same election results as the Commons, which should remain FPTP.
This would mean that a party getting 4 million votes would get a voice in the legislature, if not the executive ...
It also gets past the problem of PR in the executive where small parties can act as "kingmakers", having a disproportionately large say.
This would mean that a party getting 4 million votes would get a voice in the legislature, if not the executive ...
It also gets past the problem of PR in the executive where small parties can act as "kingmakers", having a disproportionately large say.
"why do we even need a second house?"
Ideally it would be to keep the HoC in check.
Ellipsis's idea has lots of benefits, but it locks the election cycle in, which can be seen as a weakness. Other system either rotate the seats up for grabs at any one time, or have different terms for different houses.
Ideally it would be to keep the HoC in check.
Ellipsis's idea has lots of benefits, but it locks the election cycle in, which can be seen as a weakness. Other system either rotate the seats up for grabs at any one time, or have different terms for different houses.
I don't think they're brain dead; most (not the hereditaries) are specifically chosen because they've got some knowledge of the world, unlike MPs who go straight into politics from Eton (perhaps after a brief stint in a law firm). Moreover, as it's a job for life, they can safely ignore party whips, whch gives them more independence of mind than MPs.
There are some crooks there, of course, like Jeffrey Archer - but that's a failing of the systems of the lower house, which ultimately puts them there.
There are some crooks there, of course, like Jeffrey Archer - but that's a failing of the systems of the lower house, which ultimately puts them there.
As I've said elsewhere, a second elected chamber is not a good idea if you belive in the authority of parliament. Because although in theory, and probably also in practice, the Commons would still be pre-eminent, whenever there was something particularly controversial like the Brexit Bill hoo-ha, the fact that the Upper House was elected would give it an authority or an authenticity which it probably doesn't merit and would not be good for legislation.
Better an appointed - but smaller - body which, as now, has the role of debating and suggesting amendments to Commons Bills, without, as someone said above, needing to be concerned with the electoral cycle. Maybe a third of them could be elected. The trouble is you end up with endless elections: we already have quite a lot as it is. And we all hate our elected representative don't we?
Better an appointed - but smaller - body which, as now, has the role of debating and suggesting amendments to Commons Bills, without, as someone said above, needing to be concerned with the electoral cycle. Maybe a third of them could be elected. The trouble is you end up with endless elections: we already have quite a lot as it is. And we all hate our elected representative don't we?
