Should the House of Lords be abolished?

The House of Lords has always been a talking point in British politics, mainly over the fact that they are an unelected body and have no democratic right to determine the laws of the country. Although their power has been reduced over the years, many would argue that it is just not enough.

So why has it taken so long for the power of the House of Lords to be reduced to what it is now,
where the House is no much more than a chamber for debate? The House of Lords is highly undemocratic and in this day and age has no place in the British political system. The furore over the bill to pass foxhunting is a good example of the possible misuse of the Second Chamber. The House of Commons, who represent the ordinary people more, were heavily in favour of the ban.
However, the House of Lords were opposed - which given the typical type of person found in the House of Lords, was not surprising! In this case, The House of Lords did not represent the average people so why did they have the power to delay such a highly debated law when those who work for the people (the House of Commons) have already decided to pass it.

There is also the argument that we cannot claim to be a democracy while the House of Lords hold power to rule the decisions of the elected government. The House of Lords is seen as highly undemocratic and out of date. It can be said that peers, who are only in the position through their birthright, probably know nothing about the ordinary person and government politics. How can they have the right to decide what does and doesn’t become law when they are not being elected?

There are question marks over the individuals in the House of Lords. The fact that people can effectively donate their way into the House of Lords, and once there, assume the right to block decisions made by elected politicians in the House of Commons, is a big problem.

For all the reforms, the Lords remains an opposition to the idea of popular democracy. The life peers play the same undemocratic role as those who were born into the House of Lords through their birthright. In the old days, the Lords was simply made up of individuals who happened to be born into the right family at the right time. Today, when people are appointed by political parties, it is possible that they can be ambitious people who simply fancy a seat in the House of Lords and posh title. They are not born to be lords, and the public do not get to elect them, so why should they become Lords? It‘s a highly questionable format with people doing political favours and making monetary donations in order to effectively pay their way in. It is the undemocratic nature of the Lords and the fact that it is not elected by the public that means seats can be bought and sold between friends and acquaintances and it is this reason that many want it abolished.

The constitution and the power of the House of Lords may have changed over the decades, but its role fundamentally remains the same: to keep a check and a balance on the House of Commons, on those members of parliament we the people elect to run the country. If they are presiding over who we elect then who elects them themselves?

Supporters of the Lords point out that most modern states have two forms of legislatures, in which the chambers have different responsibilities that complement each other. An example is in the United States where there is the Senate and the House of Representatives. For this to work in the UK, however, the two chambers have to be comprised of different kinds of member; otherwise we may just as well have a larger House of Commons.

Abolition of the House of Lords without some form of revision on the House of Commons could lead to undesirable consequences. For example, it would be much easier for a Government with a small majority to press through laws that were not as accepted to the electorate than it currently would be.

Another reason to put forward to continue to with the House of Lords is simply to share the burden of the government more evenly. Parliament has an enormous deal of work to do, and the House of Lords currently does its fair share of it. However, the benefit of sharing the work must be balanced against the costs, particularly when conflicts between the chambers result in an increased workload for both. And one had better believe that there are plenty of conflicts between the two chambers!

Governments - particularly Labour Governments - have often find the influence of the Lords as a second legislative chamber to be more annoying rather than a positive thing. The power of the Lords to delay the passing of laws is still large. The Lords retain the power to force amendments on Bills from House of Commons. Of course, this is exactly what supporters of the second chamber want; they don't see it as a disadvantage. Critics, however, simply gain more and more ammunition against the House of Lords.

On the whole, there are compelling arguments for the House of Lords to be abolished, most of them revolving around the undemocratic nature of the second chamber. However, the doubts over the severity of that action and the effect it would have on the British political system mean that any reform may be a bit of while away.

(political article for University assignment)