• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Evaluate the arguments for and against a directly elected House of Lords

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Evaluate the arguments for and against a directly elected House of Lords The Parliament in the UK consists of the House of Commons and House of Lords. The House of Commons obtains legitimation as the members are directly elected. House of Lords however have barely any members who are directly elected. There is controversy over whether to have the whole of the House of Lords directly elected or to keep to the majority staying indirectly elected. Many are for a reform in the House of Lords so that they are directly elected. Tony Blair, the current PM staged a reform in November 1999 to get rid of hereditary peers in the House of Lords. These are people who have a healthy interest in politics and get into the House of Lords as they had family in there. ...read more.

Middle

Tony Blair believed in keeping appointed members but giving them no real decision-making authority in politics. Charters 88 are a pressure group who believes there is a better way to run this country no matter which government is in power. They strongly believe that House of Lords should be reformed. They campaign for House of Lords to be 100% directly elected and should have powers similar to the House of Commons. So Charter 88 has similar views to Billy Bragg but believe powers of both houses should be similar. So we can see there are strong arguments for a directly elected House of Lords. However, there are many arguments that are against a directly elected House of Lords. The members of the House of Lords who are independent, not attached to a party, are highly valued by the public as their views can be similar to a ...read more.

Conclusion

This will cause big competition within the department as all those within the department would be legitimised by the fact they were elected by the electorate. So we can see that there are strong arguments for and against a directly elected House of Lords. I believe a directly elected House of Lords would be good as it has legitimation so their actions would be something of the action of the people. This would mean the idea of democracy is intact. However, by directly electing members of the House of Lords there is a danger that they would abuse the fact they have legitimation for their actions and would make decisions to benefit themselves rather than benefit everyone else. Also it could potentially create anarchy within departments as all members are legitimised. So I do believe that we should not have a fully directly elected House of Lords. Manish Kerai ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level United Kingdom section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level United Kingdom essays

  1. Government & Politics Revision Notes

    Critics argue that two classes of representation are created, those who have to fight for re-election in their constituency and those whose re-election is ensured if they remain at the top of the party list. The List system This system involves multi-member constituencies.

  2. Draft a memorandum to the government evaluating the merits and demerits of differing reform ...

    It is likely that the ablest people would still wish to stand for the Commons and the second chamber would not yield any more capable talent sufficient to perform its functions than it has at present. It is very likely that the second chamber would attract those who have been

  1. What is the main reason for the loss of faith and interest in our ...

    The second reason is that the subjects that filled in the questionnaire may have shown demand characteristics, which is answering some of the questions in a socially acceptable way, or in the way that they think I wanted them to.

  2. House Of Lords Reform - What did the 1999 act reforming the lords ...

    This can be linked to low attendances of the House of Lords which has remained inconsistent after the life peerages act in 1958. However, on the other hand, the Lords could have been seen as a good second chamber who would complement the work of the lords.

  1. What Ways Did The Liberal Government Implement Social And Welfare Reforms 1906-1911 Bring About ...

    and would benefit all those who would traditionally vote for the Liberals. Much to the surprise of just about everyone, the Lords rejected the budget. In reality this meant that the government was paralysed and could do no spending and could not collect any taxes.

  2. Discuss the contention that the House of Lords is irrelevant.

    One role of the House of Lords performs is acting as a second opposition for the Governing executive, which has been especially effective during times when the Government has a large majority in the commons because of the first past the post (FPTP)

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work