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

Should the House of Lord have elected peers?

Extracts from this document...


j.t Elected House of Lords The House of Lords has many unelected Hereditary peers however would elected peers be a better option for the second chamber? Elected peers may result to rota system to represent minorities, there would be a large focus on getting re-elected as opposed to on work, and many people may lack experience, the chamber would become more focused on party politics as opposed to simply scrutinizing legislation. Firstly as a result of an elected house of lords there could be an emphasis on getting re-elected which would result in more political ties and campaigns, this would also be a drain on time as well as money. Peers should spend their time working on relevant issues as opposed to trying to get re-election, various models of electing peers also relies on the peers being situated into a constituency which would create further complications and ?safe seats?. ...read more.


Finally all previous points are hindered by the fact that an elected house of lords would have a large amount of party politics which could result in gridlock. This would mean that no legislation would be passed with ease and everything would take a prolonged amount of time to complete. This would be through disagreements within both houses as the roll of party politics would become more prominent, peers are currently fairly impartial and act on their own behalf with little intervention from parties and whips. An increase in elections for votes may result in ?voter fatigue? which is when voters do not feel the need to vote as elections are become to frequent and common and obscuring everyday life and creating inconvenience, also some voters feel that an elected second chamber would simply be unnecessary as the current model works fine with no problems. ...read more.


An elected second chamber would negatively influence parliament for several reasons the mere fact that it is said to legitimize the second house is irrelevant as it is legitimate through the process which peers are appointed in the sense that the PM is elected thus it is a form of indirect democracy. Time would be wasted elected peers focusing on getting re-elected; the peers would lack expertise that their predecessors have, party politics and lines would hinder decision making. Voters may decline as a result in an increase in frequency of elections and finally a mirror image of the House of Commons is aimless, if this is the illogical intention of an elected chamber, why not enlarge the House of Commons. Written without any factual knowledge. Xxxx Love Daniel Swift ...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

    small party the balance of power and puts it in the position of "king-maker." It can decide which larger party it joins to form a government majority. Thus it can be a small party, not the voters, that really decides who wins the election.

  2. Reforming the Lords - Elected Second Chamber

    Without the scrutiny of the House of Lords there would not be any counterweight against elective dictatorship, because the House of Commons could otherwise easily pass their bills.5 Would this vital function be preserved in both elected and appointed chambers?

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