Home› Archived Forums› General Discussion

The House of Lords.

InMyArmsInMyArms Posts: 50,790
Forum Member
✭
in General Discussion #1
Does anyone else find it slightly alarming that this unelected house has power to delay, for up to a year, the laws created by the (elected) house of commons? Surely that is undemocratic?

I see no issue in them having advisory roles, but to be able to delay the decisions of elected representatives seems wrong.

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 26,853
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #2
    It is wrong. And hopefully will change.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 600
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #3
    Leave 'em alone where else would they get an afternoon kip.
  • and101and101 Posts: 2,688
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #4
    It may be undemocratic but at least it stops MPs from jumping on the latest bandwagons and passing laws purely because they think it will gain them a few votes at the next election.
  • VoynichVoynich Posts: 14,481
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #5
    Nothing will change as the big parties think they can control it and stack it in their favour . It's funny when it always seems to go wrong for them.!
  • CryolemonCryolemon Posts: 8,670
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #6
    and101 wrote: »
    It may be undemocratic but at least it stops MPs from jumping on the latest bandwagons and passing laws purely because they think it will gain them a few votes at the next election.

    Pretty much. I'd actually like it to have slightly more power.
  • AndrueAndrue Posts: 23,360
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #7
    No. They often do a good job of curbing the worst excesses of our elected MPs.
  • wns_195wns_195 Posts: 13,566
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #8
    I can honestly say I haven't suffered as a result of the current powers of the House of Lords. I predict that if these arrangements don't change while I'm alive, I'll continue to be as unaffected by them as I have been so far.
  • Big Boy BarryBig Boy Barry Posts: 35,373
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #9
    InMyArms wrote: »
    Does anyone else find it slightly alarming that this unelected house has power to delay, for up to a year, the laws created by the (elected) house of commons? Surely that is undemocratic?

    I see no issue in them having advisory roles, but to be able to delay the decisions of elected representatives seems wrong.

    A delay is often a good thing. The Commons often panders to knee-jerk public opinion.
  • Welsh-ladWelsh-lad Posts: 51,924
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #10
    It has worked very well as a revising chamber, in my view.
    Some of the debates there are truly fascinating.

    They are often far more statesman-like and wise than that shower you get in the HoC.
  • Big Boy BarryBig Boy Barry Posts: 35,373
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #11
    If they reform the system, we should have a system like the US Senate. Keep the name "House of Lords". Have two seats in the chamber from each traditional county. Elect them for six year terms, but have the elections unconnected to political parties. You stand for election as non-party aligned individuals. They'll have the power to delay Commons bills or block them entirely, and may offer advice and counsel.
  • Watcher #1Watcher #1 Posts: 9,041
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #12
    A revising chamber is required. However, the current system of placemen, heriditary peers and religious leaders is inherently undemocratic.
  • Big Boy BarryBig Boy Barry Posts: 35,373
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #13
    All the old duffers in there only due to their daddies and the clerical fairy-tale believers should be out. If they want to stand for election, fair enough. But they need to be there with permission.
  • AndrueAndrue Posts: 23,360
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #14
    Big Boy Barry wrote: »
    If they reform the system, we should have a system like the US Senate. Keep the name "House of Lords". Have two seats in the chamber from each traditional county. Elect them for six year terms, but have the elections unconnected to political parties. You stand for election as non-party aligned individuals. They'll have the power to delay Commons bills or block them entirely, and may offer advice and counsel.
    I'm not convinced that works very well. It often ends up in stalemate and a weak president who struggles to get permission to blow his own nose.

    I like that our system does at least allow the government to force something through. I think they should always have that ability and simply have a strong delaying house is enough.
    Watcher #1 wrote: »
    A revising chamber is required. However, the current system of placemen, heriditary peers and religious leaders is inherently undemocratic.
    But it works quite well. Probably because when push comes to shove all they can really do is kick up a stink and slow things down.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,294
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #15
    You get a majority in the house of commons on 37% of the popular vote.

    With a majority you can pass any law you like, subject to the unlikely possibility your own MPs will rebel.

    The idea that 37% of the electorate should be able to tyrannise the majority of the country just because they all voted for the same party is profoundly undemocratic. The House of Lords is an imperfect way of ensuring the other 73% of people's interests are considered. It is certainly better than having no way to do that at all.
  • grumpyscotgrumpyscot Posts: 11,353
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #16
    englandsglory wrote: »
    Leave 'em alone where else would they get an afternoon kip.

    And get paid lots of money and get lots of benefits that the general public have to do without so that the lords can live their lives of luxury
  • AndrueAndrue Posts: 23,360
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #17
    grumpyscot wrote: »
    And get paid lots of money and get lots of benefits that the general public have to do without so that the lords can live their lives of luxury
    As opposed to the democratically elected house where everyone lives a life of quiet abstinence and honest austerity?
  • citizenx103citizenx103 Posts: 1,452
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #18
    InMyArms wrote: »
    Does anyone else find it slightly alarming that this unelected house has power to delay, for up to a year, the laws created by the (elected) house of commons? Surely that is undemocratic?

    I see no issue in them having advisory roles, but to be able to delay the decisions of elected representatives seems wrong.

    Nope, its an important check on the powers of parliament and worked well to prevent some bad legislation getting through.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 22,736
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #19
    I find it worrying that laws are made as the result of discussion that includes jeering and heckling each other, whilst waving pieces of paper in the air... there is better behaviour in a primary school playground.

    Maybe they sould all do a bit more listening and a lot less heckling.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,693
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #20
    I won't add my opinion because I simply don't have time.

    A couple of observations:
    • The OP's opening statement is factually inaccurate.
    • Several people have contributed as to the benefits of the House of Lords, however those against only seem to be able to offer insults and stereotypes.
  • JB3JB3 Posts: 9,308
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #21
    The house of lords seems to work ok.

    I'm open to being proved wrong.
  • JB3JB3 Posts: 9,308
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #22
    Big Boy Barry wrote: »
    All the old duffers in there only due to their daddies and the clerical fairy-tale believers should be out. If they want to stand for election, fair enough. But they need to be there with permission.
    You haven't actually done any research have you?

    Just popped in here to make a sweeping generalisation, based on prejudice.
Sign In or Register to comment.