Critically Assess the Arguments in Favour of a Fully Elected Second Chamber.

759 Words4 Pages
Critically assess the arguments in favour of a fully elected second chamber. The House of Lords is the upper house of Parliament that consists of approximately 760 members including hereditary elected peers, Archbishops/Bishops and elected peers which are the majority in the House of Lords. Currently, all the members of the House of Lord are appointed by the Queen based on the recommendation of the Prime Minister due to their expertise in a particular field such as medicine, law, environment etc. However- over the years, the fact that the upper chamber is fully appointed has been criticised and other suggestions such as a fully elected second chamber or a partly elected, partly appointed chamber have been made. Arguments supporting the idea that the second chamber should be fully elected include the idea that it would be more democratic to have an elected legislature which is relevant as the United Kingdom is a democratic country. In 1999, when Tony Blair was in office- the House of Lords act was pass which removed all but 92 hereditary peers from sitting and voting in the House of Lords. This was mainly triggered by the fact that when Thatcher wanted to pass the poll tax, the Lords were threating to not pass the bill, so the government decided to persuade hereditary peers who would not normally vote to vote for the poll tax which caused the legislation to pass. When Gordon Brown was in power from 2007-2010, he was unable to complete the reform of the upper house as he did not have the time due to the economic crisis, however- when the coalition came to office in 2010, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats were both committed to reforming the second chamber by having it completely elected by using proportional representation. There have Proportional representation would make the second chamber more representative as it would allow smaller parties to have a
Open Document