Make Out a Case Against an Elected Second Chamber? (25 Marks)

598 Words3 Pages
Make out a case against an elected second chamber? (25 Marks) The House of Lords is part of the UK’s Parliament, and has been seen to be reformed for over 100 years. It is used as a revising chamber and is filled with unelected peers. However many see that it is an issue that they are all unelected, as many like the unlock democracy website say that "For parliament to have legitimacy, it must be elected.” One of the major ways for the House of Lords to remain unelected is that they are able to keep their views objective. This is very important in their job as they will only look for views to help the country, even if those are unpopular. Whereas if there was an elected second chamber their views would always be held accountable, but more importantly then some of their revisions may not be what is best for the country, but what the populous believe to be important, which removes the whole objectivity of the revising chamber. This issue could have been questioned under many unpopular parliamentary decisions such as with the Iraq War in 2003, where many of the voters would likely be against it as seen by the many demonstrations, whereas an expert in the Military in House of Lords may believe that it is possible to win the war, however at the next vote his skills would likely be lost when he wouldn’t be re-elected. A wholly elected upper chamber would also pose several problems in regards to the Lords’ expertise. As at the moment, the upper chamber is comprised of experts in their fields leading to high quality debates, if not higher than in the Commons. A comparison with other upper chambers abroad proves: no other second chamber achieves a similar reputation as an intellectual powerhouse as the House of Lords. This is because many members of the House of Lords are specifically appointed because of their experience and personal distinction. In an elected
Open Document