So we're to have an elected House of Lords
Why???What is the point?
OK, I might have controversial views on this topic but I believe that an elected Lords is bad for democracy. It will mean that the Lords just rubber stamp any bills passed in the Commons rather than scrutinising them and keep sending them back if they are rubbish. This is because if Labour (for example as they are currently in government) have a majority in the Commons then they are more than likely to have a majority in the Lords.
This is not the only reason that I am so against an elected Lords. I think that we have too many elections as it is and cannot see myself wanting to vote in yet another election, despite being someone who thinks that voting is really important.
Personally, I think the hereditary system was the best. It may not have been perfect but at least it worked.
posted by Average guy on the street @ 11:35 pm
4 Comments:
you make a good point.... not that I am for any reform I don't think there is anything wrong with the current system but I'v never though of it in that way.
ned (facebooker)
I agree most of what you said. I think the heriditary peers should go, but those who have demonstrated service in attending the House regulary, should be given life peerages. I think the House of Lords should remain and we should endeavour to find the best brains in every walk of life and appoint them peers. Not just retired MPs.
It was an indicative vote, Kerri, and in all probability strategic. Pay attention.
I was only giving my opinion on why I am so against an elected House of Lords and used the Commons vote as an inspiration to write the article.
Post a Comment
<< Home