Should the UK keep the House of Lords?

Should the second chamber have elected officials or should we just have a unicameral system?

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

MartinII · 70-79, M

Not sure what you mean by officials. Elected members perhaps? In any event, I take the old-fashioned view that the House of Lords was better when it was composed of the aristocracy, rather than hundreds of political placemen and women as it is now.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

Yes but that was still bad. Neither cronies or lords are Dmocratic

MartinII · 70-79, M

@Burnley123: That's not what the Lords is for. The Commons is democratic - not strictly, but in the modern sense.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@MartinII: We need both to be Democratic. It is the 21st century, not the 19th. If you want tradition, build a museum.

MartinII · 70-79, M

@Burnley123: I don't agree. In the British system, unlike the American, the Lords is subordinate to the Commons, which can always get its way in the end. Therefore, no need for the Lords to be "democratic". Indeed, positively undesirable in my opinion.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@MartinII: If there is no need for the Lords to be Democratic then there is no need for it at all.

MartinII · 70-79, M

@Burnley123: I don't feel strongly about the case for a second chamber, either way. But if you have one, whose purpose is sometimes to encourage the elected chamber to think again, best that its members are chosen abitrarily. Having hereditary peers is one way of doing that. Drawing lots is another.