Add Your Idea

Abolition of the House of Lords

3 Comments 15th July 2010

To abolish the House of Lords.

Why does this matter?

The original House of Lords was composed of persons there by hereditary right. This had the disadvantage that the peers were seen by the public as having a privilege to which, in a democratic society, they had no proper right.

The one good aspect (apart from the fact that most peers were of longstanding British origins) of the original system was that the selection (i.e. by birth) was random and could include the most unusual and eccentric views.

The introduction of life peers in the 1950's was a step forward but  led to peerages not only for those with specialized or erudite general knowledge, but also for political party placemen and timeservers.

The attempted reform by Tony Blair's government after 1997 has been unsuccessful and has been a method of continuing the political party timeserver peerages while eliminating most others. It has also been a method by which Conservative and Labour parties have introduced persons from the ethnic minorities into the legislature, persons who have not been and probably would not have been elected to the Commons.

The result today is that there are ministers and Secretaries of State who have never been elected and never would be, such as "Baroness" Warsi, a Cabinet member "without portfolio", i.e. window dressing.

The same is true of people appointed for other public relations purposes, such as the latest peer, "Baroness" Newlove, who has been appointed because it looks good to appoint an "ordinary citizen" who has suffered a violent crime and wishes apparently to stop people drinking and fighting. Very commendable, but is that what we wish for in a member of the upper house?

The only solution is to abolish the now-damaged Lords. There can be committees to examine legislation and send it back to the Commons after revision. The Lords is now not fit for any purpose.

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

Highlighted posts


3 Responses to Abolition of the House of Lords

  1. A W Jones says:

    The Lords is an affront to democracy. After the recent debate on benefits it shows that they are utterly out of touch with reality (especially the Bishops)

    It is part of the (upper) class culture that ordinary people do not have any chance of handling the levers of power-note Conservative & Lib leaders are public schoolboys & useless Miliband is from a comfortable background – they just play around with us- forget labour MPs they condone the system

    We need a written constitution on the powers of PM & thought whether we need a 2nd chamber (elected)

    p.s. The title House of Common(ers) & Lords must be abolished to something more suitable. Should the monarchy be abolished? No chance! Women love it!

    We are now in the 21st Century but our learned politicians, Church of England, public schools & Monarchy are still in the 19th century

    A W Jones

    The riots are a foretaste to come

    • Les Allen says:

      This assembly consists of almost 800 unelected parasites who should be set to work on hard labour for minimum wage.

  2. Paul rice says:

    That are an anachronism and freeloaders get rid of them

Comment on this idea

Good idea? Bad idea? Let us know your thoughts.


Back to top
Add Your Idea