If peers in the house of lords are suppost to scruitinize, review and improve legaslations passed on by the house of commons then what right do hereditary peers have to use such powers. While being a peer you not only have the right to sit and vote in the lords but you also gain all of the rights and expenses that come with the title. This can be argued as a good thing for appointed peers, people who have worked hard their whole lives and acheived outstanding merit.
Why though should hereditary peers still be allowed to sit in the lords and be entitled to the same rights and hournors of the appointed peers? Hereditary peers have not worked hard nor acheived any outstanding merit to be awarded that privalage.
Although they may do a good job it is not democratic that they can just inhereit this right because of who their father was. It is not fair that they get these extra privalages just because they were lucky enough to be born into that particular family.
Why does this idea matter?
Nick Clegg stated that he wants to bring the biggest political reform in generations, one of the best ways to deliver that would be to finish what Labour started and completly remove all hereditary peers.
While they continue to sit in the house of lords they are undermining democracy in this country and emphasizing that elitism is still a big part of our political system. To truley reform our political system, the government should focus on removing all remaining hereditary peers.