What is the point of an all elected House of Lords? I thought the house of lords was supposed to be a kind of safety net against normal democratic swings leading to spurious legislation from an overly one-sided commons. Making the Lords all elected makes it just as susceptible to these swings surely. I don't know what the better option is, just don't really see the point of this. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6429371.stm
Hmmmm maybe to be a kind of safety net against normal democratic swings leading to spurious legislation from an overly one-sided commons.
then what is the point of an elected government? why does the government need regulating by the ruling class?
the point of the house of lords was to preserve the interests of the wealthy. the commons now fullfills that function. the point of it now will be to carry on it's more recent function. ie a lucrative retirement for the ruling parties arselickers. the voting system proposed will give this system a veneer of democracy whilst actually ensuring that only those preferred by the ruling elite are allowed to stand. It's almost beautiful it's so crap
you need somewhere to go through the minutia of every bit of legislation - especially considering the rate and quantity this labour government produces it at. i agree it needs reform, just not sure an elective regime is what is required. all life peers should be removed immediately though. i heard someone comment last night that this is simply a piece of labour propoganda to end any speculation they sell peerages, and it really wouldn't suprise me if there was at least an element of truth in that.
there is still a use for a two house system simply as it provides the checks and balances for the commons and the courts.. in my eyes the only way in which the new system will affect anything is that the corruption will become more evenly spread and less static, there's not a great deal we can do about that unfortunately..
