Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Should the house of lords be reformed essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Should the house of lords be reformed essay
House of lords, the second chamber in Parliament. There are currently 75 bicameral legislatures all over the world, whose constitutions were influenced by United Kingdom. In United Kingdom, House of Lords be considered as the symbol of undemocratic, there is a long discussion about reform of House of Lords. This essay will describe Hose of lords reform, past and future. Reform of the House of lords is the core issues of government’s program of constitutional change. In 1997 general election, Tony Blair who was the leader of labour, he claim that labour party would seek reform of House of Lords and make it more democratic. As an initial self-contained reform, not dependent on further reform in the future, the right of hereditary peers to …show more content…
In the second stage of reform (since 2001), reform of house of lords makes slow progress in Parliament. Main political parties unable to reach agreement on a reform bills for reform, only Lord Chancellor had been abolished. In the mid-nineteenth century, the idea of Reform the hereditary system were started to appear, however until 1990s. In 1997 the Labour party win the election. In 1999 there were over 1,200 Lords, including 647 hereditary peers. Of the hereditary peers 310 were Conservative and only 19 were Labour (there were also 226 hereditary peers who were Cross-benchers). Altogether there were 484 Conservatives peers, 335 Cross-benchers, 193 Labour and 72 Liberal Democrats (Lowe & Owen). In order to reduce the antagonism of reform,Tony Blair make terms with Viscount Cranborne (then leader of Conservative), allowing 92 hereditary remain in House of lords in the transition period, the condition is Conservative can not oppose the reform bills of House of lords. In 1999, with the passage of the 1999 House of Lords Act (changed the composition of the Lords): (a) Removed hereditary peers with the exception of the
Ahead in the book, I discover that Norway, Sweden and Denmark nullified their second chambers, choosing that bicameralism was no more essential. In reality, even the House of Lords in England has had its energy fundamentally decreased through time and as Dahl says, "The fate of that old chamber stays in extensive uncertainty." The purposes behind these bicameral contemplations in the constitution need to do with accommodating equivalent representation.
had 418 (a gain of 147 on 1992) seats in the House of Commons this is
The original Parliamentary System was created in Great Britain. This form of government includes a leader known as a prime minister, usually from a legislative party. The prime minister then selects a cabinet from their legislative majority party. Their objective is to focus on the daily operations caused by the government’s bureaucracy. The parliamentary government is in charge of initiating and passing all legislation created. The advantages of this system is that there is a unified government, there is no veto power, and the party is responsible for the decisions, consequences or rewards of policies that are passed. The Cabinet must “maintain the confidence” of parliament. Some disadvantages of this method is that divided governments are Constitutionally impossible to control. In addition to that, power is from this system falls all on the Prime Minister and Cabinet. They rule with the entire trust of parliament on them. If something goes wrong, it’s solely their
Tony Blair's Approach to Power Since Labour came into power in 1997 Tony Blair has been criticised by some for being the 'son of Thatcher'. Many say that labour is now following the values and policies similar to that of a Tory government and in particular a Tory government lead by Margaret Thatcher. Before the time of Tony Blair and New Labour, the left wing party stood firm on one value and that was socialism. More on Labours old Values and policies The conservatives on the other hand have very different policies or not so different as some may argue. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher lead the conservative government from 1979-1990 and she made some very radical changes that have stuck.
Tavits, Margit. "Party Systems in the Making: The Emergence and Success of New Parties in New Democracies." British Journal of Political Science 38.1 (2008): 113-33. JSTOR. Web. 26 May 2014.
Failure of the Campaign for Parliamentary Reform There were numerous reasons that accounted for why the campaign for Parliamentary reform failed in its objectives in the period 1780-1820, with arguably the most significant factor being that those in Parliament did not actually feel the need to reform the electoral system because of the lack of unified pressure from the British public. There was a substantial call for Parliamentary reform between 1780 and 1820, but the separate groups which were pressing for reform did not unite and failed to appeal to the wider regions of the population and therefore, reform was not at the top of the agenda between these decades. The representation of Britain in the House of Commons certainly did not reflect the composition of the country, as Cornwall sent 44 members to Parliament, which was only one fewer than the whole of Scotland combined. Large industrial towns such as Manchester and Birmingham, consisting of 320,000 people, did not send a single representative to the upper chamber of Parliament. Various rules and qualifications such as a minimum level of income and possessing a large enough fireplace were often required to vote in a General Election, rules which were being called into question by various groups in society such as the London Corresponding Society.
In conclusion, British politics today is varied, but once again it is dominated by one party (the Labour Party). The question is, how long can the Labour Party stay in power? Will the new Leader of the Opposition (Michael Howard) prove to be an effective opposition?
importance." (Loades 93) But the Parliament did also have its faults. It had a separation between the House of Lords and the House of Commons. The House of the Lords was closer to the court, highly spiritual, and made themselves to the hand of the monarch.
in the way of the home rule bill due to the fact that the House of
The most significant and challenge to the traditional view of parliamentary sovereignty was Britain’s membership of the European Community in 1972. The European Communities Act 1972 brought with it the requirement that European Law be given priority over domestic courts over conflicting issues of national law. This notion was a direct affront to parliamentary sovereignty, which required that if a later statute, contradicted and earlier statute, which sought to incorporate European Law into English Law, then the later statute should impliedly repeal the earlier statute. Therefore the European Communities act imposed a substantive limit on the legislative ability of subsequent Parliaments.
Taylor, H. (1910). The constitutional crisis in Great Britain: Bicameral system should be retained with House of Lords reorganized on an elective basis. Concord, N.H: Rumford Press. 6th edition
The publication British Party Politics And Ideology After New Labour (2010) mentions that ‘Blairism certainly was a response to Labour’s strategic political weakness and failure. It was also a reaction to the ideological and intellectual failure of British social democracy’. To deal with problems, the party ‘saw consist and far from insignificant increases in expenditure on health and education as well as reforms to welfare that targeted the poorest in the name of equality; taxation was reformed in an effort to assist the poorest families, and throughout his time in power Blair made regular pronouncements on the collective interest and the importance of social solidarity and expressed an idea of Britain defined by not each person for themselves, but working together as a community to ensure that everyone, not just the privileged few’. In reality, the Labours faced the weakness, responded in an effective way which concern about rights and interests of people from different classes. At last, its modified policies made the party get chance to
They systematically exclude some voices in the electorate and over-reward the winner of an election, producing an ‘elected dictatorship’ which does not need to compromise with other parties (Norris, 1997: 10). The average winner’s bonus under MES is 12.5%, versus 5.7% under PR, i.e. to be assured of a parliamentary majority of seats, a party under PR would need to win 46.3% of the vote, but only 37.5% under MES (Norris, 1997: 8). In 1992, Sir Russell Johnston was elected in an SMP British constituency with only 19% of its support (Farrell, 2011: 16-17) and in that year’s general election, 40% of elected MPs did not have an overall majority of votes in their constituency (Farrell, 2011: 17-19) – that figure was 64% in 2005 (Farrell, 2011: 24). Indeed, the last time a governing party in the UK won as much as 50% of the vote was in 1935; Margaret Thatcher had a large parliamentary majority in 1983, but only 30.8% of the vote (Norris, 1997: 3). After the war, British governments received an average of 45% of the popular vote but 54% of seats in parliament, and even in close elections, almost never had to form coalitions (Norris, 1997: 6).
“It has been said that one of the greatest political problems of the time is to reconcile representative institutions with good government.” With this problem in mind, the cabinet form of government, which is nearly synonymous with the parliamentary form of government, has been established to lessen the gap between representative institutions and good government or, if possible, make them one in the same through its unification of powers.
It is not reasonable to expect that the entire population will agree on every matter, which is precisely why modern democracy is executed through representation by vote. In order for there to be a true democracy in place, there must be choices for the voters. These choices translate into a system of values and principles, which in turn translate to these organized entities that we call political parties. This paper highlights the functions that political parties serve in the House of Commons, and also argues that they diminish the democratic characteristics and responsibilities of the House of Commons. Political parties are the link between general society and the representative machinery of our government.