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
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.
Party Politics in the UK Today Since the 1970s, and the decline to the two party system, party politics in the UK has emerged as a multi-party society with an ever increasing sense on global politics. However, despite the 'new' system of a multi-party political system, there have been episodes of one party dominance in government. Political parties pre-1970 were mainly built upon the class divide that existed in Britain.
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.
But in 1910 things changed and the election led to the Irish. nationals holding the balance of power, this meant Liberals were only. able to reduce the Lords power with the support of the Irish. Nationalists but in return the Liberals had to bring home rule. bill back to light.
they must be a member of either the House of Commons or the House of
For the electoral strategy, Cameron also built a modern image for both himself and his old party and brought the new message. It is understood that ‘traditional issues like tax and Europe barely featured, new issues such as the environment and issues “owned” by Labour like health figured prominently, and a more progressive tone was adopted on crime and welfare.’ Because the party put attention to the recovery of state economy during the hard time of 2008 world financial crisis, concerned about the UK social problems and promised to give citizens a better living environment, their political opinions gained the voters’ trust and won the power on the May of 2010. The cases illustrates the competition leads parties think about problems from the voters’ perspective so that they could change their principles in an effective way. If the party was too stubborn to adapt over time, it must be abandon like the
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).
In 1999 the Labour government reduced the number of hereditary peers to 92. Although this may appear to be a ‘minor’ reform, it has since made the Lords more legitimate and has encouraged them to take more of an active role. Since then all three main parties have been committed to further reform and proposals were included in the coalition agreement between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. Furthermore, on 14th May 2014 The House of Lords Reform Act received ‘Royal Assent.
We have discussed that the Lords are unaccountable towards constituents, but there is another important group that the Lords are bound by: political parties. If the Lords are affiliated with political parties, have whips offices, party meetings within the House (Jones and Norton, 2014: 357), and even strong voting along party lines (Norton, 2003: 20), then how are they an effective institution? The answer: distribution of party allegiance. The current Lords consists of 253 Conservative peers, 199 Labour peers, 100 Liberal Democrat peers, and 180 crossbenchers (www.parliament.uk, 2017). There is no party that holds a majority in the House, and thus government policy is not simply pushed through.
“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.