skip to nav

A wholly elected Upper House

ARGUMENTS FOR:

In a democracy, all legislators should be elected by the people and capable of being dismissed by the electorate.

Electing all members of the Upper House would put a stop to cronyism and corruption; no more exchanges of cash-for-honours.

Election would give the Upper House the authority it now lacks and would enable it to exercise closer scrutiny of the Executive. It would be all the more able to do this if Government ministers were to be barred from membership. This is precisely why so many ministers and members of parliament dislike the idea.

An elected Upper House would fairly reflect opinion in the country in a way the present hopelessly unrepresentative House of Lords doesn't.

Fears that an elected Upper House would merely duplicate the Commons can be dispelled by choosing a different electoral system for it.

The First Post guide to the issue of the day

ARGUMENTS AGAINST:

The present composition of the House of Lords may be illogical, but it works. It is an effective revising chamber. Both Labour and Tory governments have been defeated in the Lords far more often than in the Commons. So it is a check on ministers.

Party whips would have more power. This is the last thing we need.

An elected Upper House would be composed of professional politicians and party loyalists, and would be less independently minded.

It would be deprived of men and women who have achieved eminence in fields other than politics, and can bring expert opinion to bear on issues. Because they are not full-time politicians, they are more representative of the range of non-political opinion than elected members of the Commons.

Election would narrow the field from which members of the Upper House are chosen. Nomination (or appointment) widens it, and this is desirable.

FIRST POSTED FEBRUARY 8, 2007

News & Comment: News & Politics