House Of Lords Is The Second Chamber

manse Of Lords Is The back put up family of Lords is the Second Chamber in the United Kingdoms parliament. Its main functions are to scrutinize legislation, both(prenominal) domestic and European, and to debate on issues of public policy and public concern. This house is fully appointed. Attempts to veer this assume been made in the past and obviously we can calculate now that the government is developing plans for fully or mainly elected theatre of Lords and present them in re solelyy near future. There is lots debating in public whereas the fully elected upper house would be a good or a bad thing. This essay bequeath show you that fully elected theater of Lords would not strengthen British democracy. In fact, it would become much untougheneder. As the Archbishop of York (2010) states, the elected stop number House may seemingly be in the interests of democracy but may ultimately fail this nation. That is for some suits. firstbornly, Second Chamber would replicat e the First Chamber in its composition and even might challenge the agency of honey oil. This leads to a definite exchange in relationship between deuce Houses. Secondly, at that place would be a great mischief of expertise if we are to make water House of Lords elected, as heartlong experience would be replaced by career ambition. Furthermore, in that location would be truly little or no independent members because resource to the highest degreely favours party politicians. Lastly, there would be no religious representation in a fully elected Second Chamber. All these arguments are discussed more deeply in this essay.The main line of elected House of Lords is that it would become precise similar to a House of Commons and therefore this could force in a possible change in relationship between devil Houses. Current system full treatment because composition of two Houses is different, but this could be completely changed if we introduce election to Upper House. Second Chamber could become wholly dominated by the political parties and could end up with the same party winning legal age of seats in both Houses. As the result there would be little chance of efficient scrutiny or revision of government work. (A W Bradley and K D Ewing, 2007186). By contrast, election could lead to both Houses being dominated by different parties. Upper House could form of address they too have a mandate of people and would likely put down to seek more powers and exercise them. There would be no reason for members of elected Second Chamber to see their chamber role as a complementary one (Lord Norton, 2010). In this case, they would challenge the authority of Commons and there would be a potential for conflict between the two. That could result in agreements being struck. Those agreements would probably represent party interests and would not value electors. Bogdanor (201012) to a fault supports this view and says that elected upper House would see itself as being more democratic and legitimate, therefore end up inappropriate with Commons. He accurately concludes that this would make Britain more difficult to govern.The second man-sized problem considering elected Second Chamber is that there will be a coarse loss of expertise. Today House of Lords is a chamber of expertise and the reality is that it is where legislation is analyzed in more detail, for sure deeper than in House of Commons. In fact, as Edward Pearce (2009497-499) states that debates there continue beyond party influence. Having appointed peers also helps to sustain and even increase the aim of expertise in the House. Once in the Lords, the way in which the House functions gives opportunities for peers to maintain their professional lives outside the Lords. By contrast, elected peers would have to chip in that spare time to fulfill their constituencies demands. In addition, all agree that most expertise is provided by life peers. They obtain priceless experience and wis dom in certain fields throughout their life and do not pursue a career to be top politicians. As capital of Minnesota Vallely (2010) says their life peerage offers considerable real life experience to reverberation the myopia of professional politicians. but all of that would be taken apart if we are to have Second Chamber elected. In any role of election, persons who compete for a political office will be elect by parties and voted for mainly by admirers of parties. Upper House would just be a House of whipped party politicians, not experienced peers. Expertise would be replaced by ambition. There would no longer be detailed revision of government bills.Another big disadvantage of elected House of Lords is that there would be a huge reduction in, or even removal of, independent peers. Independence is very important aspect of Second Chamber and it arises from the fact there are many Crossbench members who do not conk out to a party. As Philip Norton (200319) says peers are abl e to operate free of the constraints on and incentives available to the party leadership, activists and voters in other countries.This makes the government think very carefully when dealing with the Lords, because government has no majority and is vulnerable to defeat. But as we discussed before, elections are organized by political parties and therefore it is very unlikely for independent members to win a seat in Upper House. Moreover, as party whipping in House of Lords is very weak and Lords are not afraid to lose their seat due to life peerage, often even party peers tend to think and vote in a different manner than their party wants them to. This, combined with Crossbenchers voting, adds a huge amount of independence and scrutiny of the government actions. This all would be remove if we introduce elections, because peers would vote as their parties would want them to, because otherwise, they would lose their seat.Lastly, it would be very difficult to ensure religious represent ation in parliament as in fully elected House of Lords we would no longer have a vowel system of church building. Religious belief is an important aspect of many peoples lives and it is desirable that there should be some form of religious voice in the Second Chamber. A presence of the Church of England bishops in House of Lords has contributed to legislation in many aspects. It increased quality of debates by providing philosophical, clean-living and spiritual considerations, not just religious ones. Bishops are better apprised and better experienced when it comes to everyday problems of our society than any elected decreed (The Bishop of Croydon, 2010). Some argue that there should be no representation of the Church of England, as other faiths are excluded from political representation. But they forget that there is growing co-operation between the faiths, and Archbishop of Canterbury is ever more likely to raise issues of mechanical press concern to a number of British spiri tual leaders (Sunday Telegraph, 2008). In addition, removal of bishops not only would eliminate the knowledge mentioned above, but would also raise the whole question of the relationship between farming and Church, with uncertain outcomes. It would end a 900 year tradition.This essay showed that House of Lords should not be fully elected and that is for four main reasons. First of all, there is a huge chance that fully elected Second Chamber would mirror House of Commons. The same party could win majorities in both Houses, leaders to a pointless existence of Upper House. By contrast, we might have a deadlock government as different parties would be in control of both Houses. Secondly, there would be a huge loss of valuable expertise. Life peer system generated priceless amounts of experience and all of that would be replaced by purely professional politicians without sufficient wisdom. Furthermore, independent peers would not do well in elections and House of Lords would become H ouse of whipped politicians. The two Houses would not act independently, as required. And lastly, Church would not be delineated politically, which would lead to a symbolic relationship change between State and Church.