- Created by: emsaji
- Created on: 30-05-18 23:32
Notes: Not all of them have conclusions and evaluations as i started getting tired and lazy plus other people are using this so I don’t want to impose my views on anyone – fell free to fill them in if you wish. You’ll also notice it starts to get less planny and more essay’y in some areas – I do apologise. First section is Parliament then it’s Constitution then it’s PM. This aren’t all the possible essays btw, I skipped some out because they came up last year so aren’t likely to come up again so do try to look through past papers for anything you might not know about.
Bezaleel Adeosun – [email protected]
Assess the arguments for and against reforming the House of Lords
The House of Lords can be viewed as a ‘revising chamber’. Over half the time in the Lords is devoted to examining in detail legislation sent to it by the Commons. In this way it serves as a useful check on the government by making them think again Powers of the upper chamber are defined by the 1911 and 1949 Parliament Acts. In relation to legislation it can veto bills for up to a year, but on the third occasion the elected Commons can force it onto the statute books against the Lords’ will. Currently in the UK most members/peers in the HOL are appointed by the IAC and sit in the HOL for life while 92 hereditary peers still exist with 29 archbishops, many believe this system of appointment is undemocratic as no other modern democracy apart Canada have a system where legislative powers is passed on as a birth right. This essay will argue that although the HOL is undemocratic due to its unelected nature, it’s benefits outweighs the drawback it has.
FOR = An elected chamber would have increased credibility and public support and therefore would be in a better position to challenge the growing power of the government and the PM. It would also have greater powers as an equally powerful second chamber would be able to veto laws leading to better legislation and the ability to check the Commons and prevent an elective dictatorship- full bicameralism requires two equal chambers. For example in the USA both houses of Congress; House of Representatives and the Senate, are co-equals and there is no "upper" or "lower" chamber and no hierarchical relationship between them. This would limit government dominance.
AGAINST = A non-elected house allows for specialist knowledge, its members can be chosen on the basis of experience and expertise, careerist politicians would be no benefit to the political system. For example the current House of Lords contains experts such as Lord Sainsbury and Lord Sugar. Another argument against is gridlock prevention as two Co-equal chambers would be a recipe for government gridlock, if both Houses have a mandate who is right? For example the policies of Democrat President Obama like Obama Care were repeatedly blocked by a Republican dominated Congress.