Should the hereditary element of the House of Lords be removed? - Page 3 - Historum

dimmit · January 4th, 2012, 04:32 PM

I find the concept of a hereditary right having any part in a modern government as archaic and extremely difficult to justify. That being said, I see some merit in an upper house that is not directly answerable to the often irrational (and sometimes dangerous), whims of the masses.

I would point out an interesting corollary here in the United States; national polls have shown time and time again that Congress is loathed by the public. The President is not much better. What is the most trusted, respected government institution in the United States? The US Supreme Court, an unelected, group of people from a couple of elite laws schools in the US who are appointed for life.

Trout Bum · January 4th, 2012, 05:07 PM

I think that The Kingdom should be worried about bigger issue's. Such as the fact they have now been overtaken as the the world's 6th largest by Brazil, and quite a few are not far behind. As South America keep's up it's rise to more power and wealth, I predict that the U.S.A will shift it's alliance's and interest's too a more "Americas" centric approach, and rely on other South American countries as allies in economic and military matter's. I predict that within 5 year's the Falklands and possibly Georgia will be back in South American hand's.

Nyneve · January 4th, 2012, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trout Bum

I think that The Kingdom should be worried about bigger issue's. Such as the fact they have now been overtaken as the the world's 6th largest by Brazil, and quite a few are not far behind. As South America keep's up it's rise to more power and wealth, I predict that the U.S.A will shift it's alliance's and interest's too a more "Americas" centric approach, and rely on other South American countries as allies in economic and military matter's. I predict that within 5 year's the Falklands and possibly Georgia will be back in South American hand's.

How big is Brazil's population compared to the UK's? I don't think we're doing too badly.

Trout Bum · January 4th, 2012, 07:02 PM

Actual population size is not the principle factor, as you might know otherwise the U.K would have beenout of it long ago.

**tjadams** · January 4th, 2012, 08:07 PM

Anything hereditary should be done away with, it is wrong to
award anything based on pure accidental birth.

**tjadams** · January 4th, 2012, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nyneve

How big is Brazil's population compared to the UK's? I don't think we're doing too badly.

Brazil has about 192 million
The UK has about 62 million

**Louise C** · January 4th, 2012, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nyneve

Currently, I think, 92 members of the House of Lords got their seat through heredity. The rest are political appointments, with some ex-prime ministers, and all the rest. The hereditary figure used to be higher. Should we increase it, and so reduce the power of elected politicians? Is the UK the only country that still uses right of descent as a criteria for political representation?

I think the number of hereditary peers should be restored to what it was before Tony Blair decimated them.

**Louise C** · January 4th, 2012, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trout Bum

I think that The Kingdom should be worried about bigger issue's. Such as the fact they have now been overtaken as the the world's 6th largest by Brazil, and quite a few are not far behind. As South America keep's up it's rise to more power and wealth, I predict that the U.S.A will shift it's alliance's and interest's too a more "Americas" centric approach, and rely on other South American countries as allies in economic and military matter's. I predict that within 5 year's the Falklands and possibly Georgia will be back in South American hand's.

I hope not for the sake of the Falkland Islanders, who have no wish to be part of South America.

morayloon · January 4th, 2012, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nyneve

How big is Brazil's population compared to the UK's? I don't think we're doing too badly.

Going by GDP (PPP - Purchasing Power Parity) per capita the UK comes in at 21st. Even Ireland, with all its problems, comes in higher at 12th. Brazil is at 76th. This figure can point to a country's standard of living List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As to the H of L - the sooner it goes the better. Many appointed peers have party affiliation. Of the Hereditary peers, 47 have party affiliation - the vast majority of these are Tories. So the idea of non political peers is a non starter.

List_of_elected_hereditary_peers_under_the_House_of_Lords_Act_1999

The sooner it becomes an elected body, answerable to the people, the better.

bolero982 · January 4th, 2012, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nyneve

That's an unfair characterisation I feel. Many of the lords took great pains to oppose undemocratic measures without fear of losing their seats.

You mean like when the Lords objected to the banning of fox hunting and the use of proportional representation in European elections?

Realistically stage two of reform of the second chamber should have been done a long time ago, and it's one of Blair's biggest failures that he took an undemocratic and unrepresentative house and left it with an undemocratic and unrepresentative house filled with his cronies. It's simply another extension of the powers of the Prime Minster at present, and can be blind ignored should the government be so inclined. Complete waste of space, and really you should either reform it to make it work or abolish it completely.