The House Of Lords – Should It Stay Or Should It Go? Part 7
.
There are 650 seats in parliament. In the 2019 general election, the Conservative Party – under the leadership of Boris Johnson – won 43.6% of the vote. This gave them a majority of 80 seats. In the 2024 general election, Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour Party won 411 seats. This represented a massive 174-seat majority. To stop any government with a super majority bulldozing legislation through a series of checks & balances is required. But is the House of Lords up to the job?
Picture Credits:
Boris Johnson https://www.thelist.com /928949/boris-johnsons-former-staffer-reveals-gruesome-secrets-about-the-partygate-scandal/
Sir Keir Starmer Picture Credit: https://www.indy100.com/politics/keir-starmer-tuition-fees-university
WE FEEL that a majority of people would agree that there needs to be a series of checks & balances on the House of Commons. This is particularly so when one party has such a majority that it can literally bulldoze legislation through.
.
However, many people believe that the body set up to run these checks & balances – the House of Lords – is a ‘controversial’ institution.
.
With the above in mind, we’ve been running a series of articles looking at the constitutional & historical reasons why the Lords was established as well as examining both the pros & cons of the institution itself.
.
‘CONTROVERSIAL’
.
So, why do some people believe that the House of Lords is controversial? There are many reasons – but most centre on issues relating to democracy, accountability, and tradition versus modernisation.
.
They include:
.
• DEMOCRATIC LEGITIMACY. Unlike the House of Commons, the members of the House of Lords are not elected by the public. Instead, many are appointed, or are given seats due to their status or contributions.
.
This raises concerns about whether it is fair or appropriate for unelected individuals to have a say in making or revising laws that affect everyone.
.
• INHERITED PRIVILEGE vs. MERITOCRACY. The presence of hereditary peers — those who inherit their seats — has been criticised as an outdated practice that favors privilege and family background over merit.
.
This debate often reflects broader philosophical questions about whether modern governance should be based on merit and expertise or tradition and inheritance.
.
• POTENTIAL FOR UNDERMINING DEMOCRACY. Some argue that having an unelected chamber with the power to amend or delay legislation passed by the elected House of Commons can undermine the will of the people and democratic accountability.
.
• COST & EFFICIENCY. Critics also point to the financial cost of maintaining the House of Lords and question whether it is necessary in a modern democracy.
.
Some advocate for a unicameral (single-chamber) system, believing it would be more efficient and cost-effective.
.
• ROLE & PURPOSE. While supporters say the House of Lords provides valuable expertise and a check on the elected government, its exact role and influence remain a topic of debate.
.
Proposals have included transforming it into an advisory council without legislative power or abolishing it altogether in favour of a single legislative chamber.
.
ABOLISH THE HOUSE OF LORDS?
.
Those who have concerns about the Lords tend to fall into two camps: Reformists and Abolitionists.
.
Last month we looked at the main proposals of those who want reform. They included transforming the House of Lords into an elected Senate, creating an independent commission responsible for appointing non-partisan members of the upper chamber & gradually phasing out the hereditary peerage system.
.
PROPOSALS
.
We will now look at the proposals of those who want to completely abolish the House of Lords. Here, there seems to be two main strands of thought:
.
• ESTABLISH AN ADVISORY COUNCIL. One radical alternative is to transform the House of Lords into an advisory council with no legislative power.
.
This body would consist of experts, former politicians, and distinguished individuals who would provide advice and recommendations on proposed legislation.
.
While they would not have the power to amend or reject bills, their insights could inform debates in the House of Commons and enhance the quality of the legislative process.
.
Those who promote the idea of an advisory council believe that it could preserve the expertise and experience of the current House of Lords without undermining democratic accountability.
.
• SINGLE LEGISLATIVE CHAMBER. Some advocates argue for a unicameral system (1). This would eliminate the need for an upper chamber altogether. Under this model, the House of Commons would become the sole legislative body, with all members elected by the public.
.
Those who support this idea claim that it’ll streamline the legislative process, reduces costs, and ensure that all political power is derived directly from the electorate (as all members of the single chamber are typically elected by the public). This approach is seen as promoting more efficient governance and a straightforward democratic framework.
.
• To be continued.
.
(1) A unicameral system is a type of legislative structure in which there is only one legislative chamber or house. In this system, all legislative responsibilities—such as debating, amending, and passing laws—are carried out by a single body, rather than being divided between two separate chambers, as is the case with a bicameral system (like the UK Parliament’s House of Commons and House of Lords).
.
• THIS ARTICLE should be read in conjunction with the following:
.
The House Of Lords – Should It Stay Or Should It Go? Part 1 https://nationalliberal.org/
The House Of Lords – Should It Stay Or Should It Go? Part 2 https://nationalliberal.org/
The House Of Lords – Should It Stay Or Should It Go? Part 3 https://nationalliberal.org/
.
The House Of Lords – Should It Stay Or Should It Go? Part 4 https://nationalliberal.org/
The House Of Lords – Should It Stay Or Should It Go? Part 5
The House Of Lords – Should It Stay Or Should It Go? Part 6 https://nationalliberal.org/
Date: June 3, 2025
Categories: Articles