• Out of date

    There is no use having something just for the sake of tradition. This is not a democracy. In theory it is good to have a 'watch committee' but they are not elected and could be corrupt or just want the feeling of power. Lets get rid of them for good.

  • Of course, what a question.

    They are coming from times where Politics and economies where very different, they are mostly old generations with no understandings of our current economy and place in the world, they are costing money where it could be saved for something else. There's no more needs for them to be here.

  • Abolishment or Dissolution?

    In Canada there is a movement to abolish the Senate (an appointed upper chamber equivalent to the HoL). But could the HoL be dissolved at election time and then reappointed by the Sovereign on advice of the PM/cabinet and/or Appointment Commission, following an election, to reflect the new party standings in the HoC and/or independents?

  • How can we call ourselves a democracy?

    How can we call the UK a democracy when part of our parliament is unelected and instead chosen by and also unelected head of state. If we wish to call the UK a democracy we MUST dissolve the lords and the monarchy . We must become a true republic by dissolving the unelected posts that have power over our lives!

  • Yes, the House of Lords should be dissolved.

    Yes, the House of Lords should be dissolved. The House of Lords should be dissolved because of the amount of money that is wasted by it's members. Baroness Uddin of Bangladeshi recently claimed expenses up to 38,000 pounds for a hotel room he never slept in. The house of lords is a waste of tax payer money.

  • Has no place

    It is very easy to see why the House of Lords is still around - the tradition surrounding it, and the way the government has evolved, it makes sense it still exists. Still, the House of Lords is an anachronism, and it promotes unequal opportunities for the population of the country.

  • The House of lords Works. Fact. (but it needs reform)

    Although it may not be democratic, the house of lords has evolved to be a very effective law-scrutinising body, and it combines the expertise of many experienced politicians and intellectuals. Although it may have tradition, and it may have some people in it who really should not be there, what the house of lords needs, is reform, not abolition. Think about it

  • Vital Part of British Parliament

    The House of Lords could be dissolved, but it probably shouldn't because it is one half of Britain's parliament. Parliament is dissolved every five years for elections and the House of Lords remains since they are appointed. Thus far, parliament seems to be working for them and there shouldn't be any drastic changes.

  • A leading system

    No, they should not be dissolved for sure, because they still have a huge impact on their country, and they still hold quite a bit of power. They have been an important part of England, and continue to lead the country in a very efficient manner to this very day.

  • The House of Lords should be maintained.

    As I understand it, the Queen still has the ability to create new nobility and therefore new Lords in England. This gives a stability to the social structure of England that steps outside of the normal political process and permits someone who is not involved in the day to day manipulation of politics to honor those who work to the betterment of England. As such, her power serves the same function as the checks and balances built into the U.S.A.'s constitution.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.