House of Lords

What's the point of the House of Lords?

Well, it's to provide a constitutional constraint on the House of Commons. It's to ensure that popular will isn't meekly bowed to by unprincipled politicians, or that popular will isn't neglected by overly-zealous ones. In short, it's to slow things down a little, and that's a good thing.

Some people object to the anachronistic class system that it reflects, but my question to them is this: who else will perform the function of holding Parliament to account? Democracy should be a means to an end, and not an end in itself.

From The Telegraph:

Charles Clarke is expected to amend his plans for a law banning incitement to religious hatred after peers inflicted a huge defeat on the Government last night.

Peers voted by a majority of 149 in favour of an opposition amendment that would drastically change the contents of the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill.

Tim Worstall says it best:

It’s because at times both the popular will and those elected to implement it are completely and totally foolish. That’s why we have the second House, to stop such nonsense.

No, democracy is not the be all and end all of the political system. Freedom and liberty are, and often need to be defended from the former.

Comments

[Quinn]

"Who else will perform the function of holding Parliament to account?"

An elected second chamber doesn't sound like a bad idea to me; most democracies with bicameral systems seem to manage it. Certainly, an upper house filled with either hereditary peers or with recipients of patronage from government seems a seriously flawed system.

Yes, there is a point to the House of Lords, but there has got to be a better system than the current way of selecting members.

[Cheap Jordan 1]

Thanks for sharing. This website is to I too have to help. Very good.

[thailand real estate]

I think the provision states it all. There is a separation of state and religious matters. Meaning, places are classified for function like religious practice.