House of lords should be democratically elected

• Argument 1:  works well

  It may be argued that the current dynamics of parliament work well and should be left alone. Having a democratically elected second chamber may take away the balanced essence of not having a single party domination

  For example, the coalition government from 2010-15 (2 parties in power) still had less than half of the seats in the lords. By contrast, they had 363/650 MPs in the commons

  The lords perform its role well by improving the quality of legislation and scrutinising the executive from an unbiased position. The current lack of partisan alignment within the peers allows them to think for themselves; therefore, it does not need further reform

   
• Counter argument 1: increased representation

  • Instead, having the second chamber be democratically elected would increase democratic legitimacy and ensure the public is represented. At present, the lords remain a ludicrous affront to the most basic ideas of democracy 
  • only 6.4% of peers are BME, compared with 13% of the UK population. The 2017 general election saw a huge increase in MPs who openly identify as LGBT and female and BAME
  • The lords are unable to perform its function of representation correctly if their benches contrast so much to the population.
  • An elected chamber would become more responsive to the public, thus generating further trust and support. like all policy making institutions, the lords must be based on popular consent delivered through democratic elections- this is the only basis for legitimate rule. The lack of democratic credentials means that the chamber has insufficient authority to wield greater powers 

   
• Argument 2: loss of expertise 

  • The advantage of appointed life peers is that they can be chosen based on their experience, this enables the house to hold the government to account with effective and wise scrutiny. 
  • there are 151 life peers in 2022 who vote purely on their expertise of the arts, religion, careers etc. by contrast, elected politicians may be experts in nothing but public speaking and campaigning 
  • These highly skilled individuals may be lost with the introductions of reform, thus striping the chamber of its best legislators who use their expertise to improve bills. Life peers are solely motivated by public duty rather than self-interest as they are not paid (unlike elected MPs)
• Counter argument 2: elected and rejuvenated lords will confine the powers of the commons by providing checks and balances.

  • Furthermore, it will prevent excessive domination and patronage of the PM, thus reducing the chance of an elective dictatorship whereby they can offer places in the chamber as rewards
  • Tony Blair was under fire after the ‘cash for peerages’ controversy. Blair was questioned concerning allegations that peerage could be purchased by being a wealthy donor to the labour party

  A democratically elected chamber will reduce the excessive patronage powers of the PM, allowing them to have total tyranny over parliament. In turn, legislators can think independently on major changes in society- this is particularly important in political systems such as the UK which sees a fusion of power where the executive is dominant in the first chamber
• Argument 3:  An elected second chamber lead to symmetrical power

  • inevitably undermine the primacy of the commons and lead to potential gridlock having 2 chambers of equal authority may hinder the ability to pass emergency legislation 
  • for example, in 2020 the government had to pass the coronavirus act without complying with the usual statutory duties due to the severity of the pandemic.
  • By contrast, this wouldn’t have been possible if the lords had democratic mandate

  two equal chambers would end in government paralysis through institutionalised rivalry between the chambers
• Counter argument 3: this argument is weak as instead of causing democratic rivalry, an elected lords could become a senate of the nations and address the worsening problems of devolution and national conflict

  • For example, the class conflict proven with the 2016 Brexit referendum. The poorest households in the UK, with incomes of less than £200k yearly, were much more likely to vote leave and to feel as if the EU worsened their position. By contrast, Greater London, with the highest wealth distribution, only contributed 9% of the leave
  • Brexit showed poor, neglected areas felt ignored → Voted Leave as protest → House of Lords = elite, unelected, unrepresentative → Elected Lords = voters choose reps, better regional voice → Less alienation, more trust → UK unity strengthened, devolution tensions reduced.