2. Why the hol is becoming more significant

3. Large majority in the commons means limited opposition
Hol has stepped in as opposition to try to limit the government and the pm. Eg under rule of thatcher/blair could pass whatever they wanted due to their huge majority/poor commons opposition

4. Professionalism
Making themselves specialists in certain fields of policy. To come extent this is the result of party leaderships selecting professional politicians for the lords to a greater degree. The members are now taking their role much more seriously – attending regularly and making themselves specialists

5. Coalition lacks a mandate, thus giving the lords more legitimacy to act as further opposition
The hol had a strong sense their role was more legitimate to oppose the government – the manifesto was not presented to the public before being elected
This meant that the unelected hol could argue that the coalition government had also not been elected. This gave it considerable freedom to challenge coalition policy in the national interests. It become a second opposition

6. Rights culture (hra)
The hol contains many lawyers and human rights experts, has taken upon itself the role of guardian of individual rights against governments that have been accused of being too dictatorial

7. The reform of the lords in 2000
Removing all but 92 of the hereditary peers, gave the lords greater authority, it was still not a democratic body, but at least, it was seen as more politically and socially representative of the country

8. Examples of when the house of lords stood up to the will of the government
The legal age f consent for homosexual males – the lords votes twice against lowering the age of consent to sex for homosexual males from 18 to 16
Hol reform, late the lords objected to the complete abolition of voting rights of hereditary
Anti terrorism legislation, – the lords insisted that the anti- terrorism act following a successful appeal by several belmarsh prisoners in the law lords, was unacceptable on the grounds that it allowed suspects to be detained without trial

9. Hol reform

10. Stages
Stage 1:
Labour elected in 1997, labours memory of poll tax, thatcher introduced this. She used hereditary peers to pass it through the hol – ‘backwoodsmen’. Labour wanted 92 elected by the other hereditary peers
Stage 2:
The removal of those remaining 92 hereditary peers
Stage 3:
Fully or mostly elected chamber. Has been promised within the life of this parliament (that was a promise of the coalition)
Stuck at stage 1. it works at the moment, they do a good job, for democracy though its unelected and so it is undemocratic

11. Should the hol be wholly elected

12. Yes argument

13. Legitimacy The upper chamber will be democratically legitimate
One of the basic principles of representative democracy is that voters choose representatives who govern them and the voters have the opportunity to remove these representatives through elections
Use their legitimacy to scrutinise government legislation
The peers will represent the peoples views
Ending the appointment of members would reduce the party leaders power of patronage that exists under the current system, and reduce the possibility of corruption in choosing members of the lords
Make the house more representative of public opinion and changes in the electorates view over them than it is an appointed chamber

14. If designed appropriately would look a lot different from the commons and would not be dominated by party politics
A directly elected house could be chosen using a form of pr – making it unlikely that one single party would dominate the composition and functioning of the house
Members could be elected for long, non-renewable terms meaning they could be less influenced by short term elections – could be elected for life and so could take a longer term view on legislation than might be possible for many members of the commons

15. The hoc could remain the dominant chamber in the legislative process alongside an elected house
Upper house will not have a veto over certain bills eg financial
Just because theyre elected doesn’t mean they can dominate the house of commons
So the possibility of legislative gridlock would not necessarily be any higher than under the current system. Instead an elected upper house could have greater confidence in delaying legislation and/or forcing the government to think again about its legislative proposals

16. The expertise of an appointed hol is often overstated for some areas of policy
It is true for some areas of policy, particularly legal, constitutional and some scientific matters, research on peers’ understanding of social policy- the largest area of public spending – shows this to be patchy
Mps tend to have a greater knowledge of this area of policy. At least partly due to their contacts with constituents

17. Moving to fully elected upper house is the logical next step in reform of the lords
The uk constitution has been altered in many ways since 1997, including devolution, creation of a supreme court and introduction of the human rights act
Reform of the hol has only been partial. The logical next step from removal of hereditary peers towards a more democratic and representative upper house is to make it directly elected and complete the process of reform

18. No argument

19. Direct election is not required for the upper house to have legitimacy
It is not there to make law it is there to be effective with its amendments and passing bills with thorough investigation/scrutiny
The lords has output legitimacy because of what it delivers eg better quality legislation/scrutiny/advice
Argument about the composition of the lords obscures our view – the focus should be on how effectively it carries out its core function

20. An appointed upper house would retain the expertise of life peers
Cross benchers who do not take the whip and have expert knowledge will be lost
The expertise is evident in the quality of debate in the hol and works of its committees

21. An elected upper house would produce competing claims of legitimacy, foster conflict between the commons and lords, and bring gridlock
They may want to reject bills fully or amend bills overly of bills or even want to make their own. It would not be a smooth running system
The constitutional conventions governing the two houses would no longer be suitable – the Salisbury convention would not be followed
Wouldn’t be happy with just the power of delay – would want more power

22. An elected upper house would duplicate the shortcomings of the hoc
The behaviour of some mps and party dominance in the commons has damaged public trust in parliament. Electing the upper house doubles that risk
Pr would mean that no party would have a majority in the upper chamber, but the whips would still try to enforce discipline so that deals agreed between party elites behind closed doors could be forced through

23. Evolution rather than revolution is the key to the longevity and success of the british constitution
Removal of all but 92 hereditary peers in 1998, the partially reformed lords has quietly developed into an effective and assertive revising chamber, defending civil liberties and forcing governments to rethink badly – drafted bills
Moving to a wholly elected chamber would undermine this progress and introduce a new raft of problems
Its working so why change it?

24. How of commons reform

25. Limited changes Chairs of select committees additional salary:
Improve it by increasing the salary, the chairs elected by backbench mps so that they are no longer biased due to it used to be appointed by the pm
E- petitions:
100,00 signatures triggers debate in the commons eg trump being banned from entering the uk
600 mps:
Rather than 650 mps by equalizing constituency sizes – gerrymandering?
Recall:
Unsatisfactory mp could be removed if local citizens can gather a petition to call a by-election and if the mp in question loses such by-election