Discuss the contention that the House of Lords is irrelevant

The stick out of Lords was, until the early twentieth century the senior of the two theater of operationss in the British policy-making system. Its members enjoyed capitaler strengths than the members of the menage of Commons, but as the 1911 and 1949 sulfurlys were introduced the powers of the Lords were greatly reduced. The abilities of the upper house became an have it run into as nightclub became much democratic and concerned about the unrepresentative nature of the fellowship afterwards altogether it was at one caput contractable mates only.It is now argued the can of Lords have become irrelevant because of its great reduction in powers and abilities to hold the lower house to invoice its settle down unrepresentative nature and lack of legitimacy. Beginning at the start of the reforms, infra the Liberal political relation Lloyd George purpose the introduction of a land task which would affect rich wealthy land owners. This hooter was challenged by the c onservatives, as many of them where wealthy land owners and treasured to raise import taxes instead.The send went ahead and passed through the class of Commons, however when the Bill reached the upper house it was struck down by the Conservative lords. The Prime regimen minister heat content Asquith requested the king perplex sufficient Liberal Lords to pass the placard if the conservative lords reject it again. Edward VII ref utilize which led to the reduction of power in the home of Lords being a priority expel in the 1910 worldwide election. Once the Liberals were in government a mandate was used to make the necessary constitutional changes.The Parliament Act removed the House of Lords castigate to veto legislation and restricted the amount of time it could prevent a bill passing through the house to 2 geezerhood. This first strike did much to cripple the upper house and restrict its powers over the government however it cannot be seen as irrelevant because the hou se still had positive powers that could hold up legislation. The House of Lords were particularly efficient of this shortly after the act had been introduced to the house.In 1912 a bill was passed through the house of car park regarding Irish home rule, however the House of Lords were able to hold finish passing the bill until world war one. At this point the bill was dropped because the threat of Germany was seen as a more important issue. After the stand by World War the Labour government, down the stairs Clement Attlee, decided to bushel the 1911 parliament act further. This was because they thought the House of Lords would interfere in their quick nationalisation program and wiretap them from achieving their fellowship goals before the next full general election.The new proposals meant the House of Lords could only hold up new bills for up to a year. It was argued that the time the House of Lords had become irrelevant for a quantify they held very little powers to ho ld the government to account or stop legislation. The act was used as a threat however in 1991 the House of Lords used their remaining powers to slow the War crimes act that would clear the jurisdiction of UK courts to acts committed on behalf of Nazi Germany.The parliament act was used (for the first time since 1914), but it showed the Lords were becoming more involved. Before the House of Lords would be forced to accept legislation through the parliament act once more, Labour in 1997, with the computer backup of the Lib-Dems purposed to end the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords and committed it to their manifesto. This meant at all but 92 of the Hereditary peers would be removed from the House and replaced by appointed life peers a right given to the Prime Minister through the Life Peerages act 1958.This new act meant as a consequence the lords obtained greater authority through the fact the government wanted them there and are seen as less undemocr atic because of this reform. This in rise had a great affect on the activities and use of power by the Lords, which make less irrelevant that they were previously. In the next 7 years the House of Lords opposed 3 acts the European Parliamentary Elections Act in 1999 the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act in 2000 and the Hunting act in 2004, masking greater use of their authority and fulfilling more or less of the necessary tasks the Lords need to assume out in order to retain some relevancy.One office staff of the House of Lords performs is acting as a second opposition for the judicature executive, which has been especially powerful during times when the government has a large volume in the special K because of the first past the post (FPTP) voting system. A good illustration of this role was when the Thatcher government enjoyed majorities of over 100 pastime the elections of 1983. This meant the House of Lords were improving parliamentary opposition, effectively holding g overnment to account and making up for the oppositions weakness.This scrutiny of the executive is made clear through the huge amount of time (around 80%) the Lords drop scrutinising and revising legislation. Their regular attendance and increasing numbers means the House is adopting this role very seriously ensuring their relevancy in the British political system. Arguably the House of Lords have become even more effective at performing this role after The House of Lords Act in 1998 because party leaderships have been selecting more professional politicians to become Lords, who are, arguably, better at scrutinising the executive.As we have seen before, the House of Lords is heavily involved in the legislative process and although they can no longer stop bills that can (and ordinarily do) make amendments. A recent example of this was on the 3rd of November 2011, when the House of Lords made 6 amendments to the Armed Forces Bill. This is an important function of the House because it oversees the work out of the executive and ensures the elected Government is remaining representative, ensuing accountability. just about notice this oversight of the executive as irrelevant because the house is not elected, and is a very unrepresentative elitist group. just there is defence for keeping an unelected second sleeping room as it is came when Labour was in power under the Blair government there were plans to change the House into a wholly elected House, trail Marshall-Andrews importantly pointed out that replacing a second chamber that was foul because of inherited patronage with a second chamber which is rotten with coeval patronage. Suggesting that having an elected chamber would not be an improvement, or any chamber in his opinion, however there are some strong arguments against having a wholly elected chamber. A key point is an appointed second chamber means there are specialists from a broad ordain of subjects present in the house meaning the quality of de bate in the House of Lords is generally better than the quality of debate in the House of Commons, which is dominated by the executive.The Lords are free to vote as they deal because they have no party whip and can generally be more opinionated and do not have to tow the party line. There is also the argument that if both house were elected past there wouldnt be much difference between the chambers and there may be a demand for power off the commons as they are the higher house, Lord Wakeham, a Tory peer who used to head the Royal commission said the house of commons would not give the upper chamber the authority to play an effective role even if both houses were elected.The House of Lords could be seen as been as relevant and as effective as they possibly can be in the situation they are in, besides the House has managed to effectively stand firm the will of the government on key issues such as the Anti-terrorism legislation purposed by Blairs government. The House defeated the government on this issue and managed to make several key amendments on this bill. Although there are some strong arguments for keeping the House of Lords, many believe it is out date and out of place in a modern democratic society therefore it should not be in a position to referee or pass legislation.Thomas Bingham, a writer for the Guardian suggested the House should not exist because it obstruct the will of the commons, he like many other critics of the house believe it is unnecessary and is open to abuse. In 2007 the House came under attack from the press and the Daily Telegraph published the article hard currency for Peerage which suggested that Tony Blair had been accepting money in return for appointing members to the House of Lords.Although this was never be to be true, there was still substantial evidence that suggested it had gone on. This completely destroys the argument that the House of Lords is appointed because of their experience and could make it completely irr elevant. Some believe having a fully elected house would mean the House of Lords would not be open to critics claiming it was elitist and undemocratic.Many are in support of giving the House democratic legitimacy, such as the electoral repossess community, who support an 100% elected House using STV, with election even into the European Parliament cycle Preventing the house from holding up the Government Members of second chamber banned from standing for commons for 4 years No reserved religious seats and thresholds to ensure candidate diversity. This clearly shows that many political elites see the House as irrelevant in its current state, and would be become more relevant, up to date and possibly even more effective if these reforms were to go ahead.The Electoral Reform Society see it as removing the burden from parliament. The House of Lords is seen by some as a irrelevant institute that is out of touch with modern society. However I moot the second chamber is crucial as it acts as a political safeguard that effectively holds the government to account in the event of poor opposition in the House of Commons. Although the House faces lit crit for its undemocratic nature, it is this that allows it to remain a relevant part of society that does no unnecessarily damage the House of Commons.If the House were to be elected by a proportional representation system, such as STV suggested by the Electoral Reform Society, it would become a danger as it would be more representative of the people than the commons and could cause for a demand of power off the lower House. Overall I do not think the House of Lords is irrelevant in modern politics as it performs many important roles effectively, and although at first glance it seems out of place in a democratic society, it would be an executive dictatorship without it.