The Importance Of The House Of Lords

'The House of Lords is now more effective than the House of Commons in checking government power'. Discuss

The effectiveness of representation would be that Parliament and the parties within represent their constituents and sections of society and voice their opinions and queries often. The effectiveness of scrutiny in parliament involves the studying of a proposed legislation in detail to ensure that it is in the nations interest and that it is in accordance with the powers

The parliamentary system allowed kings to be more aware of the different regions and customs of the population, therefore allowing them to have more freedoms. Also, the gentry could advise the king on issues such as war and taxes so he would know what is unfair to the population, where if he was absolute, he could make whatever tax he wanted. Parliament also allowed for the separation of power into judicial and legislative branches, further strengthening the government because the two areas would not be headed solely by the monarch. Structures such as the Bill of Rights and the system of checks allowed constitutional monarchies to rule more efficiently at the end of the 17th century and on to the

The US federal legislature is bicameral, therefore it consists of the Senate and the House of Representatives, and in theory they should both be of equal power. However, in reality it is the Senate which is considered to hold the most power, although there are arguments to in favour of them having equal rights. In order to reach a balanced judgement I will consider both sides of the argument, beginning with the claim that the Senate is more powerful than the House of Representatives.

Another common criticism of the UK system is that, although most politicians are elected, many powerful people hold their positions without having to face the voters. Over the years criticism has focused on the House of Lords, the civil service and judges. While the people serving these positions may indeed be experts in their field, the citizens of the UK have absolutely no say in who is elected into these positions. This shows a problem in the United Kingdom’s democratic system and one that does not follow a representative democracy.

Elective Dictatorship is the term used to describe the government and the Prime minister to be seen as having powers over the country that seem excessive. A government appointing as an elected dictatorship is likely to have a large majority over all other parties in the House of Commons. This essay will analise the arguments for and against the UK having an elected dictatorship. It will conclude that a proper dictatorship is never possible because the UK’s constitution is a democratic one and there are counter balances to accessive Prime ministerial powers. However when a government has a very large majority it can use its control over the House of Commons to make decisions that can seem to some as being dictatorial.

The House of Commons, on the other hand, is a democratically elected chamber. The House of Lords and the House of Commons meet in separate chambers in the Palace of Westminster (the Houses of Parliament), in central London.

Both houses need each other in order to function as they are both part of the legislative branch of government however there are many arguments to suggest that senate is more prestigious that the house of representatives.

The house of representatives were a way for the colonists to have representation. In massachusetts the house of representatives played the role of the whole legislatures as well as majority of the executive power. (3.5) This same house also carried out jobs of the appointed governor on their own (3.5) A way for the King and Parliament to have had more control over the colonies would be to place people in power who heavily sided with the King. England viewed the lower assemblies as agencies with only temporary and limited law making power, lower houses found it necessary to develop a body of theory with which to oppose unpopular instructions from britain (3.6) If the people didn't have the house of representation then the people would be more likely to revolt. Another thing the Parliament and King could of done to keep the people who seeked freedom would be to lower the tax prices. The colonists felt as if they had unequal representation for amount of

It was, therefore, seen as a breach of judicial independence. However following the creation of the Supreme Court in 2009, senior judges no longer sit in the House of Lords which means are free of political influence and decision making – and in effect – from the legislature as they can speak out against the government.

A parliamentary government is a democratic form of government which operates on a party system. It is the most popular and widely adopted form of democracy. A state that operates on a parliamentary system is run by two executives, firstly the head of state who is either a monarch or president who then appoints a prime minister as the head of government. A parliament can be run by either a single majority political party or as a coalition government in which more than one party collaborate to form the government. In this essay I will be assessing the key strengths and weaknesses associated with a parliamentary government. In doing so I will conclude that whilst a parliamentary government has weaknesses its strengths outweigh these and therefore it is the superior form of democratic government.

Backbench MPs are critical for UK democracy. They allow for high standard scrutiny of the government which holds them accountable for their actions to the people. They help in representing the electorate. However there are some circumstances in which backbench MPs have little control, for example an elective dictatorship or because of the UK party system which is enforced by party whips.

Arguably, the scrutiny of Public Bills has depended more on the House of Lords than it has on the House of Commons in recent years. The term “scrutiny” means the critical observation or examination regarding the Public Bills. The “effectiveness” of the scrutiny could be measured in a variety of ways, such as the period of time the bill stays in parliament for, and whether parliament can take on board evidence from committees and implement the bills into legislation. In order to determine if the House of Lords has been more effective than the House of Commons in scrutinising public bills, it is crucial to compare and contrast the effectiveness of the procedures used in both houses.

For many years it has been argued that parliamentary sovereignty has, and still is, being eroded. As said by AV Dicey, the word ‘sovereignty’ is used to describe the idea of “the power of law making unrestricted by any legal limit”. Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution, stating that Parliament is the supreme legal authority in the UK, able to create and remove any law. This power over-rules courts and all other jurisdiction. It also cannot be entrenched; this is where all laws passed by the party in government can be changed by future parliaments. In recent years sovereignty of parliament has been a

The House of Lords is the second chamber of the UK Parliament and is independent to the Commons although it complements the work of the Commons. Members of the Lords play a vital role in scrutiny, there are two main reasons for this, the first being that they are independent to the Commons and in many ways have increased power which they often use to stand up to the Commons by blocking reforms. Lords also have a better balance of parties so no government has a majority. The Government however can override Lords by using Parliament Act; this was used when the fox hunting ban was being put through under Blair’s government as there were too many in opposition of the ban in the House of Lords. The Parliament Acts, although rarely used, provide a way of solving disagreement between the Commons and the Lords. The Parliament Act of 1949 also prevents Lords from delaying bills for more than one year.