3 ms·
The standard argument is that it turns out appointed elites doing this works fairly well (they quite often block bad legislation), in principle partly because t
by inclemnet 12y ago
The standard argument is that it turns out appointed elites doing this works fairly well (they quite often block bad legislation), in principle partly because they don't have to pander directly to the electorate. I don't think it's an optimal system, but I can't deny it does have some advantages of this sort.
The concern with changing it is that you could simply make things worse, even if on the surface more meritocratic. For instance, if it just ended up filled with the same career politicians as the commons and just agreed with everything they said. Of course it could end up better as well, in principle, but I'm not sure the government could be trusted to implement things that way.
- calgoo 12y agoWell, at least they could rename them!!!! House of Lords really sounds like they are supposed to be above everyone else. And while you are at it, remove commons as well, as it sounds really degrading. Suggestions for new names anyone?
- coherentpony 12y agoThere's already a term, and we (the UK) uses it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_house https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_house Edit: And the Commons is called the Lower House<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_house> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_house>. In a parliamentary system, the lower house actually has more power.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]