A Defence of the House of Lords

Day 663, 06:10 • Published in United Kingdom United Kingdom • by House of Lords


Many of you are wondering why the House of Lords attracts so much attention and controversy. Furthermore, many of you wonder why we should even have such a body in the eUK. The answer is simple: the House of Lords is central part of the eUK political system and provides a necessary pool of expertise and a check on the highly flawed democratic system that exists in this game.

The House of Lords consists of distinguished people that have either had multiple terms in the HoC, former and current government ministers and high ranking military experts. It means that those people that have the most expertise in our country are able to provide advice on any pressing issues and legislation that are being debated at any time. Those that oppose the HoL generally throw a number of arguments out to say why it is unnecessary.

"The HoL is Not Democratically Elected"

The first argument is that it is undemocratic. They argue that the Lords are not elected and since they don't vote in-game it should not exist. First of all, most of the political structure in this game happens outside of the in-game setup. Alliances such as PEACE and EDEN are not in-game features yet they make binding decisions and take actions. Most of the legislation in the HoC that has been debated and passed does not have an in-game effect and was not voted on in-game.

Moreover, the democracy point is highly flawed as well. The large number of PTOs that have happened in this game and still continue to happen show just how flawed the democratic system is in this game. The fact that someone is elected really means little as it is quite easy to either engineer your own election, or in many cases you can just show up and win. The HoL does not block legislation. It can delay it for valid reasons. Each time this power has been exercised it has been because the HoC missed something or failed to consider an important point. The HoC can bypass the HoL if it chooses so it maintains ultimate responsibility.

"The HoL is Elitist"

Some argue that the HoL is elitist and they can run for the HoC if they want to. People move to the HoL so that newer players can get a shot at getting involved in the political side of the game. If all the Lords were to stay in the HoC, very few new people would ever be elected. It allows the HoC to continue to be a fluid body.

However, at the same time, the HoC has proven that it is not always the best at doing its job. Often times, members blindly vote for measures without reading them or realising what they actually mean. The HoL has caught these mistakes and pointed them out to the HoC. If we were to get rid of the HoL, many of these mistakes would go uncorrected and cause large problems down the line. The HoL takes a non-partisan and detailed look at measures that come before it. The HoC is generally unable to do this given that its whole point is to be a partisan body.

Some also criticise some of the members chosen to be in the HoL. However, spies and other unsavoury characters have been elected to the HoC through either ignorance of the voting public or engineering by supporters. In fact, we have had to ban some MPs from receiving access to sensitive information due their suspected or confirmed status as a spy. It is far more likely that a person with ill intent would get into the HoC than the HoL. Thus, their argument fails here.

"People must Choose Politics or the Military"

People dislike the fact that many in the paras are in the HoL and say that they must choose one or the other. This argument lacks any merit. First of all, there is no reason for this argument other than HoC members must stay in country. However, the ministers do not have this requirement. This is particularly true of the MoDFA and MoFA. This is often the most powerful ministerial spot and has a large effect on domestic affairs in the eUK. They are both politicians and member of the military in many cases. No one forces them to choose one or the other. There is no reason to do so with the HoL. There is no other reason to force our most experienced military members to stop helping our allies just so a few detractors can be satisfied. Forcing them to run for the HoC would deprive us of our strongest military force, hurt our allies and likely deny newer people a seat in the HoC.

The arguments presented to abolish the HoL are based on few, if any facts and are generally just assertions made by those that are more so interested in a power grab than actually making politics better. In fact, many of those that are against the HoL actively campaigned to be members of the HoL. It is a vital part of the eUK and it makes our system stronger.

Support the House of Lords