Should the House of Lords be Abolished Assignment

Should the House of Lords be Abolished - Assignment Example According to the research findings, it can, therefore, be said that modern democracy asserts the popular representation of values in government through elected officials as a structural characteristic. Most British people, on this basis, oppose the House of Lords as a political institution because of the power is given to royalty and hereditary legacy within the body itself. As an Angus Reid poll in 2010 showed: â€Å"In the online survey of a representative sample of 2,004 adults, three-in-ten respondents (30%) believe the UK does not need a House of Lords and want all legislation to be reviewed and authorized by the House of Commons. Two-in-five Britons (40%) think the UK needs a House of Lords, but want the people to be allowed to take part in the process to choose lords. Only nine percent of respondents think the current guidelines that call for appointed lords should not be modified. Two-thirds of respondents (66%) support holding a nationwide referendum to decide the future of the House of Lords. A clear majority of Britons (58%) supports the notion of allowing the people to directly elect their lords. Conversely, only three-in-ten (30%) are in favor of abolishing the House of Lords altogether.† Thus, the British people are calling for reforms in which politicians and not royals would be elected to the House of Lords in a manner similar to the way the U.S. Senate functions in American democracy, including elections, term limits, and â€Å"checks & balances† between the upper & lower Houses of Parliament, rather than the total abolishment of the House of Lords. The House of Lords in fundamentally undemocratic, having been instituted as a means to limit the expression of the people’s will politically when it comes into conflict with the interests of the royals in society.  

Letter for the editor of Wall Street Journal Essay

Letter for the editor of Wall Street Journal - Essay Example economy did not fall, but reflected 0.0 percent in growth in the first quarter. Other firms, especially JP Morgan agree that the economy fell by a minor 0.2 percent rate, raising questions concerning the validity of quarterly estimates (Mitchell). As it is the case with all reports about the economy, the government announces employment, retail sales, and GDP estimates early, whose data is incomplete. When other data is introduced, the government should adopt the revised values. For GDP, the government should present first estimates then make two revisions for every quarter. The first GDP reading presented for the first three months of 2015 indicated a growth of 0.2 percent. The second reading indicated -0.7 percent growth. This is because it emphasized on data that incorporated a rise in trade deficit, which prevailed at the end of first quarter (Mitchell). Thus, based on these projections, I propose that the first quarter is not horrifying as economists anticipated. This is because the economy is showing signs of growth, particularly because of the growing income, which is fostering consumer spending in diverse industries across the country. Mitchell, Josh. Reports of the U.S. Economy’s Contraction Have Been Greatly Exaggerated. Wall Street Journal. 11 Jun. 2015, web. 12 Jun. 2015.