Should the House of Lords be abolished?

No, but hereditary peerages should be abolished.

Make it elected instead

No, but hereditary peers should.

Yes. Replace with an elected senate

Replace with an elected upper chamber

No, but it should become a wholly elected body.

The house of lords should be fully elected, but it needs to be kept in order to prevent a dictatorship.

No, but reformed to include elected officials

Yes but we need to make sure the replacement is independent of the house of commons and can provide proper scrutiny of its plans

It needs massive reform, it shouldn't be a life time position and there should be criteria to join, not just I'm rich and my mate let me pay for a place in it. There also needs to be restrictions on the number of people in it and it's a job so people should actually have to do their job not just show up and be paid to have a nap.

Keep the lords and add a third, larger elected chamber (House of Senators) between the House of Commons and House of Lords

No but members should include mostly those who do/have done notable humanitarian work rather than the wealthy

It should be reformed, everyone in it should put up for election back in with their voting record public, except for any previously elected Prime Minister all elected Prime Ministers should have automatic seats in the House of Lords

No, but hereditary peers should be abolished, and the house should be reformed into an unelected house of experts with a wide range of professional and academic knowledge.

Yes, and replaced with a mix of appointees (current type of Lords) and proportionally elected members equally representing the various regions of the UK (ie. 6 members from Yorkshire, 6 members from Scotland, 6 members from Cornwall, 6 members from London, etc...)

Yes, and replaced with a jury duty style system with citizens serving one year on a rota basis with their full normal wage paid by the government, with access to impartial expert advice on a variety of topics.

Sorta, It should be converted into solely a board of experts whose permission would be needed for a bill to pass

No, but it should be reformed into an elected house which represents each country in the UK with equal membership.

As originally intended in 1919, when a better system is put in place not dependent on hereditary or personal favour.

No, as a second house is important for people voting on morals rather than worrying about elections. However we need an overhaul of all current members.

No, but it needs to be reformed and become a second elected chamber. A bicameral chamber has plenty of merits, but the lords needs to be just as democratic and accountable like the Commons. Almost the same answer I give back when I did in fact support abolition of the lords.

Reform it yes but I think that there are some wise people in the house so the knowledge of certain peers is a valuable asset

No but it needs HEAVY reform. Bishops need to be removed, limits on time in office implemented and generally made more democratic.

No, but have them elected and have them be acting professionals in their respective areas and they must be independent from and not members of any political party.

it should be replaced by a house of highly educated individuas who are/have been at the top of their field

No, but the number of members should be significantly reduced and only the largest parliamentary factions should be able to propose potential nominees

no, but should be reformed to remove hereditary peers and those appointed must be appointed due to an area of expertise.

Yes, but it should be a similar system to how the American House of Representatives and Senate function.

It should be changed to remove lords and replace them with honourable businessmen who have a proven knowledge in some industry and have proven their philanthropic duty to the public. Also, religious people should be removed from decision making.

No, a second house to review government policy is essential. But they should be elected and it should not be inherited. Anyone not attending a minimum number of sessions forfeits their title and they should pay for food and transport.

Yes, but it should be replaced with something that informs policy decisions from leaders in all fields. Or the churches seats and hereditary seat should be removed.

No but members should not be paid for the privilege. If they are paid it should be mandatory to attend/vote etc.

It needs to be overhauled. And no longer by appointment to pass laws the government needs to pass. Membership should be reduced to ten years

Yes, but there should be an independent, publicly elected body to review laws passed in the house of commons.

No it should be drastically reformed, with the total removal of hereditary and spiritual peers and the introduction of terms.

Yes and replace with an elected Senate with at large elections representing England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland

Yes, and replaced with a proportionally elected senate, however peerages should remain, and if this isn’t possible then both the government and the opposition should have to agree to appoint lords

It should abolish it and replace with an upper house populated with individuals from political parties based on PR

No, because it is a check on the government. But, it needs some serious work to fix some of the issues that have come to light recently.

Yes, and it should be replaced by a House of trained professionals that represent the best interests of the people and the economy

No, but reform the House of Lords to be experts from industry and civil matters, remove political appointments, and remove life peerages.

No, it should be reformed to exclude all hereditary peers, clergy and political appointees and only include members elected by professional associations, trade unions and research institutions, and given more powers.

no, but the PMs right to appoint life peers should be removed with greater increase in the powers and independence of the House of Lords Appointment Committee serving to create a house of true experts and representatives of small minority groups that will effectively scrutinize and hold the government to account

Yes, should be replaced with a elected body with either proportional representation or Single Transferrable Vote (STV)

No, but hereditary peers should regain their seats and blend with a system that appoints expert peers across different fields

No, but it should be reformed toward a focus on diverse professional insight rather than hereditary roles.

No, reform the House to 26 Bishops, 150 single-term Lords Temporal elected on a mixed open/closed list PR in groups of 50 every five years and not sooner than four years, and 200 life-peer non-party experts selected every five years by sortition from a pool of appointed Lords Conciliar.