Should the House of Lords be abolished?

It shouldn't be abolished but needs to be reformed. We do need a detached house that scrutinises commons legislation regardless. It needs to have more constitutional power.

Yes and replace it with an elected upper house

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

No but hereditary peers should be

Not abolished but reformed to remove lords who don’t turn up and do their job above a certain percentage and there should be tighter restrictions on those given peerages to reduce corruption

Yes, there should be a 'second chamber' to discuss and veto policies and laws that the house of commons brushed over too quickly without people realising, but it should not be limited to Lords only and they should also be elected by the public not some elite group.

No, repeal House of Lords Act 1999 and acts that followed

In modern politics, the house of lords is irrelevant, however there are some benefits, I do think, that it should be a similar system to the US in terms of how it has to pass through the house of lords before it can become enforced, rather than them just 'amending bills'

Yes, but a Second Chamber should be established with 100 members elected on a STV PR basis, for a fixed term of 4 years, and no Party Whips involved.

Yes, but replaced with an elected second house drawn from a wide range of backgrounds and no political party involvement. Candidates must be nominated.

No but massively reformed right now it is simply a place to dump failed politicians - rather than a dedicated second chamber

Yes, but failing that, ban the title inheritance.

No, but should change it to an elected chamber

No, but it needs a big reform

No, but the necessary skills and positions in society should be established in the House of Lords, including those in corporate and industrial power and also representatives of marginalised groups.

No, it is important to have an Upper House in Parliament but it needs reform to ensure democratic accountability.

No, it performs an important function, but it should be reformed and be democratically elected using proportional representation.

Hereditary peers should not be a thing, nor should religion be involved, but I do not dislike the idea of a building full of experts without fear of losing their position every few years being able to tell elected officials to edit badly thought-out laws. I think there should be a hard limit of maybe 2 or 3 peerages per general election though.

Elected officials for a set period of time. Greater education at secondary level would enable better awareness pre vote and engagement numbers.

No, but Peerages should be given on the basis of competence and contribution to an individual's respective field alone.

Yes and redirect the skillset of these people to support public service, mentorship and training programs for youth and those on job seeking benefits or students etc.

No, but eliminate the hereditary peers and the lords spiritual and reform the appointment process to be non partisan and transparent

No they need more powers to be able to challenge acts that is brought to the house, but they need stricter selection process

Yes, and replace with either regional assemblies, citizens assemblies or a proportionally elected upper chamber.

No, but it should be reformed to reduce its size and should be appointed based on merit by an apolitical committee

Abolish any form of unelected Second Chamber. Establish an elected Chamber of 250 members, to serve maximum 2 terms, each term to last 3 years (fixed).

It should be replaced by a second elected chamber.
The House of Commons should be reformed by having larger multi-member constituencies (and being renamed as the House of Constituencies) and the House of Lords should be replaced by a new chamber (called the National House) in which each party (among those having received a minimum share of the national vote, such as 4% or 5%) provides a number of members in relation to their share of the national vote.

No, but remove all political parties, all current peers that are aligned with parties, remove hereditary peers, bishops and change the name to the House of Workers as those who will be appointed from then on should be appointed independently from a variety of economic backgrounds and industries

I think it should be reformed, make it more full of policy experts , they would be hired by an independent committee, and these policy experts would handle different areas of policy.

I would not support abolishing the House of Lords, but I do believe it should be reformed. Reforms should focus on improving transparency, accountability, and representation, while retaining its role in scrutinising and improving legislation.

I also believe that members of the House of Lords should be British citizens with strong ties to England, ideally having been born and educated in England or having lived and worked here for a significant period of time, so they fully understand the country, its culture, and the impact of legislation on the public.

No but It should be reformed and all remaining hereditary peers abolished. Lords should also have requirements that they live in the country for most of the year and attend most meetings.

The house of lords should not be abolished however there should be more restrictions in who can be a lord

Yes - although an independent body is needed, separate from that of the House of Commons , in order to scrutinise and gatekeep progress of legislation.

Yes, no unelected official should be allowed to hold any semblance of power (including the royal family.)

A prefer a mixed upper chamber. Some hereditary peers, some appointed peers to serve long terms, and some elected by popular vote.

Should be replaced by a 2nd chamber of democratically elected representatives- not hereditary peers or PM honoure list

The House of Lords shouldn't be abolished as it serves an important technocratic function that cannot cancel public bills put forward to it by the House of Commons, but it should be slightly reformed so that new appointments are selected by an independent committee rather than the Prime Minister to reduce politicisation of the members, as it is meant to be a technocratic chamber. Members should be allowed to voluntarily resign from the House and decisions on whether to retire those who have observable mental decline as a result of illnesses such as dementia.

No, and give them more power to oppose the House of Commons on National Matters as their expertise is invaluable

No, but make lords retire at 75, have them appointed by the monarch on the advice of an independent commission instead of the government, remove remaining hereditary peers, remove the bishops, and ban peers from being members of political parties. The House of Commons should be political and the House of Lords should be independent/cross benches who are there to advise as experts in all fields not voice parties, that is what the lower house is for.

Yes but there should still be checks over legislation - it shouldn’t automatically be passed through the Commons.

Replaced by a "house of experts" elected by a Mix of labourers(currently in employment), SME owners , civil servants and academics

Sort of, It should be made an elected senate with maybe some peers but like 75% elected (200 seats - 2 for each county, and a another 100 for local authorities) and 100 peers.

No but members should be held to account for not attending votes and not be funded if from a wealthy background. They should be doing this for public service not power influence or profit.

No, but the lord spirituals should be removed (or made to include multi faith representives) and the law lords should be reinstated.

No, it should be reformed into a more practical lawmaking body with strict educational requirements for members, with the House of Commons and the democratic system having the utmost authority over its proposals.

Yes, and it should be replaced with a directly-elected Senate of 300 Senators by proportional representation

No, but there should be more transparency and a crackdown on corruption and drug and alcohol use by members of the house.

No, it should be restored with the removal of all Lords temporal, the reintroduction of the hereditary peers, and the increase in the number of Lords Spiritual.

It should either be combined with the house of commons or allowed to have people of different ethnicity race and religion to participate, essentially be more inclusive.

It should be phased out gradually over time and a less 'elitist' second chamber established to provide the necessary checks and balances to parliament.

No, but it should be reformed so there is less party politics involved and there should also be an elected element to it.

No, but it should be replaced by a proportionally elected house and supported by a council of specialists

An elected upper house should be instilled and hereditary peers or those with elitist connections should not be able to be appointed without some form of approval or vote through the people

Yes, and it should be replaced with a still unelected chamber of experts in particular fields with strict term limits

No and their powers should be somewhat increased and increase the size of the house of Lords and increase the number of elected hereditary peer

With the total abolition of hereditary peers, the House of Lords would be a good check against extremism. Even as a lefty I still see the value in a small conservative bulwark, even if undemocratic in nature

The House of Lords is useful as a revising chamber but should not be able to delay legislation passed by the Commons. The Lords' amendments ought be non-binding.

No, it should be overhauled so that they are elected to their role, having extra scrutiny on bills and laws is important.

Yes, it should be replaced with another democratically elected house, using a similar system to the USA

Major reform, remove hereditary roles but allow appointments of professional to balance and check the Commons

Yes but it should be reformed, people elected not by monarchy. Lords should prevent authoritarian government I. E. Should be a wall to people like Keir Starmer

No, the house of lords should be reformed by abolishing hereditary and CofE peers, becoming a technocratic upper house that is still accountable to the commons

I believe in a unique form of proportional representation. When there is an election, there should be 2 ballots. The first will be a proportional representation ballot, and that will elect parties to put members in the more important Parliamentary chamber, the House of Commons. The second ballot will be to elect a local representative who will then go into the newly elected House of Lords. It ensures a more fair democracy through proportional representation, meanwhile also ensuring local representation within our political system.

No, but instead of it being lords, should be the best expert in each field of science and literature eg. climate, history etc.

The House of Lords needs to undergo major reform. 1. All of the Lords have to be chosen in the General Election. 2. Lords can only keep the title for the same time as MPs. 3. The amount of Lords should be 250. 4. The House of Lords shouldn't have limits to who can be a Lord and who can't

The House of Lords Appointment Commission should have a more prominent role in appointing members and cap the amount of peers acceptable

No but it should be filled with genuine experts, who can genuinely and intellectually advise and have their say. Not just people who have friends in high places.

No, but it should be greatly reformed as it is currently unrepresentative and in some instances undemocratic.

The structure of the HOL should be revised. Abolish hereditary perrages and limit number of life time appointees on an annual basis and apply an emprical selection criteria

It should be reformed. In essence, the concept of a house of professionals in respective areas is a great idea but it should be democratically elected.

No. Change it to a citizens chamber like jury service so everyone may get an opportunity to serve and see how the process works for a set term

The upper chamber should be reformed, reduced in size and limited in future, with an element of democratic appointment

The second chamber should be arranged via proportional representation from the general election result, stand for 5 years and paries allowed to appoint who they want from their voted for share

Yes, it should be replaced by a level of part-time non-politicians, serving temporary voluntary 'jury service'-like services.

I understand that the party I am currently voting for (Reform UK) is in favour of, however I am unsure about this particular question myself.

No, it provides important and ideally less political scrutiny of legislation but requires significant reform

The house of Lords should be reformed through a proportional representation system and include strict criteria for admittance.

Yes and replaced with a a different body. Perhaps composed of experts? Perhaps members are randomly selected similar to jury duty

No, but reduce the amount of Lords and higher scrutiny for entry. Lords should also serve functions.

The House of Lords is a good checker for passing legislation however the way peerage is given should be looked at. This is a position that should be earned and not bought

As long as no one is using the House of Lords to favour one thing or another. If it’s balanced, no we should not abolish House of Lords.

It should be reformed so political parties cannot appoint lords they should all be life peers and selected by an Independant committee

No, but it should be harder to become a peer and only a limited amount should be able to. There should be a maximum capacity with a one in and one out basis.

No, it should be reformed into a more democratic institution without hereditary and lifetime appointments.

Yes, but there should be another safety net for vetting laws that aren’t people elected by those in government.

Yes, it should be replaced with an independent group of industry elected and community elected leaders with the purpose of validating laws are for the long term improvement of the UK and it's people.

The united countries should go to referendum in this matter to decide will they submit to upper house rule.

It should be reformed into an electable second chamber with numbers reflecting constituency boundaries

No, it should be redesigned. Hereditary Peers and Bishops should be removed. Ideally, the Commons would be proportional representation and the Lords would be merit-based lifetime appointees for people who are leaders in their respective fields, like academic, professional, scientific and legal experts and those that have served the country in various (non-political) fields. Meritocracy appointees would need cross-party support. If the Commons remains as first past the post, then the Lords could be partly merit-based appointees and partly proportional representation.

A second chamber is useful, but not one accessed by birth or by doing favours for the government. It should be elected.

Yes, replaced with an elected upper chamber so reform or abolishment of the house could achieve this

Replace with a wholly elected chamber that provides scrutiny and challenges to any government legislation.

Simplistic question - our system of democracy has inter-dependent components. You can't change one without considering the relevance / impact of the others.

I think it's important to have a fixed group of people to over see Government. I don't believe that had to be through peerage and privilege.

No, but appointments should be based on merit and expertise in areas such as health, education, the environment, etc.

No, but it should be elected and no political donors should have a seat. In aid of ending corruption and getting back to true democracy

No but it should be reformed into an elected body of people with expertise on a subject so our laws are overseen by experts