Should the House of Lords be abolished?

No but hereditary peers should be

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.

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

No, the House of Lords should be reformed as a body of experts (leaders in their field) and perform a similar function

Lords should not be hereditary, appointed by government or be church representatives. The House of Lords should be 100% elected

Yes and replaced with specialists with a lifetime of experience. It should be a check and balance system.

Replaced with an elected Senate, an advisory upper chamber elected via FPP (with the Commons now elected by prop rep) with the same powers as the Lords

No, although it does mean there is a political 'lag' as the lords are promoted often due to previous governments.

Yes, but replaced with a court oversighted elected upper house with stringent legally required ethical standards.

Yes, it should not be a heritary right, it should be more a second house where final vote on legislation is debated by professionals, not a barter system for party donations. It needs to be more neutral and more proportional represented.

Maintain a politically neutral upper house to provide a check and balance but have them appointed by the counties to ensure equal representation of the country's subdivisions.

Change the House of Lords to be similar to a chivalric order instead of a House of Parliament and replace it with a wholly elected Senate as an upper chamber to Parliament

Yes, and replace it with a Senate of term-limited external experts, appointed by parliamentary approval, to scrutinise relevant legislation.

I believe the people in the house of lords should be fired. Only people voted for by the public should be a member of the house of lords

Yes, the House of Lords should be made up of constituency MPs, and the House of Commons replaced with proportional representation

No but it should be heavily reformed and there should be no input from the monarchy, peerage or archaic systems of inequality such as the ‘nobility’

No, but it should be replaced with either a fully elected upper house, or one based on a jury service model of citizens assemblies

No, the upper chamber should not be abolished entirely but replaced with a wholly elected body under Proportional Representation with the power to reject laws passed by the lower chamber

The House of Lords should remain an appointed body, but individuals should be appointed by an independent commission rather than the government.

No, but there should be a term limit which limits the number of honours given by exiting prime ministers.

It should be reformed. Hereditary peers should be abolished and peers should not be allowed to hold cabinet office. It should be made up of experts and professionals in different fields with the ability to analyse and interrogate policy.

No, but the number of life-peerages should be dramatically reduced, the number of hereditary peers sitting in the House of lords should be increased, and there should be an appointment system, similar to the Irish Senate, implemented instead

No but the method of appointing members needs to be overhauled with members appointed on the basis of contribution to the country and the public in general.

No, it should be reformed to host democratically elected peers with experts invited for specific legislation to aid governmental officials make informed decisions, with any lordly peers removed from the house

No but lifetime and child peerages should be removed, and there should be elected lords and maximum terms

Needs to become less of a rich boys club. Too many people using their position for self gain rather than doing what they were elected to do which is serve the people.

No, but reduce salary, performance based pay. Remove subs on food, travel etc. Not allowed to have a 2nd job etc. House of Lords needs to be the sole job.

The house of lords should not be filled by those who actually represent the country rather than being friends/investors of the current PM.

Reformed so all members serve a restricted term. No new years honours for political cronies. Normal people who have done something extraordinary. Age limit ( eg no one over 70).

Yes. Oversight is fundamental to a working government, but the House of Lords is not a fair representation of the society over which they preside.

create a forced retirement age and crack down on being able to vote on matters which personally benefit the lords

No as they are a good check on the first house but it should be much smaller and not hereditary or religion based

Yes, but the problem with a two house electoral system is that it draws attention away from the house of commons. which needs reform I do think we need a scrutinisation committee that looks at leglilation. But I think the public as a whole are not informed enough about who can be selected to be there.

A bicameral parliament with additional independent legislative oversight in the form of the Lords is good, although the lords could be abolished as long as a similar process existed

The House of Lords should be reformed so that it can perform as an effective second chamber which acts as a check and balance on the House of Commons.

Yes, and replace it with a chamber that devolves more power and authority to regions and territories.

No, but needs to be reconstituted within an overall UK political restructure that provides better representation and connection to regional assemblies.

The method of selection for the HoL should be abolished. An appointed or elected second chamber with no party claiming majority would be useful.

No but reduce the number of hereditary peers and increase the number of those selected based on experience and knowledge

No, but it should be reformed and appointments should be made in a non-partisan way on the basis of expertise

Complicated, but it needs reform. It can remain unelected however, certain limitations should be put in place, like age, and the political makeup of the House of Lords etc.

No, an unelected second house is important for critical professional view of laws, but it should consist only of experts

Reform it to be more like a Federal Senate, with both appointments and elected positions, plus restore certain pre-1999 elements like Law Lords and bring back more Hereditary Peers in addition.

Replaced with an upper chamber of appointees from a pool of applying candidates selected according to merit and talent, not as political appointees or temporal/spiritual peers.

House of Lord should be reformed and made into a second elected house and hereditary peers abolished.

The house of lords should not be abolished but membership should be controlled. Lords should not be appointed by outgoing prime ministers.

No, as they have been instrumental in preventing the current gvt from abusing their power. However, the selection process needs to be steingent, unilateral and not just at a whim.

The House of Lords should act in the interests of the public first and foremost, instead of which political party they are aligned to.

A second house staffed with technical balanced representation to freely scrutinise legislation and policy is essential but it must be divorced from heraldry and be for fixed terms

They should be picked randomly from those eligible to sit there as to who gets to sit there on any given day.

No, but should be changed to a meritocratic chamber for those who are successful in a diverse range of fields

No, but religious and hereditary peerships should be abolished. Members should be appointees of the House of Commons. Service should have a finite (long) term.