The House of Lords is the upper house of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Members are appointed by either the monarch or the House of Lords Appointments Commission. The House of Lords reviews laws passed by the House of Commons and can delay their passage if deemed necessary.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Discussions from these authors are shown:
Yes and replace it with an elected upper house
Yes, but there should be another safety net for vetting laws that aren’t people elected by those in government.
The united countries should go to referendum in this matter to decide will they submit to upper house rule.
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.
No but it should be reformed into an elected body of people with expertise on a subject so our laws are overseen by experts
Yes, but replaced with a court oversighted elected upper house with stringent legally required ethical standards.
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’
The house of lords should not be filled by those who actually represent the country rather than being friends/investors of the current PM.
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.
No. But remove all lords by inheritance and instead hire highly skilled professionals and a rotating jury of people
It should be reformed, no hereditary lords. Peerages should be based on merit, former successful politicians, business people, public sector workers that serve a 5 year period before other nominations. It should also be limited to 100 seats.
Should be replaced by a chamber of regionally elected members alongside representatives of public interest groups like trade unions
No but members should include mostly those who do/have done notable humanitarian work rather than the wealthy
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.
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 I think it should be reformed, not have inheritable titles, and be made up in experts of all fields to assess efficacy of laws passed in the commons.
No, but out-going PMs should not be allowed to put anyone in to the HoL; no one should have automatic admission
No but should be elected by a board of trusted citizens with no financial incentives and not be because they are religious or gifted by prime ministers or hereditary.
It should be reformed to become a proportionally-elected legislative body whose approval is necessary for the passing of laws
I would have said Yea, but they've actually stopped some of the Tories more extreme and right wing policies from going through. So if we had a central or left wing government then absolutely, we don't need them. But astonishingly they've actually been helpful so they can stay. For now.
I believe it should be reformed on a meritocratic basis. Taking only members from the top of their respective fields to inform on various subjects. Along with some leaders of the major religions in the UK to represent the religious population.
Yes, and replaced with an elected upper house (I.e an elected senate)
No, but selection criteria should be reviewed
Yes, as long as it is replaced with a new, elected second house.
No, and replace it with an elected upper chamber, voted in through proportional representation and voted for every 10 years instead of every 5
Change the election process for it
No but they should change admittance policies
@926VXZCScottish Green3yrs3Y
No, The House of Lords should be reformed
No, but change the way people are elected to it, and make members do their duty there. Remove the excessive expense claims allowed.
@8Z7QCN5Scottish Green3yrs3Y
It should be elected. There needs to be a check on the government if the government is allowed to continue as it is.
No, but should be replaced by democratically elected non-political/partisan representatives
Yes, and it could be replaced with a further tier of legislature on top of the commons similar to bicameral systems in other parliamentary democracies. So effectively it could serve the purpose it's actually meant to serve, checking and balancing the power of the commons.
It should be reformed into something more democratic
No, It should be reformed to only include merit based selection of various disciplines. e.g. science, arts, economics
No, but should be fully elected
No, but it should be drastically reformed.
Yes, but replaced by elected body
Regulated/elected or alternative body of elected.
Yes but only to be replaced by an elected second chamber
No but it should be a wholly elected body.
No, it should be an elected senate.
Yes, unless it is made either more proportionate or less influential to legislation
It should be abolished and replaced
It should be massively reformed into an elected congress.
No, but representatives should be elected.
No, but it should become wholly elected and have proportional representation.
No, but should be limited to life peers who have made significant contributions to their fields.
No, but remove all temporal and hereditary peers. Make it an advisory chamber.
No, it should be appointed transparently by the House of Commons
It is important to have a second chamber but I would prefer them to be democratically chosen
It should have large reforms, not abolition.
Elected nationally from experts.
Yes, abolish the House of Lords and make it into the elected Senate for the public to vote for there second representative.
ban hereditary peerages and peerages awarded by prime ministers for services to their parties
No, but it should be massively downsized and made more democratic
No but it needs an overhaul.
Abolish hereditary peerage and limit the number of peers appointed by a leader
Yes, but only if it's replaced by another House that holds the Government to account.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
