Should the House of Lords be abolished?

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 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

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

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.

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

No, but should be reformed (remove hereditary peers, introduce directly elected peers/sortition etc.)

no but they should change its format kicking out politicians and only allowing people that can give helpful advice to government figures

No, but lords/dames should not be appointed by financial influence/personal relations to prevent corruption.

It should exist as a second house for checks and balances but shouldn't have an elevated status than the Commons

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

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...)

No, the function of the Lords as a revision mechanism is too important, but significant reform would be welcome. Removal of any heredity would be item number one.

Yes, but be replaced with a elected high house that represents county level constituents. There also needs to be maximum terms, to prevent a US style system whereby people are senators for 40 years.

400 normal citizens, like jury service, would be called to serve I. The ‘house of lords’ for a 5year term and then replaced with 400 different citizens

The House of Lords should have its legal powers stripped, however it should be retained in a ceremonial role.

No, but restrict appointments and advice solely to the Appointments Commission and the Monarch, excluding the PM from the process, and abolish hereditary peers.

No, it's good to have more than one body reviewing bills; however, the HoL needs to be drastically reformed and reduced.

No; there should be an appointed second chamber with certain powers of review. It's members should be appointed by the Commons and this process should be transparent and cross-party in nature.

The second house should be elected

Reform it so it is a proportional system. I.E normal lords will be selected based upon the percentage of votes they receive.

At present they are the only authority capable of challenging this Government. To abolish them would be a mistake, though the political appointments should be stopped and others subject to greater , independent scrutiny.

It should be pared back and greatly reformed, but not abolished

No but the process by which Lords are chosen should be reformed.

No, it should be reformed so that it only has Lords who have proven their knowledge and experience, not hereditary peers or automatic political appointments, as well as elected reps only with time-limited tenure and stricter rules on how to gain entry.

It should be reformed completely.

No, but it should be reformed (e.g. elected members, abolish hereditary members, restrict numbers)

Yes, and replaced with an elected Senate.

Yes, and replace it with a Senate

No, but it should transition to being a wholly elected body.

Yes, but replaced with elected officials like in the United States senate

No but it should be Heavily Reformed

No but it's role needs revision and updating. Titles should not be hereditary

Membership should be massively reduced and election should be done independently of governments. Hererditary peerages should end.

Change to represent a cross-section of society and technical experts.

Reform the approach in how individuals become members, For example through hard work and merit not by your ‘mates’

No but remove hereditary lordships

Should be reformed to be elected but not abolished

Replace with an elected chamber

No but hereditary seats should be abolished

I believe a bias judge should have end decision on any Lord opinion and decision

Inherited peers should be abolished. Limited tenure perhaps. Needs reform but a 2nd chamber is needed

No but if public outcry deems the delay and filibustering in contempt of a progressive law the House of Lords should be vetoed

It should be democratically elected

It should be a senate

Reformed into a democratic body

It should be replaced by an elected Senate.

Yes, and replace with a different system

Should be an elected body so there is still another chamber to scrutinise legislation from the lower house

No reform the House of Lords into a senate. 1 seat per current constituency area. Elected via FPTP. Addition members elected from several specialties / industry groups to allow for informed debates. Reform House of Commons to multi-seat constituency elected via PR-STV

Reformed through elections

No, however members should be elected persons of expertise within a particular field

Hereditary peers should be abolished, but the House itself should remain

No, it’s a British tradition

No, but the number of Lords should be reduced and capped, and hereditary peers removed.

No, but peers should not be appointed by politicians

Be reformed

An unelected second chamber can provide expertise to challenge and improve legislation without threatening the democratic supremacy of the elected chamber. We should though get rid of all hereditary and religious members of the Lords

Reform it to be indirectly elected

No, but make it elected instead of selected

No, but reform the size and the way peerages are appointed

Yes and replaced with a senate elected by PR

No but it should be an elected house.

No, but reform the way in which Lords are created

No, but there should be regular integrity checks

I don't have a view on this.

I think it needs to be changed to reflect the world we now live in.

It should be reformed into an upper chamber with elected representatives, using a fairer voting system like alternative voting.

It should be replaced with a guild hall which also replaces unions undue influence on politics and unions must be reduced in political influence. The guild membership must be franchised without the need to pay or be forced into political agendas.

No; make it an elected body instead, also proportional representation.

No, but eliminate political appointments to the Lords and have a limited membership based on expertise with a clear role in the legislative process.

No, but make it more democratic.

Should be elected democratically

The House of Lords should be democratically elected with finite terms.

No - but it should be democratically elected

No, be elected instead

Regulated but not abolished