Try the political quiz
+

Filter by author

Narrow down the conversation to these participants:

Reply

 @B3CT7ZDPlaid Cymruanswered…1mo1MO

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

 @B2WQYCFanswered…2mos2MO

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.

 @9KZM56Sanswered…1yr1Y

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.

 @9BNNGH3answered…2yrs2Y

Reformed. No hereditary peers, no religious peers,. Combination of elected by PR and appointed

 @92GSVKRanswered…3yrs3Y

All hereditary lordships should be abolished and there should be revisions for all those currently serving to determine whether or not they are in fact exceptional enough for such a position. All hereditary lords should also be billed for everything they’ve claimed in expenses during their time in government.

 @8V5M796answered…4yrs4Y

 @8TFGP8PLabouranswered…4yrs4Y

No, it needs to be reformed so it is wholly elected. I used to support abolition as it is undemocratic.

 @8NZCQSQPlaid Cymruanswered…4yrs4Y

No, but it should only be a chamber for Parliamentary Scrutiny. It should not have more power than the House of Commons, and should not be allowed to propose legislation

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...