Try the political quiz

225 Replies

@ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...9yrs

No, appointed members provide stability and progress instead of political deadlock

@984CCL9from Seoul-t'ukpyolsi  answered…4 days

No, bring back most hereditary peers and remove most appointed peers.

@982TSGLConservative answered…6 days

No, but appointed members should be considered experts in their respective fields rather than friends of politicians.

@979T28FLiberal Democrat answered…1mo

Idea 1) A house of experts: The chamber still operates in the same way scrutinizing legislation that's passed the commons but all members represent different fields e.g. tech, maths, health, science, art, construction etc and are chosen based on their expertise in these fields (no hereditary peers).

Idea 2) 'The people's house': Following the release of the results from the 2022 census, a new house is created using up to date demographic info. I.e if 2.1% of the UK are Asian women then 2.1% of the lord's will be Asian women and it'll go much more in depth, it'll consider ages, disability income, occupations etc. So that the house becomes a microcosm visually and literally representative of people in the UK.

These people will be chosen at random like jury service and will have set terms.

@96XXZZ4 answered…1mo

@96RGFMHLabour answered…1mo

No, but membership should be technocratic with independent appointments

@968WKHH answered…2mos

Citizens assembly. Long sighted , impact assessment of policy changes

@966NDGWConservative answered…2mos

My answer has already been provided, but I shall reiterate it. The House of Lords should constituted as such; 25% Life Peers, 25% Hereditary Peers, 25% Clergy

@9664P9B answered…2mos

Lords should be replaced with a people's assembly who perform the same function but are made up of a diverse cross section of society from a range of cultural groups and employment types, and members should serve for a limited period before New representatives are selected

@964PCDR answered…2mos

Yes, but with longer tenure, to ensure an increased level of stability Vs the house of commons

@964GPY9 answered…2mos

Members should not be affiliated with political parties and should elected representatives from engineering, arts, science, economics, etc.

@962VZL8 answered…2mos

Yes, replace it with regionally elected officials and each year, they should be require to be reallocated.

@95WCV9BReclaim Party answered…2mos

No, it should be mostly elected with 10 seats for religious representatives distributed based on census data and 10 to be elected for life from the peers for stability and longevity

@95K7NHZ answered…3mos

No, but there should be no political appointees. Appointments based on expertise in various fields of knowledge and experience.

@95CL72J answered…3mos

No, it should be partly elected and partly appointed based upon expertise rather than cronyism

@953594J answered…3mos

@94BVFG2 answered…4mos

A way needs to be found of democratising the House of Lords in such a way as retains its current strengths

@93YWBLC answered…4mos

Yes with a different form of election to form a more democratic government

@93W65BJConservative answered…5mos

Those with hereditary peers have a historical right to sit in the House of Lords but one third should be made of Bishropic's and another third should be made of life peers. Hereditary peers also should attend examination to examine their knowledge relevence and expertise or undertake National Service.

@93VGXT3 answered…5mos

No, reform to wholly appointed chamber with a fairer and regulated public appointments committee, reduce the number of peers to 100 and replace upon resignation, removal or death and also make sure all peers are crossbench and non-party affiliated meaning no former members of Commons

@93RTGPW answered…5mos

Yes but if an heir of a lord is in a similar position they may uptake the role

@93M6LDS answered…5mos

No, but hereditary peers and bishops shouldn't receive the same "afforded necessities" such as salary or expenses, as they aren't elected by democratic process directly.

@93FJ6TH answered…6mos

@932HQN4 answered…7mos

No, but the inflation of HOL numbers by political appointment should be strictly limited and approved by both sides of the house to prevent political imbalance with changes in govt. hereditary peers and bishops should remain.

@92ZZKFJConservative answered…7mos

No, members should be appointed in the same proportion as the House of Commons. And should only serve for four years.

@92WKT7Q answered…7mos

No but with a broad range of non-politically appointed experts to debate, question and ratify legislation

@92THKKP answered…7mos

Keep hereditary peers, but randomly select a similar number of commoners from the electoral roll

@92RWMJM answered…7mos

It should be replaced with hired specialists to help inform the decisions of the house of commons

@92LTJDP answered…7mos

Partially with a nominated lords meritocratic, scientific and humanitarian.


The historical activity of users engaging with this question.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 


Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...