Should the House of Lords be a wholly elected body?

No and return it to a wholly hereditary body.

Separate church and government

Yes, the house of lords should be a body based on academic knowledge to act as a balance to the house of commons

Yes, the house of lords should be a body based academic knowledge to act as a balance to the house of commons

The Lords should be chosen by the government based on their fields of expertise and skills, but remove hereditary peers and bishops.

Yes, anyone over the age of 18 should be able to apply for the 2nd level 'jury service'-style 'law review committee service'.

No, but only hereditary members should be kept. All non-nobility in the house of Lords should be removed permanently

No, but the positions should be more diverse (eg all regions represented) or appointed specialisms (law, business, or environment) and time limits on how long they can serve.

Hereditary peers should be abolished. Religious peers should be limited to one per main religion. Some peers to be elected by PR but on a fixed term. Other peers to be independently appointed based on prior work for society, expertise etc.

No however stop outgoing PM's the right to appoint lordships and lords should be held accountable and have restricted benefits.

The Government/Crown should not be picking members of the Lords, there should be a wholly independent body picking experts in various fields determining who should sit in the upper house for a fixed term

No, but a review of how many people are allowed to be granted peerage & the grounds for their nomination needs to be actioned.

House of Lords should be replaced with a technocractic system where experts get the final say on the detail in laws

At least 40% should be elected with proportional representation and hereditary peers and bishops should be removed.

No. But former politicians should not be allowed. Appointments to be removable for instance when the appointee has dementia.

Appointees from education, commerce, military, religious, medical as well as politics. Hereditary Peers should be abolished, and a large proportion taken from across the nation from the electoral role

No, members should be appointed by trade unions, professional associations and research institutions; hereditary peers, bishops and political appointees should be removed.

No, but a proportion of members who have excelled in business, sports and public life etc should be appointed by an independent committee

It should be made up of experts and professionals in different fields with the expertise to interrogate policies. Hereditary peers should be abolished and no peers should be allowed to hold cabinet positions.

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

It should be an elected, rotating group of specialists and advisors representing a broad spectrum of study, industry and topics.

Maybe, but not necessarily. In addition to banning hereditary and church appointments party ‘honours list’ appointments should be banned.

Some proportional representation but others can be appointed by political parties but with strict criteria.

Could be some appointed due to industry experts, as shaped and built with citizen led groups and some positions that could be voted so there are more every day citizens able to also be part of that system

No, and MPs should not be allowed to be appointed to the Lords, Lords should not be allowed to run for election to the Commons

Yes, institute a mixed system of political appointments and elected candidates in a proportional way

No, but have a House of Nations & Regions with a fixed amount of members appointed by the FM of each nation/region.

No, but include representatives for industries, faiths and workers to make the House of Lords align with corporatist ideas

No, remove hereditary peers and bishops and make it more difficult to enter, increase qualification criteria

No. Reinstate hereditary peers into the House of Lords and limit the number of Life Peers that can be appointed.

Total overhaul create an upper house comprising metro mayors and bishops and hereditary peers. Ensure they have to attend a minimum of 80% of sessions to retain their seat

Yes, and with proportional representation, but keep peerages and make the government and opposition have to agree before anymore patronages are made.

Yes, but only elected by members of professional associations, trade unions and research institutions.

Again, it depends on whether they would remain following a referendum on them, which then if they did make it I would say they would be useless being elected since that is the purp;ose of the hOUSE OF cOMMONS.

No, but remove the concept of hereditary peers (let the existing ones be converted to life peerages) and tighten up the rules for who is eligible - try to reduce political cronyism, and appoint people with genuine experience to contribute.

No, it should be part elected (with proportional representation) and part how it is now (without hereditary peers)

It should be the house of experts instead with the countries best minds, talents from across the arts, sciences , humanities , social and governance etc… appointed .

Yes but with much longer terms than the Commons and without the reinstatement of their ability to block bills outright.

No. Experience of eminent citizens (including bishops) is valuable. There may be scope for a form of elected representation in the second chamber.

Perhaps we should have a 'House of Scientists' or something to act as a filter to prevent the government enacting really bad laws. Then again this is undemocratic.

Abolish the House of Lords, replace it with proportional representation, remove hereditary peers and bishops. Positions must be earned, not given.

Yes, but only once for lifetime membership and a process of reform should be conducted to give the House of Lords a more meaningful purpose for society's benefit.

No but they should be picked based on being the best in thier field payed an extremely good wage for life but not allowed any secondary income also thier sole gole should be protecting the British publics interest and improving thier way of life

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.

No, include all hereditary peers (but do not replenish them if they become extinct) and religious leaders should include all faiths with organizations native to the country (Church of Scotland, Jewish, Muslim, and other representatives, etc.)

No, experts, civil servants, hereditary peers and bishops should be appointed, whereas political Lords should be selected by their respective political party membership

Yes, with proportional representation, but allocate a small number of seats (e.g. 5-10) that the Prime Minister can appoint people to that are reserved for only Ministers of State. These people need to have relevant experience in the area in which they are being appointed to, and there should be an Appointments Panel to review the appointment. When they lose their ministerial job, they automatically lose their seat in the House of Lords,

This is a complicated subject. They are important for lawmaking and regulation. If we keep the House then we need a reset of how it functions.

It should be faith leaders, hereditary peers, and people who have been appointed by an independent body to act as technocrats

If the House of Lords remains in existence it should have herediary or life peerages cut off with a notice period of 4 years, and then elections every 4th year.

I don't really understand enough about this so I can't say I think it should be a wholly elected body. I think it should definitely be partially elected by the publc and have equal representation across all members and not be made up of hereditary peers

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.

Lords must have an attendance programme and anyone hereditary or not must take the role seriously and attend parliament.

No, it doesn’t serve a whole lot of use to the UK but it’s historical and has been here for many many years. So just keep it.

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

No, but replace it with a Senate of term-limited external experts, appointed by parliamentary approval, to scrutinise relevant legislation.

No but appoint experts in their fields and limit the time members can serve and remove political appointments.

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

No, but remove political appointees, select hereditary peers according to declared political allegiance, make their attendance mandatory, and impose mandatory political party balance to ensure that voting cannot take place on a blocking basis

Replace with a citizens assembly based n demographics (i.e. the population of the UK is 85% English, so that should be replicated)

The house of lords should be a panel of experts from all fields that scrutinize the work of the other house. For example; Former police chiefs, consultants, head teachers who only vote on the fields that they are qualified in.

A new house should be implemented instead, however, this house should be the lower house. Proposing bills to the commons, but with no voting power. This house should have elected officials from constituencies. They would need to work in separate to the fellow member in the commons

No, because it adds balance it should stay as it is but with careful vetting on who joins and the appointment of some ethnic hereditary peers who wouldn't sit in the house (necessarily) but would demonstrate what this country is.

Yes, but a second directly elected chamber will set up conflict with the commons. However a wide range of bodies - charities, religions, professional bodies, political parties, etc. should be able to elect members with expertise to sit in a revising chamber.

Number of Lords should be fixed rather than allow politically motivated appointments party donors should be banned

No, appointed members provide stability. Nevertheless the commons shouldn't be able to stack it with their own politicians, it should be made of technical specialists, moral authorities such as the bishops and legal experts. Such people are better placed to scrutinise our laws

Refer to my prior opinions presented on the House of Lords. I am in favour of abolishing it, however find the mass opinions of our people more important for this specific topic.

No but weed out hereditary peers and absentees.

Yes, but elected members of the house should hold permanent office.

No, appointed members are changing every 4 years and should be the best in their field. The House is divided to different areas law, medicine ..etc

The House of Lords and House of Parliament should include high level representatives from Health, Education, Business, Faith, Charities etc to really represent the people.

Have elected positions be PR but still allow appointments for specialists and Hereditary Peers and bishops

Yes, but the people eligible to stand have to have real life experience in topics outside of politics. Science, education, health and social care, arts, etc

It should be replaced with a deliberative body made up of called-up members of the public, similar to jury service

No, it should instead be reformed as a jury-duty ancient Greek-style upper house, with terms of 12 months with a continuation of salaries and full subsidies and/or tax breaks for companies affected by any temporary secondments.

No, and return to hereditary peerages.

No, and the hereditary peers should be reinstated

Yes, but only experts in their field can be elected

No, hereditary Peers and Bishops are chosen by God and should never be defiled

No, instead make it hereditary again.

Yes, with proportional representation and keep hereditary peers.

read my notes

Religion is noble but the head of state should be The King.

Citizens assembly. Long sighted , impact assessment of policy changes

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

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

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

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

No but remove bishops.

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

Yes, and remove all of their political power

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

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

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

No, but remove PM appointments and PM-appointed members

Reduce and reform.

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

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.

No, but abolish life peerages and revert to hereditary elevation