Should the House of Lords be a wholly elected body?

No and return it to a wholly hereditary body.

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

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.

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 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, 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, 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 .

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.

Return to Hereditary Peers!

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

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

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

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

I don’t really care

Partially with a nominated lords meritocratic, scientific and humanitarian.

stop creating peers for political bias

No, and fewer new appointees.

I don't have enough knowledge to pass judgement on this question.

Introduce elections but continue to have unelected crossbenchers which act as advisors and assistants on issues such as law and religion. Maintain the supremacy of the Commons by keeping in place the current restrictions on what the lords can vote on.

Mix of elected representatives and appointed positions.

Need to do some research on this topic

Don’t hugely care. Wouldn’t change it

Appointments should be based on local government representation, a small number of non-voting appointees and non-MP government ministers for the duration of their appointment. The official opposition should also get one shadow for each government appointment.

Abolish the House of Lords and replace it with a Senate

Yes, but gradually phased into elected peers with very long terms of office, and get rid of hereditary peers and bishops. The 2014 House of Lords Reform Act should still apply.

No and the number of hereditary peers should increase, but bishops should be removed

Citizens Assembly, randomly selected

No, but the House of Lords should be a primarily-elected chamber.

Make it partially elected, and halve the number of peers.

No. Partially appointed and partially elected will give a good balance of experience and accountability for a monitoring body

Body chosen by lottery from people willing to do it, selected numbers in terms of relevance to the economy and society of that sector, no one belonging to a political party now or previously allowed to join.

meritocracy

Yes, & with proportional representation & the position can only be held on a non-renewable term of 6 years, the maximum of 400 Lords.

Yes but a refresh of the system to bring it more up to date

Jury style system of members of the public

Keep bishops and a percentage of hereditary peers rest should be elected

Abolish the house of lords, replace it with an upper tier of government like with the house/senate in America, where members are duly elected from a pool of experts (e.g. doctors, environmentalists, sociologists, etc)

Yes, with PR and single 15 year terms

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.

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.