The House of Lords is a historically powerful body whose members traditionally consisted of hundreds of hereditary peers, whose titles passed from generation to generation. In 2014 Parliament passed the House of Lords Reform Act which allowed members to resign, be disqualified for non-attendance or be removed for receiving prison sentences of one year or more. Recent proposals to reform the house include making 240 of the 300 members elected by the public.
Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Discussions from these authors are shown:
Political party:
@9Q9LLXG9mos9MO
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.
@9RKQQV28mos8MO
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.
@9MH2DYS11mos11MO
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
@9B84XHJ2yrs2Y
Religion is noble but the head of state should be The King.
@968WKHH2yrs2Y
Citizens assembly. Long sighted , impact assessment of policy changes
@92WKT7Q3yrs3Y
No but with a broad range of non-politically appointed experts to debate, question and ratify legislation
Appointed members predicated upon genuine educational and political grounding aid in stability, however, to achieve such a position educational and social opportunities and welfare for the country must be wholly bettered, as to allow for bettered representation for the ‘working masses’. Education being key in terms of proportional representation, with a focus on preventing misinformation as a keystone of politicking, and the removal of hereditary peers and bishops.
@8SJ9NTRConservative4yrs4Y
No, it should be 50% elected and 50% appointed.
Yes, but with long terms to remove politicking
@8SDR4NZ4yrs4Y
No, but reform the appointment methods and protocols to prevent partisan stuffing by the party of government.
@8R8283D4yrs4Y
No, and allow an increased number of hereditary peers.
@Elyspethian4yrs4Y
Those qualified should be in such positions, and shouldn’t be generational—furthermore, groups of individuals from exterior-fields and independent parties should also play a role in political undertakings. Wider sociological issues should be addressed, such as inaccessibly to HE, social inequalities within social institutions and Politics for various groups of persons—alongside educating the public as to said inequalities for wider social understanding—as to make politics more accessible and more understood by the general population.
@8LM4VVFConservative4yrs4Y
Remove bishops and revert back to old system where house of lords was completely hereditary.
@97C3JK6Liberal Democrat2yrs2Y
No but it should be a partially elected body
Abolish the House of Lords and replace it with a Senate
@8Q84WDJ4yrs4Y
No, but a reduction in the overall size of the House is needed
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
