+

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 6.9k S voters.

61%
Yes
33%
No
51%
Yes
18%
No
10%
Yes, and with proportional representation
10%
No, but remove hereditary peers and bishops
5%
No, appointed members provide stability and progress instead of political deadlock

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 6.9k S voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 6.9k S voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from S voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @9JBZT7N answered…11mos11MO

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.

 @9D89GCPanswered…1yr1Y

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

 @9QJWJ69answered…5mos5MO

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

 @9QFDGZTanswered…5mos5MO

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

 @9QCVFRDanswered…5mos5MO

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.

 @9Q9LLXGanswered…5mos5MO

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.