The role of the British Parliament’s second unelected chamber has been debated for a century to no avail. Despite minor reform in the late 1990s, the future of the House of Lords remains ambiguous at best. So what is the purpose of the House of Lords? Should it be left untouched, reformed, or ultimately abolished?
The House of Lords should be abolished
The House of Lords is irrelevant in modern life and detrimental to our democracy.
The House of Lords is undemocratic
The way the House of Lords is selected is fundamentally undemocratic.Explore
Membership and the cost of the House of Lords has ballooned
The cost of maintaining the House of Lords is increasingly unmanageable.Explore
The House of Lords is a relic from a bygone era
The House of Lords is not relevant to modern society.Explore
The House of Lords should remain untouched
The House of Lords is an institution that benefits British democracy.
The House of Lords works well
The House of Lords plays an important role in the English government, and does it well.Explore
The House of Lords is a chamber of experts
The people in the House of Lords have a variety of expertise which make it a unique and beneficial institution.Explore
The House of Lords should be reformed
While the aim of the House of Lords is positive, it does not serve us in its current form.
Hereditary peers should be abolished
Hereditary peers are a leftover from Aristocracy that do not benefit British society.Explore
The House of Lords should partially be elected
Enabling some of the House of Lords to be elected increases the level of democracy while preserving the 'checks and balance' feature of the House.Explore
The House of Lords should be fully elected and replaced with a Senate of the nations and regions
Instead of the second chamber being wholly unrepresentative of the UK, it should be replaced with a Senate who can represent the UK.Explore
This page was last edited on Wednesday, 11 Mar 2020 at 18:06 UTC