Abolishing The House Of Lords

[AB Editor]

 

This poll is closed.

Should the House Of Lords be abolished?

• No, replace it with something democratic. - 139 votes
• 41%
• Yes, abolish it (and don't replace it). - 122 votes
• 36%
• No, leave it as it is. - 51 votes
• 15%
• No, replace it with something appointed. - 30 votes
• 9%

See final stats

Stats until: 17:35 Sat 16th Nov 2024 (Refreshed every 5 minutes)

© AnswerBank Ltd 2000 - 2024. All Rights Reserved.

[wolf63]

I can't really answer this as I have no idea if they actually do anything. If they do have a reason to exist can the work be done by other agencies?

[AB Editor]

No, not really. Most people would like to remove them on democratic grounds as they're unelected. I don't know if they still have the 90 hereditary peerages in there.

They're a funny one as mostly they just rubber-stamp the government bills, but occasionally they take on the role of learned elders and kick something back on moral grounds.

They get the bills after the commons and then send back with changes, challenges, or OK it.

[ichkeria]

The most likely thing that will actually happen is the one that is not on here:
Leave it as it is but reduce the numbers

[Prudie]

I used to think No because they were just an institution, part of our heritage and as you say rubber stamped everything. Now it is filled with ex MPS who aren't ready to let go of their power so yes get rid of it - or at least leave it as just those over 80 who like to turn up and snooze.

[wolf63]

Most of them seem to be either the walking dead or brain dead.

It is easy to say that they should be abolished - but that is making a decision without thinking through the ramifications.

[anotheoldgit]

We definitely need a second house, but it should be democratically run and on a much small scale.

I can also see no reason for the Bishops or any of the other religious leaders.

[AB Editor]

I agree completely AOG.

[steg]

"I can also see no reason for the Bishops or any of the other religious leaders."

not even if they were democraticly voted in?

[AB Editor]

I wonder about reducing the size of the commons and having a second house of similar size.

The nice thing about the HoL right now is that they're not tied to the election cycle, so they can respond of philosophical grounds.

[anotheoldgit]

Perhaps it should be changed to a chamber, in which prominent members of the general public are installed.

Then perhaps a representative voice of the people could be heard, petitions debated, and then passed forward to the commons.

[AB Editor]

Steg. That would be interesting. How about directly voting for cabinet members of the second house?

[AB Editor]

I like that too AOG. A bit like the big cheese days featured in The West Wing.

[AB Editor]

[bednobs]

why do we even need a second house?

[Ellipsis]

It should be elected on a PR basis using the same election results as the Commons, which should remain FPTP.

This would mean that a party getting 4 million votes would get a voice in the legislature, if not the executive ...

It also gets past the problem of PR in the executive where small parties can act as "kingmakers", having a disproportionately large say.

[sunny-dave]

Nice idea ellipsis - I've had a think & can't see any obvious defects

[AB Editor]

"why do we even need a second house?"

Ideally it would be to keep the HoC in check.

Ellipsis's idea has lots of benefits, but it locks the election cycle in, which can be seen as a weakness. Other system either rotate the seats up for grabs at any one time, or have different terms for different houses.

[jno]

I don't think they're brain dead; most (not the hereditaries) are specifically chosen because they've got some knowledge of the world, unlike MPs who go straight into politics from Eton (perhaps after a brief stint in a law firm). Moreover, as it's a job for life, they can safely ignore party whips, whch gives them more independence of mind than MPs.

There are some crooks there, of course, like Jeffrey Archer - but that's a failing of the systems of the lower house, which ultimately puts them there.

[ichkeria]

As I've said elsewhere, a second elected chamber is not a good idea if you belive in the authority of parliament. Because although in theory, and probably also in practice, the Commons would still be pre-eminent, whenever there was something particularly controversial like the Brexit Bill hoo-ha, the fact that the Upper House was elected would give it an authority or an authenticity which it probably doesn't merit and would not be good for legislation.
Better an appointed - but smaller - body which, as now, has the role of debating and suggesting amendments to Commons Bills, without, as someone said above, needing to be concerned with the electoral cycle. Maybe a third of them could be elected. The trouble is you end up with endless elections: we already have quite a lot as it is. And we all hate our elected representative don't we?

[sunny-dave]

If it's got to be 'appointees', ichkeria, then I'd exclude anyone who has ever been an MP or worked as an aide or policy wonk in the HoP.