Should Britain Scrap the House of Lords?

On Monday, Labour published a report suggesting a number of constitutional changes they wanted to make - most notable among them being major changes to the House of Lords. So should the Lords be scrapped for being undemocratic, or is it valuable?

TLDR is all about getting you up to date with the news of today, without bias and without filter. We aim to give you the information you need, quickly and simply so that you can make your own decision.

TLDR is a completely independent & privately owned media company that's not afraid to tackle the issues we think are most important. The channel is run by just a small group of young people, with us hoping to pass on our enthusiasm for politics to other young people. We are primarily fan sourced with most of our funding coming from donations and ad revenue. No shady corporations, no one telling us what to say. We can't wait to grow further and help more people get informed. Help support us by subscribing, following, and backing us on Patreon. Thanks!

[geo]

I think lords should be determined based off whether they payed $50 to an online website for a piece of paper

[SRFriso]

Even if it doesn't work out, there are a number of reforms that would be much easier to implement. A maximum number of Lords, minimum attendance requirement, getting rid of the hereditary positions, stronger scrutiny on who gets peerage, etc. Not every version of reform has to completely demolish the existing system.

[notakeyring]

here's a concern i have:
the House of Lords is able to scrutinise and criticise laws outside of party lines unlike MPs, as they can't be whipped like MPs can, and they scrutinise bills in greater detail and openness than the Commons Select Committees do. replacing the second house with an elected one would make them subject to whips and party obedience - less criticism and experienced scrutiny. also, in america, Congress is constantly in a loop of deadlock when the two houses are controlled by different parties - wouldnt an elected second house create potential for this same deadlock?

are these concerns wrong or misguided? i genuinely wish to know, thanks

[Yeosprings]

Even if it isn't massively overhauled, you could still cut the number of lords from 800 to around 100. Would save millions of pounds a year.

[thee-sportspantheon]

Lords blocked anti privacy laws. As in the laws were pushed through not enough people tried to protest it and then the house of lords blocked it. The Lord's have done some good.

[sevret]

While the house of lords are undemocratic, ironically they seem to be following the will of the people more than the actual representatives in some instances.

[no_no_just_no]

The biggest issue with the house of lords for me is being able to buy your way in leading to obvious conflicts of interest. I don't want to see it dissolved I want it reformed.

[samg]

An independently appointed chamber of experts in all fields would be the best possible outcome imo. Elected politicians are ultimately self-serving and think in electoral cycles rather than long term. Their interests are party/self rather than national. We don't need more politicians. A chamber of experts who are able to scrutinise policy on the basis of the national interest and their own expertise would be far more valuable.

[Clone]

IDK, how I feel about this, in every recent Lords vs Commons debacle the Lords have been the reasonable ones. Its a stupid system. but it works.

Id maybe change how lords are appointed, but it shouldnt be scrapped all together

[laurenceT]

An elected chamber that is also independently able to scrutinise legislation and conduct independent inquiry is essentially an oxymoron. You can't be independent if you have to be concerned about your own electorate, and electability. There's a lot to be said for having people who don't need to concern themselves with popularity make unpopular decisions.

[CrusaderZav]

The house of lords actually serves a decent function. They can't prevent Commons' decisions, but they *can* delay them. This is actually hugely useful when Commons tries to rush something through that may not have been properly analysed. Lords can bounce it back and actually criticise the decisions of Commons without being asked to resign.

Although we elect MPs in Commons, do we really want to give them absolute power to run the country with no body to push back? How much faith do you truly have in Commons?

[nickmacarius]

8 years ago I use to play a UK political RP. Our Labour Party did eventually reform the House of Lords. All Lords were divided up amongst the regions based on population. The 350 House of Lords would run for a single 15 year term by AV+. 1/3 of the Lords was elected every five years. We kept the Lords Spiritual & the Great Officers of State for constitutional reasons relating to the monarchy.

[jamesfraser]

Glad you guys took a closer look at this - I found the topic interesting on the podcast, but the delivery was kind of underwhelming and the topic undersold. Got me looking into it independently, suppose I should be doing that anyhow though heheh. Cheers guys!

[erica.]

They are wholly addressing this incorrectly. The Lords should stay because it is a part of our history and works VERY well - the notes on not being geographically representative is stupid because that is not what it is serving to do... it is there to revise proposed legislation, prevent stupid legislation from passing, and be able to contribute according to what they sincerely believe without their positions being under threat 24/7 by their party and cock-sucking the public!!!

(Did you know that the Commons tried to pass a bill to ban peaceful protests and the lords stopped it!!)

The whole idea of the PM being able to recommend peerages to His Majesty is flawed and ought to be scrapped or drastically reduced in favour of a separate autonomous committee that appoints members according to their knowledge and expertise in their given field.

Having the Lords being a meritocratic opposite to the Commons composed of distinguished and meritable individuals is FAR better than this nonsense.

[kierenbuckley]

Starmer is not actually wanting to abolish the House of Lords he wants to restructure it to what he wants it to be

[MerrickKing]

I think they should be elected, but not by the general public. They would continue to be specialists, elected by members of their own profession, industry or academic subject. There'd be economists voted for by economists, unions could vote for a member to represent their union, etc

[MehnixIsThatGuy]

Better idea that remove it, replace many within it with actual experts on a variety of fields that rotate out on a 4-5 year basis. Basically, if you have the right qualifications (Degrees, PhD's, equivalent years of experience, etc) you can be recommended to a position, with various positions for things like climate science, anthropology, economics, etc.

[repippeas]

A much better solution would be making the lords entirely appointed, and ensuring the independence of the selection committee. That way political appointments and hereditary peers could be removed, and more diverse regions included, without diminishing Commons authority.

[Zeusselll]

"We're neutral, but Big Ben will literally explode if we get rid of the lords"

[Xormac]

Why even a second House? Unicameralism is absolutely fine. Just get rid of the Lords altogether. And of course getting rid of FPTP for House of commons elections is absolutely necessary in this case