Should Britain Scrap the House of Lords? 

Want to know what the TLDR Team think about this issue? We discuss it in the latest episode of our podcast The Big Rissue: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-1Vp1SClVii4.html

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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.

Lords reform without Commons reform is like changing the tyres when the car's on fire.

Aren't they the only ones who've be holding the Conversatives to account? By stalling legislation that would be damaging to the UK. What are Labour planning?

They place checks and ensure the executive does not have total autocratic control of legislation. They also have specialisms and industry specific insight that the commons do not have. They are very important. I think there could be reform, however, especially with regard to the hereditary aspect. From the lords I’ve met, I have understood that from the 90s house of lords act, many hereditary peers wanted out but they were encouraged to stay by other peers that often chose others over themselves

House of Lords reform or even abolition is one of those ideas that is both popular, and good in a vacuum, but tbh there will be so many higher priorities for an incoming Labour government that I'm just not sure they will have time to do things like this. Maybe if they win a second parliamentary term it might be more realistic.

the funny thing is is that a law scrapping the lords would have to be approved by the house of lords, effectively meaning the house of lords would dissolve themselves 💀

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

They can make it illegal for parties to put through candidates. Only allowing independent candidates to be eligible to become peers

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.

No they shouldnt, they should go back to HofL based on life peerages of talents, not political cronies. HofL works better than the HofC.

I don’t really know much on how the house or lords works but surely the part of being good at scrutinising legislation comes directly from not being elected. As they aren’t fearing for things being unpopular and them losing their jobs and can just focus of what would actually work.

The problem with the House of Lords is that it has become a high class retirement home and is too large as has been well documented. At this stage and to get the ball rolling all members should retire at say 75. The UK needs a revising chamber to review the details of government legislation. The current chamber shows that the system is growing out of control Successive Prime Ministers fill the chamber with their mates in politics. All parties are guilty. Problem is will the politicians talk themselves out of a job. I am not holding my breath.

Someone once said that the advantage of hereditary peers is that the government of the day can't control who the heir will be. The Canadian Senate has a similar problem. 1 suggestion (and not just from me either) is to make appointments by lottery. It could be for a defined time - 3 years maybe - or for life until mandatory retirement.

I would suggest that the House of Commons continually requires scrutiny from 'The Other Place' I do however feel that hereditary placement and cronyism need to be removed. It's difficult because I don't trust the HoC to not manipulate the status of the HoL. Maybe the answer is the consider office from people who have served in the honest public interest. The NHS, Military and Teaching professions spring to mind here. Maybe if politics was a duty rather than a career choice?

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.

"He dreamt of his reward, a seat in the House of Lords."

The fact that one body of government has the power to modify or even eliminate another shows how relatively weak the latter is.

but HoL is arguably the institution i trust most now

Scrapping the current and reforming house of lords is good with me. Theocrats and aristocracy should not be in democracy in today's world.

In your opinions: Who had the easiest term as Prime minister? By which I mean whose core issue was least impactful / had the fewest big issues to deal with? Boris Johnson had Covid, Theresa May had Brexit, Winston Churchill had World War II. I do not mean who dealt with their issue best, instead retrospectively whose time in office would a prime minster be able to make improvements rather than fix fires?

I think Labour should focus on replacing the First Past the Post system and then look to the House of Lords.

A perhaps very dumb idea: countries have mandatory military service, what about mandatory parliamentary service as experts? I know, not everybody is a legal expert, but likewise nobody is a solider from the get go, training is part of the service. And, on the matter of law, people without prior knowledge of the law are already doing jury duties anyway, so...

Why not just change it so the Monarch appoints the Lords independently? Give the monarch the power to appoint with the unwritten rule that they only appoint people based of merit and excellence. Then actual experts in education. immigration, government, economics, business and health will scrutinize the legislation made by the peoples representatives to make sure it is actually sensible. There would still be smaller amount of hereditary lords and Lords Temporal and Spiritual. The chamber would largely be a Meritocracy within Parliament without the politics of requiring reelection or government support for higher roles.

It’s a brain dump session… they threw spaghetti at the wall to see if there were new ideas to move forward with

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

Nobody was really sure if he was from the House Of Lords...

As a foreigner, I have no clue why you would have a "House of Lords" in 2022 interfering with your democratic process. I'm open to learn though. I may be missing something.

Having a chamber with unelected members is obviously an undemocratic remnant of previous political systems, of course it needs to go. But why have two chambers at all? Lots of countries don't.

I think it is weird how the video treated an elected upper house as a novel idea, not as something that exists in many countries already.

Maybe a bit off topic, but I just saw a kingfisher sitting on the fence of my girlfriends little garden at the canal in the Center of Amsterdam!!!

The House of Lords is literally the house of reason with regards to new legislation.

Abolish it. You could easily hire a committee of lawyers and judges to review laws before they are passed.

i never actually exspected to ever hear "throw the baby out with that bath water" i only just heard it resently from muse "will of the people" lol

The US senate was suppose to be appointed by the governors or state governments. It was a check on demagoguism and run away spending

Look at Australia… we have 2 houses Edit: we did try to remove it a few times

top tier thumbnail

No, Britain should not scrap the House of Lords. In fact they should reverse the Blair reforms on the chamber.

At least dropping the hereditary part would be a good start…

Any time Tony Blair is mentioned, I feel it my duty to reiterate that he is an unapologetic war criminal who should be in prison.

Having a two-chamber system isn’t a dumb idea. Having one of those chambers made up of heriditary nobles and the PM’s personal picks, however, is. Abolish it and replace it with something like the German Bundesraat if you must have two chambers.

Not being all democratic is not a synonym for wrong. When a chamber does not have the pressure of the general public, which does not always know or understand the actual policy to make an informed opinion, it can scrutinize, delay and reform legislation based on their professional opinion, not on popular sympathies or voter swings.

I hate false equivalences. No, appointing donors is not an issue for both parties. When Labour does it, it's a scandal. When the Conservatives do it, it's a Wednesday. Labour has a shitton of issues, but this is not one of them.

As a person from a country with two elected chambers: There's a real risk of politicising the institution. I would suggest having very long terms (8 years), and relying on partial elections (voting for a quarter of the seats) every two years to provide continuity instead of re-elections. Your house of commons is good at regional representation but lacks proportionality, so make this chamber proportional with poor regional representation. Or if you want a more stable government, flip that around and have the commons provide proportional representation and make the lords into a regional representation body. Consider what the ideal electorate for a more contemplative elective body is - perhaps the people voting should be restricted to those who are local and regional representatives themselves.

I'm going to mention Australia because simply because it's a similar parliamentary sytem but Australia is ranked 9th on the democracy index and the UK is ranked 18th Australia has an elected senate as a second chamber (upper house)where each state gets 12 senators with proportional representation for each state so a minor party with 20% of the votes will still win a seat. This allows the states as entities to have equal representation even if the populations of the states wildly differ. While this isn't great for democracy in a way it does means Melbourne and Sydney can't rule the entire continent helping to keep the Vast continent in sync. It also allows minor parties who can't win a seat with Australians preferential voting system to still have their views expressed and leads to greater scrutiny of bills. So you need the majority of the people and the majority of the States to pass legislation. I don't really know much about the UK's system but I think i could see it helping to keep England Scotland northern Ireland and Wales more in sync, just an idea.

What if Labour elected the 181 district councillor's? They wont have as much democratic pressure, they will be representative etc?

I don't want a second, upper chamber full of elected career politicians. I've seen how that goes down in other countries, most notably the US. What I do want is a second, upper chamber of unelected Lords who are capable of scrutinising and criticizing laws without worrying about politics. That being said, I want far fewer of them, around 100-200 for example, and I think they should be appointed by an independent committee of MPs and civil servants and that each member of the lords should be an independent, rather than a party member and they should be salaried, expected to turn up to work everyday and not allowed to have second jobs etc. There are issues with this method, sure, but I don't want another bunch of career politicians. So either get rid of the chamber completely, or do something as I suggested.

No!!! No no no no NO!!!. Some one's got to keep the house of common in check, 'cos they bloody aren't

It needs reforming, in its current form is ridiculous. But it requires debate, we need a 2nd house. Starmer deciding to destroy a 1000 year old institution with out any debate as soon as he comes to power because he thinks he knows better is quite honestly disturbing.

I feel like the House of Lords (even though the names of the houses imply the opposite) is kind of the voice of the unpoliticised public, since they are not bound by a party or in fear of the next election and therefore are able to speak freely, what is on their mind. It might need a reform, so it is more representative in regards of the regions, etc., but since they are not able to block any law, or have any hard power, it is fitting to their role, that they don't need to be elected.

Not the Lords, - it's the Commons that needs reform. Should halve the number of MP's. ( Eg our Lower Chamber is roughly twice the size of US with one sixth of population). Reducing size would lead to greater efficiency and effectiveness through attracting high calibre people to get on with the job. Change electoral system to PR with, say, 50 - 60 multi member constituencies.

I think having an unelected chamber is quite useful, and there are ways to fix the democratic deficit without making it elected. Reduce the number to 270 peers. Then ask an independent commission to maintain a list of about a 1000 prominent experts in different areas and every time there is a vacancy pick one of them at random for life (or until retirement or impeachment). I’m also against the geographic idea, in the 21st century, geography is not the only way people define themselves. I would say the list should include community leaders, academics, business people, trade unionists, etc. Since appointment is a random process, you won’t be able to guarantee a spot and just by chance you’re probably going to get a pretty good representation. You can even keep the name.

Keep the House of Lords and keep the Parliament of the United Kingdom bicameral. The House of Lords needs to be reformed. And here's my proposal: -The appointed membership of the House of Lords, should be half of that of the House of Commons (which means the Lords would be reduced to 325 appointed members, from across all four nations in the Kingdom). The four nations would have the appointed number of the seats of the whole house as follows: England: 218 seats (67%), Scotland: 36 seats (11%), Wales: 36 seats (11%), & Northern Ireland: 36 seats (11%). In addition, the House of Lords can continue to have 25 Bishops seated. -The House of Lords should also be a "non partisan" body (no party affiliation). Mandatory retirement at age 75 (just like the Senate of Canada). Appointments are made by the Monarch (currently King Charles II), with the advice of the Speaker of the House of Commons (a non-partisan official). Rather than the Prime Minister & Leader of the Opposition who are partisan officials. This is my proposal. And I believe it would be something to help preserve the institutions in the United Kingdom.

No

the fact that there are still 92 perages in diabolical.

You should focus more of ditching the first-past-the-post electoral system...

Though I prefer unicameralism, I'd be ok with a second chamber if: 1. They were fully elected. No appointments by the government, no appointments by the church, certainly no hereditary titles. Though experts in advisor roles would be acceptable (as in, they'd be able to join debates but would have no voting power). 2. The elections were spaced out so they wouldn't be in line with commons' elections. This is a bit like the US system where there's elections for various different positions going on every 1-2 years (meaning that the parties wouldn't be able to just pander to the electorate a year before the most important election and proceed to go back on all their promises without huge pushback). Those are just the 2 ideas I can think of right now. Open to discussion, more points and criticism. Edit: You could even make the upper house have a 1 term limit but a longer term than the commons to keep the positives of representatives not having to care about electability without you know... making it a house of _lords_ Athens and Venice used a lottery system (called sortition) from a pool of competent candidates. I'm not sure how popular that would be but it's an interesting thought.

I started watching tldr right from the beginning, when you were just focusing on brexit. I live in the US. Have very little idea about how the UK system works. But even though I’ve been watching all the political news from this channel I still don’t know what the lords do…. I know you put out a video on it a long time ago, but I’ve forgotten

The House of Lords is 800 years old. To get rid of it would be a serious historical milestone

Just the opposite should be done. To keep the size of House of Lords at a manageable level, it should be reserved exclusively for hereditary peers and law lords as it was originally intended. Life peer should be an honorary title only. Supreme court which is a Labour creation should also be scrapped.

-"Democracy is the worst system of government except for all the others" - Winston Churchill. --- An unelected office prevents people that are power-hungry from simply spouting the biggest whatever the public wants to hear in order to get into it --- Life serving prevents the above, but for remaining. --- Life serving allows for knowledge and wisdom within the office to accumulate, to learn and grow from their experiences as opposed to random newbies coming and going every few years to preach their whatever --- There is a reason that Margaret Thatcher profusely complimented the Lord's when she retired from the Common's on it's wisdom and insight (when it was nearly entirely hereditary). --- Having a position above the PM that does not involve itself in governance, of which the individual occupying said position having trained and garnered knowledge for it their whole life, which has the ability to appoint/remove the Head of Government (the PM always having been an advisor or "helper" in some regard to the monarch, now taking the reigns as the monarch oversees) whom meets and debates with the appointed PM on a weekly based (by the way, might you have heard of EVERY PM not merely complimenting the chats for being 'pleasant', but utmost insightful; offering alternate perspectives. Queen Elisabeth II) whose views and opinions are not tainted by the lust for power, bias of a party, cock-sucking of the public etc. is SUPREMELY BETTER than any alternative. I strongly dislike the argument that Hereditary Peers should not be born into power because it wholly ignores the fact that these are people that are born into families that have ruled for generations, that socialise with other families that have ruled for generations, all of whom go through the highest education the UK has to offer whilst growing up surrounded by the finest things in life (making them near impervious to corruption, with money at least. Can't buy someone that has everything) and harbouring a greater sense of duty and purpose to crown and country. Not to mention the fact they are nobles. Nobles mind you simply being people with preferable characteristics so embedded in the subconscious that they become second nature. Polite, reserved, well-mannered are only some of them. I would argue however that having the House of Lords be hereditary (based on automatic right) would be foolish. Having said chamber be meritocratic in its selection (which is practically already the case - think Lord Dan Hannan in politics, Lord Sugar as a businessman, Lord Lewis of Newham etc. Excluding the few instances of PM self-benefit and bias) including people and aristocrats alike if notably distinguished. Anyhow in summary: Don't think that because we preach "democracy this" and "democracy that" it is automatically the best system of government. Because it is flawed more than you or I can know which will be our undoing if we are not careful (China, America, North Korea, Germany WW2). So spare a damn thought and do not base your opinion on the unwitty writings of Hollywood fiction. The government does not need to be representative. It needs to WORK. If you have any questions or would like clarification I would be happy to entertain you.

If the good scrutiny is coming from no populist pressure, then a reform that makes each member of lord elected and have a life-long term might be a good idea.

As an Australian, I see the the house of lords as... well... stupid, and un- democratic

abolish the Lords, replace with an elected chamber. Easy.

Yes not a whole democracy as long as there is an unelected upper house

WALES WITH SHOES?!!

I dont know why youd want to replace the lords with something else. Just make parliament Unicameral

They should be banning all second jobs for MPs and the upper half of local councils. Take a look at Japan where it is illegal for everyone that works for the government or government agencies to have a second job

Removing the House of Lords is one step closer to removing the Monarchy which is likely a desired route for Labour. This is a sort of thing that the people should push back against. Democracy must have limits. Unfettered Democracy is simply mob mentality, corruption, and the definition of majority rule. The Monarchy and House of Lords has some capacity to check the activities of the common politicians even such capacity is less than it should be. There is no benefit to removing this entirely except to allow unconstrained corruption.

As an Australian, this doesn't seem like so bad an idea. The Senate makes a very effective check on the power of the lower house, without usurping it. That's more power the Lords has now, but that's not a detriment to the political ecosystem.

Replace it with the Senate.

The Lords should be split into two: half a nobel style system, with an independent committee appointing members of the public who bring great contributions to society OUTSIDE of politics, and half hereditary (I mean most people don't mind that in the monarchy, am I right).

should abolish nobility entierly

5:19 I’m sorry, who says their scrutinising and recommendations for legislation are high quality? a) They are highly biased; and b) the wealth gap has been increasing for decades, the benefits and socially security systems have all been reduced to a dysfunctional minimum, and people are dying as a result of it. How have legislative decisions coming out of the government been high quality? The “multitude of crises” are exactly why this reform has to be done ASAP.

Sounds like a great way to carry on with tory policies by wasting time on something no one really cares about.

Think of Lord Chilcott's report - 2.6 millions words, five times as long as war & peace, three times as long as the complete works of Shakespeare. These are dedicated public servants, with more money than they'll ever need, all the top titles and positions in the land... yet, they're motivated by something that i don't possess or understand. An elected member would not have the same level of commitment to the role, and even if they did, their priorities would be re-election

Wait a second.. Outside public scrutiny, high levels of expertise, the size of a Chinese house.. Is this accidentally a technocratic institution?

Keep the Lords and end Labour.

I'd say a house of Lords where they are elected but elected for life

One thing that could mitigate the democratic pressure problem is making the chamber single-term, that is, member could serve only one term. Then, no need to worry about reelection. Also, that would renew the chamber often.

They are all good policies for a modern democracy. Who the lords are and whether they contribute to society is moot. The mere fact that the house of lord exists creates a hierarchy in society. It's the same reason why the monarchy should be ended. It's a thorn in society for little tourist money.

This might be an unpopular opinion but honestly I think democracy is overrated. It’s too easily swayed by popular passions and too prone to partisanship special interest lobbies and voter selfishness

It should be reformed but not scrapped. Holy bananas can you imagine the crackpot laws we'd get without the Lords. Like this new one designed to make staring at people a crime punishable with jail time.

Don't you think the thumbnail is in quite poor taste? Just my opinion.

The lords should remain and have more hereditary peers instead of political appointees.