argument top image

Should the House of Lords be abolished?
Back to question

The cost of the House of Lords has ballooned

The cost of maintaining the House of Lords is increasingly unmanageable.
< (3 of 3) Next argument >

The Argument

In recent years appointments to the House of Lords have ballooned making it one of the largest second chambers in the world. The only other countries in the world with second chambers larger are the People’s Republic of China, Kazakhstan and Burkina Faso – none of them are liberal democracies. Since 2000 the size of the House of Lords has increased by 27%, despite party leaders consistently promising to limit the number of peers they nominate. At the current rate of growth the House of Lords is expected to tally over 1,000 members by 2031. This is completely unsustainable with new peers costing the tax payer on average an additional quarter of a million pounds a year.[1]

Counter arguments


[P1] The size and cost of the House of Lords is huge. [P2] It is not what the country should be spending its money on.

Rejecting the premises


This page was last edited on Monday, 20 Apr 2020 at 07:35 UTC

Explore related arguments