Should the House of Lords be abolished?

Encyclopedia of Opinion

Question: Should the House of Lords be abolished?
Position‹3 of 3: The House of Lords should be reformed
Argument1 of 3›: Hereditary peers should be abolished

Hereditary peers are a leftover from Aristocracy that do not benefit British society.

The argument

The House of Lords has ninety-two hereditary peers who inherited their seats through birth right alone. This engenders a view that there is still an aristocracy in the UK that is born to rule and continues to exert influence over British politics. Any reform of the House of Lords should start with the abolition of hereditary peers. This would not only reduce the size and cost of the second chamber but it would ensure that peers are appointed on merit.

Premises

[P1]The House of Lords contains ninety-two hereditary peers who inherited their seats by birthright alone, sustaining the impression of an aristocracy born to rule and exerting influence over British politics. [P2] Abolishing hereditary peers would reduce the chamber's size and cost while ensuring members are appointed on merit. [C] Therefore the House of Lords should be reformed, beginning with the abolition of hereditary peers.

Counter-arguments

Despite inheriting their seats in the House of Lords, the ninety-two hereditary peers bring a wealth of knowledge and expertise to Parliament, particularly when it comes to land management and agriculture.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The hereditary peers in the House of Lords bring knowledge and expertise to the House, which benefits the whole country.