- Question
Should the House of Lords be abolished?
The role of the British Parliament’s second unelected chamber has been debated for a century to no avail. Despite minor reform in the late 1990s, the future of the House of Lords remains ambiguous at best. So what is the purpose of the House of Lords? Should it be left untouched, reformed, or ultimately abolished?
The House of Lords should be abolished
This position holds that the House of Lords should be abolished. It argues the chamber is a relic of a bygone era, irrelevant to modern life and detrimental to democracy, that it remains fundamentally undemocratic, and that the cost of maintaining it has ballooned.
The House of Lords should remain untouched
This position holds that the House of Lords should remain untouched. It argues the institution benefits British democracy, that it works well as a revising chamber, and that it serves as a valuable body of experts able to scrutinise legislation free from electoral pressures.
The House of Lords should be reformed
This position holds that the House of Lords should be reformed rather than abolished or left untouched. It argues the chamber's purpose is positive but its current form fails us — proposing a partly elected house, the abolition of hereditary peers, or a regional senate.