Several of the No votes came wrapped in apologies. “I'm an abolitionist, but this is a false dilemma,” wrote one voter, and the comfortable No win owes something to a question that many said fused two issues: scrapping the Lords and leaving the Commons alone.
The most-respected No case was practical: the Lords “offers crucial scrutiny powers to the commons”, and an elected replacement, on the US model, would risk costly conflict between the houses. A second ★ No argument went a different way, proposing to phase the Lords out and replace it with citizens drawn from the electoral register. Others said a second chamber is “a helpful check”, and one pointed to the assisted dying bill as proof of why it matters.
The Yes side, which left two arguments, was just as unhappy with the framing. Its most-respected voice called the question “deliberately sneaky” and said the Lords should go “AND REPLACED by an elected body”. Neither Yes voter defended a Commons standing alone; both wanted another chamber.
So the argument ran less between abolition and defence than over what a second chamber should be. No voters offered proportional election, expert panels, an end to patronage and a free vote, with one even asking for hereditary peers back. That fits the live debate over Labour's pledge of a smaller, more democratic chamber.
The verdict, in a voter's words: “The Lords need reform, not getting rid of.”
100 Opinions
The House of Lords offers crucial scrutiny powers to the commons. Scrapping it will require an alternative solution, replacing it with a second elected body (similar to the US system) will both likely cost significantly more and risk regular conflict and approval problems similar to the US suffers between their houses.
I'm not against abolishing the House of Lords, I just think we need a second chamber. My preferred option would be to phase out the Lords. Removing a third, every two years and replacing them with people from the electoral register who are replaced after 6 years.
There must be a fallback. A failsafe or a buffer or a brake to provide oversight & keep ANY government in check & warn against mistakes. Reform the lords Don't abolish it
There should be a second house, voted via different means to the commons, but the commons can't stand alone, they need a counterbalance, the lords, however isn't an adequate solution
It's not a great question, because it rolls two questions into one. A second chamber is a helpful check.
NO it shouldn't be abolished leaving the HoC as the only chamber. The HoL used to serve an important purpose. It used to ensure the HoC didn't pass bad laws, by checking any new legislation sending any bad legislation back to the HoC with the equivalent of a 'think again' post it note stuck to it! YES the HoL should be abolished & replaced with a new democratic chamber that does what the old HoL used to do
I’ve voted no because of the second half of this question. I’m an abolitionist, but this is a false dilemma.
A deliberately sneaky question designed to make it look like the results would support the existence of the lords. Yes it should be abolished, AND REPLACED by an elected body.
It should be reformed to the experts it was supposed to be only a house of career politicians would be bad for decisionaking
I used to think so but on recent years, the House of Lords was successful in stopping the government passing ill-thoughtout legislation