The story of this vote is a mismatch between what won and what argued best. Two-thirds of the 137 who took part backed replacing the Lords with a population-weighted, county-based chamber of professional representatives, a comfortable margin of 32 points, but the floor's most-respected opinion of all six came from a No voter, and it was blunt: "We don't need more SPADs in positions of power."
The Yes case, thinly argued on the page itself, rested on a diagnosis rather than a blueprint. One voter said simply that "the Lords is profoundly undemocratic... we need an elected upper chamber," while another argued the chamber's checks are "today politically motivated instead of motivated by what's best for the people." Neither Yes opinion engaged with the mechanics of counties or professional reps that the question itself proposed, leaving the winning side's actual reasoning thinner than its margin.
The No side, despite losing, did the heavier lifting in debate. Beyond the SPADs jibe, one voter proposed an alternative entirely, reviving the "jury system" of random selection from the electoral roll, asking pointedly "which professions and who selects the reps." Another conceded the Lords needs reform but valued its "relatively independent" scrutiny from politicians "not worried about being popular," suggesting reform, not replacement, though a third simply wanted it "scrapped altogether."
This sits squarely on the fault line of Lords reform that has run since Blair axed most hereditaries: a chamber nobody loves but nobody can agree how to fix, caught between calls for abolition, election, and mere trimming. Reform UK's own ambivalence toward the institution, criticising it while courting peerages, is the same contradiction playing out here in miniature.
The chamber voted decisively for change, but left its most respected objection — that swapping cronies for professionals just rebrands the problem — unanswered.
6 Opinions
We don't need more SPADs in positions of power
The Lords is profoundly undemocratic. It was better when it was only the hereditary peers - that was fairly random. But now it is stuffed full of cronies. We need an elected upper chamber.
The simple truth is the HOL is no longer fit for purpose, it used to be a safety valve that stopped bad laws being made. Today it's rules and decisions are politically motivated instead of motivated by what's best for the people. The HOL & the way we elect today's politicians, including FPTP & how we vote, is no longer fit for purpose in modern British society. The system needs tearing apart & replacing with a trustworthy & accountable new way of electing our government
The House of Lords does need reformation but not by Professional reps. Which professions and who selects the reps. The system that has been proven to provide independent representatives of the people to make difficult decisions is the jury system. By selecting members by random selection from the electoral roll to serve for fixed periods we would have a democratic system that selects independent members with a far wider range of skills and life experiences.
In todays situation, when our elected representatives are career politicians , having older more experienced politicians who are not worried about being popular or getting future jobs is a useful control. I was very anti the lords when younger, but now I see the value of this relatively independent house in providing scrutiny and overview. Just kick the church out.
Scrap altogether. Too much scrutiny and delaying power. Most are retired dumped ex politicians anyway