An appointed chamber may have lost this vote, but it supplied the floor’s most-respected single argument: “We do not need an elected 2nd chamber”. Yes won with a clear majority, yet the debate was less a celebration of elected politics than a rejection of the Lords as it now operates.
The winning side’s case was democratic and regional. Its strongest voice called the existing system “a parliament stuffed with appointed mates you can’t vote out”, while another dismissed it as a “Long overdue” relic; the appeal was accountability, a smaller Senate and a voice beyond the London bubble.
No voters were not defending every appointment. Their best argument was for an upper house that could scrutinise without competing with the Commons: an elected chamber, one warned, would “give it too much legitimacy”, while another proposed “a randomly selected meritocracy”. The sides talked past each other over whether expertise requires insulation from elections or whether insulation has become an excuse for patronage.
That makes this a constitutional verdict with a large proviso attached. Several Yes voters wanted an elected chamber only if it retained professional knowledge and strict standards — “Yes and with much stricter selection criteria” — while even some No voices wanted reform, fewer members or an expenses-only institution. The room agreed the current Lords is badly configured; it disagreed on whether the cure is election, selection or abolition.
The vote was for a new upper house, but the argument was really over what an upper house is for.
25 Opinions
We do not need an elected 2nd chamber we however do need an appointed 2nd chamber filled by people who have worked and not just solicitors or union officials
As said by someone else, the HOL exists to counterbalance elected politicians. What is needed is control of the balance. There has been too much of cronies been appointed here rather than members of the public that have served the country.
No modern country should have a parliament stuffed with appointed mates you can’t vote out. Replacing the Lords with a smaller, elected Senate representing the regions breaks the London bubble, gives areas outside the M25 a real voice, and makes sure anyone shaping our laws is actually accountable to the public.
I voted no because I think the Blair reforms of the Lords have actually made our system worse. It might seem counter-intuitive but another chamber comprised of the same population of political hacks that sit in the Commons does not enthuse me in the slightest. There was inherent cronyism in how the Lords was comprised, but this at least meant that many were free from the party politics that are in perpetual decline.
I say yes on the proviso the uk as a whole should be run as a confederalist entity to recognise the fact we have a constitutional monarchy.
The HOL exists to counterbalance elected politicians. However, the system is abused by each government stacking as many as possible . It should be a randomly selected meritocracy of people who have contributed positively to Britain one way or another.
What purpose would the second house serve if it's just more elected lifetime politicians. The lord's isn't perfect but it's supposed to be experts and people outside of politics. Without changing splitting a MPs role all that would make sense is to scrap the lord's
The current system is ridiculous and should be changed, but I can’t see the benefit in a second elected house over simply having one house that has to be accountable for its decisions. I would value a second house of experienced people who are not driven by needing to be popular - maybe appointed for longer terms by Parliament. Parliament does do a good job in electing Committee chairs for example.
There should be some reform but I wouldnt want a 100% elected upper house as that would just duplicate the HoC, and if the members are appointed by the elected government, its still democratic, albeit one step removed from the electorate which could be a useful way of insulating parliament from short termism and populism
If the House of Lords works as it should, as a chamber of experts in their field and not filled with cronies of previous governments, this role as a ‘scrutiniser’ is vital. Crucially, the fact that the Lords is unelected means that the Commons remains supreme and limits the Lords’ ability to veto. If the upper chamber was also elected, there would be no implicit superiority of the commons and such you could find governments struggling to pass legislation through both houses.