I know some of you think the Lords should be abolished, and some think it should be elected. Let me explain my views as a member of it, views which I developed early as an MP when I had no expectation of joining it.
I do not think it a good idea to have a second elected chamber. If it were elected at the same time as the first it would likely have a similar composition. There is no point in duplication of what we have got. If it were elected at a different time there could be a very different composition, leading to endless rows between the two houses and making effective government extremely difficult. It is already difficult for a government with a Commons majority to govern, so why set out to create a stand off or log jam on any new proposal? There would presumably need to be fixed terms for both chambers to ensure they did get elected at different times.
I do not think it a good idea to abolish it. The Lords can provide a useful check on a Commons majority that makes ill thought through or too crudely political decisions. It can usefully revise Commons draft legislation to help the government achieve the result it has set. It can provide a means of bringing additional talent and expertise into Ministerial office.
The Lords should of course be subject to review and reform. I supported the introduction of a retirement provision which has allowed some elderly peers to give up their work as legislators. I support the need for peers to attend to assist the House in its work, unless granted leave of absence for illness or to take up some other important role for a bit.
The main issue is what powers do the Lords have and should they have. The current settlement is embedded in the constitutional Act of 1949, the Parliament Act. This amended the 1911 Act. These Acts assert the rightful supremacy of the Commons in financial matters, and allow the Commons majority to secure passage of any Bill they want after argument between the two Houses on contentious matters. Usually the Lords and Commons come to an agreement on amendments to bills after some exchanges over Lords amendments. If they cannot reach a compromise then the Commons has to wait a year and can then pass the Act it originally wanted without the Lords amendments, without the Lords intervening. This rarely happens, and was last used to let the Commons put through the Hunting Act 2004 after delay. This seems to me to be a sensible settlement. It is an observed convention that the Lords always let the Commons secure a Bill which implements a Manifesto promise. The Lords in these instances recognises the right of the Commons to legislate even when wrong, and accepts the Lords cannot insist on being right.
February 15, 2026
Has SIr Jim Ratcliffe apologied yet for saying Starmer was a decent, intelligent, nice chap (he is none of these things) and even supporting Labour at the last election? At least he has sensibly saved circa £3 bn by moving to Monaco. He will surely invest it far better than Starmer, Miliband, Lammy, Phillipson ever would – which is not a high bar.
February 23, 2026
If he is to apologise for anything LL, it is for being a Man Ure supporter.
We footie fans are tribal.
February 23, 2026
There should be a Lords equivalent of the Beeching report.
A suitable person puts a limit of the amount of resources allocated to a second chamber.
They then decide which members provide value for money, based on attendance, voting record, and value of their contributions to debate. Once a target has been set, those who fail to meet it are made redundant.
The modern equivalent of getting rid of rotten boroughs.
February 23, 2026
Interesting.
February 23, 2026
Alongside the House of Lords Appointment Committee, there needs to be a House of Lords Disappointments Committee. One stuffs the HoL with new candidates, the other pulls out the ones whose presence can’t be justified.
I can understand law lords being there to scrutinise legislation, but there’s no need for another set of politicians interfering with the HoC, even though the lower house frequently makes barmy decisions.
February 23, 2026
There should be a maximum number of Peers and a set retirement age. At present it is a repository for the great and not so good. An expensive retirement home.
February 23, 2026
Expensive on the taxpayer who foots the bills, incl. sign-on wages for turning up. Why have hundreds of members to ought to fulfill – The Lords has three main roles: Making laws. In-depth consideration of public policy.
Holding government to account.
During several stages, members examine each bill, line-by-line, before it becomes an Act of Parliament (actual law). Many of these bills affect our everyday lives, covering areas such as welfare, health and education.
Members use their extensive individual experience to investigate public policy. Much of this work is done in select committees – small groups appointed to consider specific policy areas.
The House of Lords considers changes to bills. Members raise concerns, presses government for action and questions decisions with debates, daily oral questions and urgent questions.
We should not need many hundreds of members to provide a checking process over The Commons.
February 23, 2026
No, some people in their late 80s are very bright, sprightly, fully functioning intellectually, and wise.
Those that aren’t (whatever age) and want to sleep and to be warm and paid to be present without contribution, bye-bye.
February 15, 2026
The Lords is the only ‘upper house’ whose numbers are greater than the lower house.
The problem is the incessant ‘elevation’ of the UNDESERVING as a punishment to the electorate for having rebuffed them, and those who me the political class see has having ‘popularity’ or ‘sympathy’ (like Doreen Lawrence) so that they can share that advantage.
There must be new rules.
Anybody who has been rejected by the electorate must automatically become INELIGIBLE. All bureaucrats must be INELIGIBLE. Anybody found guilty of breaking the law, or admitting to breaking the law must be INELIGIBLE – in particular this includes drug use at any point in life.
There are far too many grifters in the Lords and they have brought our entire system into disrepute,
Elevation to the Lords should be a rare thing and the individual must enhance the House without fail.
I also believe that ONLY native British people should be eligible. It’s the BRITISH Parliament, not the United Nations.
February 23, 2026
Indeed
“Elevation to the Lords should be a rare thing and the individual must enhance the House without fail.”
If as many as 10% of elevations to the Lords enhance the house I would be surprised. But then look at the dire party leaders over the past 60 years who choose them and the reasons they are/were chosen. JR certainly does plus a tiny few others.
February 23, 2026
Lynn, agree the Lords should be reduced in number, as should the commons. Set a fixed limit on the size of the Lords. Revamp the process for electing Lords to move away from the current nepotistic model. Fix the term that Lords can remain in place (possibly with allowance for some life peers if Labour doesn’t legislate against them).
Look on the Lords as fulfilling the role of Non-Exec Directors in a listed company.
February 23, 2026
I disagree with the idea of electing Lords.
We need to think through a set of criteria that qualify people for elevation to the Lords. These points which I thought should make people ineligible are a start, but were just off the top of my head. It’s very serious and having thrown out the God Chosen Lords is half of an action.
We should have a very high bar for qualification. With the best will in the world I don’t believe being a very fast swimmer qualifies you to be a Lord or a Princess. The qualifications but be based on the intellectual work and output of a lifetime. I not want any 15 year old trainee hairdressers elevated to the Lords.
Party Leaders could then choose from that shortlist.
JR is an ornament to the Lords and I don’t doubt will continue to do excellent work all but free of charge for the nation. I don’t believe the cost of the Lords is material.
February 23, 2026
This post makes some excellent points – I ha e long hid under the sofa every time Doreen Lawrence is give coverage and any MP losing their seat should not be elevated to the Lords.
The likes of Sue Grey have had their turn and do not need any more goes.
The Lords should be one in, one out.
February 23, 2026
One in, ten out would be better.
February 23, 2026
The total membership may number over 800 but on average only 350 to 400 members attend each sitting day.
February 15, 2026
A useful analysis from our host. He might also have mentioned that the Lords offers a vehicle for Prime Ministerial patronage, one of the necessary tools of power and the real reason why it will never be abolished.
Lords reform has been on the agenda for nearly two centuries, but whenever steps have been taken the result has often not been a demonstrable improvement.
The part of Parliament that does need urgent reform is the Commons, a dysfunctional shambles that disgraces the nation. But we never hear about that.
February 23, 2026
Party Leaders never had this patronage before, they can do without it.
February 15, 2026
A second chamber is useful if it can help prevent the Commons doing something truly damaging or hugely unpopular. The Lords focus on what they consider damaging; they don’t really take popularity seriously, as far as I can see.
What would be useful would be to have another balancing mechanism which allowed the people to directly decide on controversial legislation. Namely referendums.
At the moment the people are effectively disenfranchised by layers of legislators, some (MPs) nominally their “representatives” but in truth, Party apparatchiks, others (Lords) appointed by those same Party adherents.
The bar to triggering a referendum would need to be set quite high, but something could be figured out. Certainly in cases where the Lords blocked the Commons. Otherwise when sufficient million people demanded one.
Reply Referendums are good. Public often more sensible than many MPs as with Brexit, change of voting system and regional government.
February 23, 2026
Getting a vote every five years to choose people to drive the bus under FPTP and with the Lords chosen by past party leaders is not remotely democracy. They so often lie to get elected anyway and you can do nothing to remove them when they do not even try to deliver. More referendums please the only real democracy is direct democracy and with modern IT this can be easy and cheap to do very regularly. The catch 22 is MPs will not put it in place as they like power kept to themselves.
With capitalism you vote with every purchase you make every day! Not every 5 years for what is often a blatant con-person.
February 23, 2026
Agreed – I have suggested suing something like the Swiss system in the past.
Politicians won’t like it though, especially the “socialist” authoritarians.
February 23, 2026
The catch 22 is that a better system would need to be pushed through by the existing MPs and Lords who will likely lose power, their “consultancies”, expenses, salaries, penisons, tax fee allowances, subsidised bars and restaurants & their jobs!
February 23, 2026
The main problem with the Lords is that it is largely prime ministers and leaders of Labour, Libdems and Conservative who have selected people for the Lords. These leaders have been generally dire over my lifetime from Wilson through to Starmer.
We get twice resigned in disgrace people like Blunket and Mandelson elevated. Dire Tory Chair people like Cameron’s Baroness Warsi ex party chairwoman, the dire Net Zero May who tried to subvert Brexit, the 26 virtually all dire lefty Bishops. We even have the Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 prioritising female candidates (so blatant discrimination against male bishops even if they do wear dresses).
A huge lack of people with any scientific and business experience or understanding. Attendance to get toe the Line people too – plus huge under representation for Reform, small government and Brexit views.
If the Lords were chosen in a random ballot, above the age of say 45 with a reasonable IQ test it would be far more representative of the people and of hugely better quality. I suspect only about 10% of the current members deserve their places – JR certainly does.
When I listen to debates in the Lords or the Commons on subjects I know an little about Energy, science, economics, tax system, engineering… the delusions & ignorance of most of the contributors is astounding.
Reply There are now people’s peers who send in an application for consideration . 67 appointed so far, none with party affiliations. What do you think of them?
February 23, 2026
Looking at the list of members of the Lords is all rather sad I only got to letter C as far too depressing:- Adonis, Alli, Amos, Altman, Ashton, Barber x2, Beckett, Blunkett, Boateng, Bousted, Cameron (David)…
Plus we have the problem that people can buy places and be bribed by offers of places from party leaders or PM which often usurps democracy.
Huge bias to climate alarmism, pro EU, religious people and the greens reflecting the recent and past group think delusions and against scientists in general (but for deluded, toe the line or bought scientists when they are in the Lords).
February 23, 2026
Exactly, people buy places, are old friends of political leaders, or pursue very minority views and religions.
Judgement for the nation and its people not required.
February 23, 2026
Do the Lords you believe have bought their title actually attend regularly?
February 23, 2026
The people’s peers? I have not seen a list of them but I am reminded of the saying “anyone who aspires to be a politician is (usually) inherently unsuitable. Plus who decided which ones to take and which one to black ball as perhaps not climate alarmist or pro EU sufficiently?
A lottery plus an IQ test say in the top 20% and over age 45 so with some life experience would be better system. With perhaps a ban on people who read politics, sociology, PPE, Theology or law! And a ban on people who thing a bit more plant food is a climate emergency or that rejoining/aligning with the EU is a good plan as clearly far too dim!
February 23, 2026
Ex civil servants, charity sector and BBC types of people too – far too many in there already
February 23, 2026
People’s peers – I found a list a few good sound choices. Certainly a slightly better strike rate than the average. But who chooses the member of HOLAC? Who judges the judges, who guards and guards? A good rule often is that any organisation that feels the need to claim it is “independent” very rarely is.
https://lordsappointments.independent.gov.uk/appointments
February 23, 2026
@Reply – still a fudge, no accountability, no representation other than self. Then it is needed to ba asked the credibility and the perceived entitlement of those doing the appointing.
On that basis we should all get a place and a say.
February 23, 2026
Good morning,
The HoL has morphed into something other than it was originally intended, ie Jobs for the boys and girls !
How is it that someone who was not elected yet wishes to be part of the government (usually by the PM) is created a Lord to circumvent the will of the people. Who does such a person represent ?
I have made it no secret that I wish the HoL to be abolished and turned into some sort of UK Senate with the HoC becoming and English only parliament. You know, like we use to have before the Act of Union.
What we need in this country, and I think this government and its behaviour and more than proven said need, is root and branch restructuring. Too much power is in the hands of one man, usually through patronage (see above), and in is open to naked abuse.
We need more democracy, accountability and division of powers.
February 23, 2026
Since the majority of the Hereditary Peers were abolished in favour of “experts” – which in practice turned out to be mainly the cronies and “servants” of the PM the standard of the Lords has deteriorated. This reflects the deterioration in the standard of MPs, since so many more recently-appointed Peers are former MPs.
For example, I can think of no good reason whatsoever why Gavin Barwell is a Peer of the Realm. He has no real expertise in anything and was simply Treason May’s Go-Fer. Since he was appointed when he was in his 40s, he has the prospect of many decades of taxpayer-funded entitlement.
The number of Peers needs to be drastically reduced, I suggest 400. They should serve for no more than 3 Parliamentary terms (15 years). And it should not be possible for a former MP, who has been rejected by the electorate in a General Election/By Election to be immediately appointed to the Upper Chamber. There should be at least one Parliamentary term (5 years) before they can enter the Upper Chamber.
February 23, 2026
I would add that the name of the House is an anachronism and House of Advisors would be better. As well as getting rid of Barwell types, there are those who were council leaders such as the ex- squatter and leader of a council who should never have been ‘enobled’. The bishops can’t even run the church properly and why they could advise on other matters is a good question.
February 23, 2026
There are still 92 hereditary peers.
Otherwise lordslibrary.parliament.uk 06/11/2024 ‘House of Lords reform: Government policy and recent developments’.
– remove hereditary peers
– introduce mandatory retirement age
– introduce participation requirement
– strengthen the circumstances in which ‘disgraced’ members could be removed
– reform the appointments process to ensure the ‘quality of new appointments’
– improve the national and regional balance of the second chamber.
February 23, 2026
@Donna – I suggest 85
February 23, 2026
There is a case for going all the way back to Blair’s constitutional vandalism and reversing it, reinstating the hereditaries and making every single life peer apply for reaffirmation of their place in the Lords, requiring them to explain what they have contributed to political discourse and public life generally and what they will continue to contribute before they would be permitted to return to the red benches. Our esteemed host would be one of many to pass with flying colours.
February 23, 2026
‘Making every single life peer apply for reaffirmation of their place in the Lords …to return to the red benches’: how many of the 92 hereditaries or even the 800+ do you think would pass the test?
‘Reform of the House of Lords’, P.Norton, 2017.
‘Reforming the House of Lords’, New Statesman, 26/09/2014.
ucl.ac.uk 02/07/2025 ‘Analysis: Public wants much greater Lords reform than Government’s modest plan – new survey’.
February 23, 2026
The house of Lords has now 849 members. That’s about 649 too many. A large proportion are very old and ancient and seem to spend little time there.
The building itself could be better used. It would make an ideal place for a devolved English parliament.
February 23, 2026
Of the 1,042 peers who have sat in the House of Lords since April 2015, 142 (13.6%) attended the Palace of Westminster on 25 days or less, with 58 having never attended the House during the period, the Byline Intelligence Team can reveal.
The current number is 849. In a typical year over 100 attend less than 10 times.
February 23, 2026
@Old Albion – the USA population 350million, upper house just 100 members. Every 2 years a third of member get re-elected or stand for election. Sounds and seems a very balance democratic answer.
The UK 67million served by 849 unaccountable appointed individuals – lots of authority no democracy
February 23, 2026
Please no devolved English parliament. We have central government and local government and that’s quite enough telling me what to do, without another expensive talking shop.
February 23, 2026
I support neither of these and agree with the reasons given.
The main revision to the Lords that is badly needed is the way that people are proposed. Too many PM’s, recently and in times past have used their powers to elevate their own to the Lords for no good reason other than to increase their parties representation there.
It may be a good idea to have the selection made by the King rather than politicians who have a direct interest – After all don’t the Lords represent the King to a large degree?
I want to see Lords who have a professional background, Ex-MPs that have real talent and have served for some years, but mainly they need to have demonstrated a good track record of doing good work for the people of the UK.
I would certainly eliminate certain party leaders who are effectively rebel rousers, just being a party leader should not automatically give them access. The Lords should be a place of reasoned discussion.
February 23, 2026
“Britain faces paying billions if Trump collapses Chagos deal”
I suggest the politicians and lawyers responsible for instigating and promoting this betrayal, not the taxpayers, pay all costs.
Even better if it ruins them, time the consequences of actions were felt by the nasty individuals responsible.
February 23, 2026
If this is so then get the incompetent lawyers who drafted such a mad agreement to pay this bill. Or the incompetent Lammy or this appalling government who signed such a mad agrement. Alas they will doubless shortly be signing an even worse EU dymanic alignment agreement with a tied in payment to leave clause!
February 23, 2026
The big flaw in the discussion is that the Lords are not accountable, as such they have no authority from the Nation and the People for anything. It is just another self-gratifying Quango and we have to many of them.
Yes there should at all times be another so-called revising chamber.
The whole point of democracy instead of a dictatorship is that those that reach the position of authority are held accountable and serve the country.
Parliament, what is called the HoC has its own appointed Government to manage and run the Country on behalf of the People that lent it its powers. The the whole point of membership of Parliament is to challenge and hold to account those they gave the authority to on our behalf, otherwise why bother with a Parliament at all.
Having an upper revising chamber that challenges today’s management/government/parliament from a different perspective is no bad thing. Authority has at all times to be challenged, it strengthens it. If those that are lent power and given authority over other are not wishing to be challenged at every-step, it would suggest they are seeking to be Dictators
February 23, 2026
The weakness of the HOL is not in its purpose or how it is designed to operate. The weakness is in the system of membership that is constantly abused by any government intent on it reflecting their views by sheer weight of numbers. Don’t mess with its purpose, just think more carefully about its composition.
February 23, 2026
@agricola – abused for personal convenience, not for better management or better democracy
February 23, 2026
Good morning, Lord Redwood
I would suggest that by accident therefore default, as it is not your usual position as to how to run things, you are inferring a Dictatorship is a good thing.
By condoning an unelected unaccountable House of Lords, you are reinforcing those other wayward unelected unaccountable entities. The 300 odd Quangos, that magically can do what the want without challenge and oversight, the OBR, the ONS, the BoE an endless list of so-called bodies, the EU even, that cost the people and the country a massive amount for no net gain. All they do is let those we elect to do a job of managing the country, hide behind a shield of ‘not-me-gov’.
Perversely and I believe unknowingly you are condoning the cancellation of elections, the cancelling of juries, the giving away of British Territory. The HoL is what could be seen as the thin edge of wedge. What is right for one sector must surely be OK for elsewhere and a way of circumventing democracy.
There are now more, a lot more individuals with more power, than there are in the elected House hence the perpetual self-inflicted damage being done to the country by very personal unelected unaccountable ego, the ones lent power to balance things. That can never be right.
Democracy is a challenge, it has to be challenged, as we have seen over the ages it is also fought for. The dangers are as much inside as we see in the wider scope (bigger picture) of the current crop running the country they don’t like it(democracy) and as with many that once they attain power want it(democracy) sidelined.
Democracy could be said not to be the most efficient way to run a Country, but it is infinitely safer than all the alternatives.
The Lords in its current from is a contradiction a blot on the Nation stopping it calling itself a democracy.
Reply I have no intention of acting in the way you suggest. The Lords can revise, amend and ask government to think again.
February 23, 2026
Democracy has never been under the threat it is today, we need to find a way back
February 23, 2026
I think the HOL is a net benefit to the UK, but like many other comments, I also think the calibre of people appointed has gone down today. The numbers should certainly be reduced, down to 500, in my opinion. PM’s should not be allowed to nominate and appoint so many individuals, but I don’t know how you create an unbiased body to appoint peers.
I think hereditary peers should be brought back, as they should be less biased and less susceptible to pressure from the government of the day.
We certainly need a chamber that can review, revise and advise when the HOC gets it wrong.
February 23, 2026
I would pick the Lords randomly, like juries are supposed to be (although they are not in practise), from
British citizens who were born in the UK, and went to school here
People over, say, 45
People who have, say, over 5 GCSE passes at good grades
People who have never been found guilty of anything but speeding and parking offences
People who are not members of any political party
People who have worked in the private sector at least 50% of their adult life, the law and medicine to be considered as public sector regardless
And give them 10 year tenures, fully expensed
That would shake things up, and produce a far better reviewing chamber
February 23, 2026
The biggest problem with the HoL is that it is filled with failed politicians who having been rejected by the electorate have a grudge to bear against the country, not unlike the top EU bureaucrats.
February 23, 2026
Number of Peers – Half the number of MPs
Appointment – By election, one per every two constituencies/region
Time – Half elected, every two years, duration therefore four years
Contract – As per MP
Title – Senate / Senators
Job – To QA / Revise new laws introduced by the Commons
Scope – Only to revise proposed new laws, nothing more nothing less
Housed – In new building or old army barracks
February 23, 2026
the selection of “People’s Peers” was partially transferred to the House of Lords Appointments
Commision.Since 2001 67 have been appointed.300+ other “Life Peers” have joined the club
via the usual “connections”
February 23, 2026
‘It is an observed convention that the Lords always let the Commons secure a Bill which implements a Manifesto promise.’
How does this sit with Gordon Brown going to court (successfully) to get a tame judge to rule that a manifesto commitment means nothing?
February 23, 2026
We need a modern day parliamentary system with proportional representation and an elected upper House – nothing else will do if we are to have real democracy.