Mapping the world's opinions

argument top image

Should the House of Lords be abolished? Show more Show less

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 Show more Show less

The House of Lords is irrelevant in modern life and detrimental to our democracy.
(1 of 3 Positions) Next >

The cost of the House of Lords has ballooned

The cost of maintaining the House of Lords is increasingly unmanageable.
< Previous (2 of 3 Arguments) Next >

Context

The Argument

In recent years appointments to the House of Lords have ballooned making it one of the largest second chambers in the world. The only other countries in the world with second chambers larger are the People’s Republic of China, Kazakhstan and Burkina Faso – none of them are liberal democracies. Since 2000 the size of the House of Lords has increased by 27%, despite party leaders consistently promising to limit the number of peers they nominate. At the current rate of growth the House of Lords is expected to tally over 1,000 members by 2031. This is completely unsustainable with new peers costing the tax payer on average an additional quarter of a million pounds a year.[1]

Counter arguments

Framing

Premises

[P1] The size and cost of the House of Lords is huge. [P2] It is not what the country should be spending its money on.

Rejecting the premises

Proponents

Further Reading

References

  1. https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/latest-news-and-research/media-centre/press-releases/lords-appointments-mean-house-is-on-track-for-1000-members/

Explore related arguments

This page was last edited on Monday, 20 Apr 2020 at 07:35 UTC