argument top image

Should the House of Lords be abolished? Show more Show less
Back to question

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 reformed Show more Show less

While the aim of the House of Lords is positive, it does not serve us in its current form.
< (3 of 3)

Hereditary peers should be abolished

Hereditary peers are a leftover from Aristocracy that do not benefit British society.
< (3 of 3)

The Argument

The House of Lords has ninety-two hereditary peers who inherited their seats through birth right alone. This engenders a view that there is still an aristocracy in the UK that is born to rule and continues to exert influence over British politics. Any reform of the House of Lords should start with the abolition of hereditary peers. This would not only reduce the size and cost of the second chamber but it would ensure that peers are appointed on merit.

Counter arguments

Despite inheriting their seats in the House of Lords, the ninety-two hereditary peers bring a wealth of knowledge and expertise to Parliament, particularly when it comes to land management and agriculture.

Premises

[P1] Hereditary peers are a leftover of aristocratic times. [P2] The first step to reforming the House of Lords is to get rid of the hereditary peers.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The hereditary peers in the House of Lords bring knowledge and expertise to the House, which benefits the whole country.

References

Vote

Not sure yet? Read more ↑

Discuss

This page was last edited on Monday, 9 Mar 2020 at 14:38 UTC

Explore related arguments