Abolish the House of Lords NOW.

The House of Lords is a relic that belongs to the museum. They are unelected and yet have the power to obstruct approved legislations. It is time to get rid of them.

Undemocratic and Unaccountable
“The House of Lords is an affront to democracy and accountability”. Allowing unelected peers direct involvement in lawmaking and the processes of government is “indefensible”. With no democratic mandate, Peers don’t have to concern themselves with re-election so lack an incentive to work in the interests of an electorate.

Moves to introduce an all-elected or partly elected upper house were first put forward in 1999 and (despite gaining majority approval from MPs in 2007) have consistently failed to materialise - demonstrating inertia to any meaningful reform.


Unrepresentative of the Nation
The Lords isn’t representative of the British people, instead it represents “centuries of accumulated privilege”. 74% of Peers are men, only 26% women. 54% of Lords are over 70 years old, and only 3% are under 50.

Minority ethnic groups constitute 13% of the UK population but account for only 6% of Lords. Geographically, its representation heavily favours the south, London having 5x more members than the north-west of England.

Despite efforts to introduce more diversity, new appointments continue to under-represent women, ethnic minorities and northern regions of the UK.


Unrepresentative of the House of Commons
It’s convention that the political balance in the Lords reflects the elected Commons, so the Prime Minister of the time appoints new peers to balance the House in their party’s favour.

Despite this, the party in power is never able to secure a majority in the upper house, which “exacerbates the problems of our electoral system” - increasing the disconnect between how the country voted and who legislates for the UK.

The system of appointment to the House of Lords means it’s incapable of keeping pace with shifts in the balance of power in the House of Commons. For example the Liberal Democrats have 13% of peers in the House of Lords but only 1.2% of seats in the House of Commons.


It’s both Powerful & Powerless
The House of Lords’ powers of intervention are disruptive and obstructive to working government. It doesn’t have the power to veto legislation but has the power to delay it. This is sufficient to prevent the elected government of the day to implement its policies on its own timescales, despite it having no democratic mandate.

This represents the worst of both worlds - in practice it can wield great power by obstructing approved legislation, whilst masquerading as purely an advisory body with no real power.


It’s Unnecessary
It’s argued that the main benefit of the House of Lords is that it brings a wealth of knowledge and expertise into Parliament. However there are other proven ways for Parliament to access expertise without needing a second legislative chamber. Select Committees already play a vital role, allowing MPs to scrutinise issues in greater detail and to draw on evidence provided by expert witnesses from outside Parliament.

Many Parliaments around the world, such as those of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Israel and New Zealand, as well as the UK’s own Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish assemblies operate without an upper house.


“Cronyism”
Despite reforms that have successfully reduced the number of hereditary peers, appointment to the House of Lords has not been characterised by accession of the “great and the good”.

Rather, Lords appointments have become a vestige of cronyism where the government and PM rewards political allies and donors. This was brought into sharp focus in the “Cash for Honours” scandal of 2006-7 when several of Tony Blair’s Labour party nominations were rejected having been linked to donations and loans to the party.

Since then, successive Prime Ministers have continued to reward personal aides, political allies and donors with peerages. This is a symptom of a "corrupt and decaying democracy" and undermines the purpose of the House of Lords.


It’s Overweight and Expensive
The House of Lords has grown to over 800 members, simply because its system of appointment. Most members are peers for life, who only recently were given the option to resign their seats. With seating for only 230 members, it’s now the second-largest legislative body in the world, with net operating costs of £93.1m (2013-14).

Whilst reforms could bring the numbers down, moves to introduce an elected chamber could easily end up increasing the overall cost of the House substantially as members become salaried.


No Decent Alternatives
Despite all parties agreeing that reform is necessary and there being numerous attempts to reform the House of Lords, Parliamentarians have consistently been unable to agree on a viable alternative.

In 2007, the House of Commons voted in favour of an all-elected upper House, but has so far failed to assert its primacy and instigate major reform.

This is most likely because an elected upper house would challenge the supremacy of the Commons - as well as lead to higher costs, less diversity, less experience, and for it to become a political echo chamber of the Commons.

With its current position being untenable, the House of Lords has proven to be too difficult to reform, revive, or reinvent - so it should be abolished, with its resources being directed to enhancing the House of Commons investigative functions.