Chamber of Wisdom: A Defence of the House of Lords

The House of Lords stands as a vital anchor of stability, expertise, and tradition at a time of populism and governmental incompetence. Common criticism are tired and misconceived.

By Willa Naylor

13 JANUARY 2026

We live in a time of great turbulence. With an incompetent Labour government fluctuating between socialism and leftist technocratic managerialism depending on the time of day; the rise of Nigel Farage’s Reform UK; the sudden rise of Zack Polanski’s newly energised Green Party of England and Wales; and the relative decline of our traditional parties, we seem to be staring into an abyss of radical populism. We must note however, that the situation is more dire than that, as the nation cannot unite around either right-wing populism or left-wing populism, as neither Mr Farage, nor Mr Polanski have been able to inspire the hearts and minds of a majority or at least close to a majority of the population. This leaves us in a state similar - though not as dangerous in terms of ideological extremism - to the final years of the Weimar Republic. Surely, in such perilous waters, the nation needs an anchor to hold it true – an anchor embodied in the enduring wisdom of the House of Lords. That precious institution has stood the test of centuries. The House of Lords is a sanctuary and temple of experience, intellect, tradition, and benevolent leadership. This steady hand is a crucial element of our nation’s precious and unwritten constitution. It has always been right and natural to support its existence, but it is especially important to support the Lords at this time in our history. If we overly reform it, or even abolish it, we risk leaving our democratic House of Commons without any influence of that already stated experience, intellect, tradition, and benevolent leadership. We risk the abandonment of our nation without any safety net. In defending the House of Lords, we not only defend a chamber of peers, but the prudence and tradition that has contributed to Britain’s greatness.

I will cover the criticisms of the House of Lords before discussing its defences.

Of course, the primary concern and criticism regarding the House of Lords, is that their lordships are unelected and thus the House of Lords is undemocratic. However, this issue is actually very nuanced, because not everyone in our government is elected, but their legitimacy is still acknowledged and respected. It is not only His Majesty the King who is unelected, but judges, and civil servants join His Majesty and the Lords in lacking a visible popular mandate (though they do have legitimacy through the constitutional settlement). Therefore, a valid argument against the House of Lords is not their lack of a mandate. Furthermore, the Lords exists not to veto bills potentially supported in general election campaigns, nor to propose laws but to moderate them. The House of Lords is not a rival house to the Commons. The House of Commons rules – as it should – and the House of Lords revises and amends – as it should!

Additionally, those opposed to the House of Lords will point to the presence of hereditary peers in the upper house of Parliament. The problem for them is that this presence is extremely small.

Since Sir Tony Blair’s reforms of the House of Lords in 1999, the number of hereditary peers has been ninety-two. Yes, ninety-two out of the current eight hundred and twenty-nine Lords are hereditary peers. That number is so miniscule that the hereditary peers do not have the power to distort decisions made by the House of Lords. They are there to maintain a symbolic continuity with the nation’s history. It can also be argued that they lower the overall partisanship of the chamber as they are not selected by a Prime Minister in a system often accused of cronyism.

Another desperate argument against the House of Lords is the size of the chamber. It is unusual that in a Western nation the upper house has more members than the lower house. However, Britain is unique in a number of ways when compared to other liberal democracies. We have an unwritten constitution, a monarchy, and established churches (the Church of England and the Church of Scotland). That does not invalidate the institution of the House of Lords. However, not all 829 current lords regularly participate in the chamber’s activities. Besides, in my opinion, the large size of the chamber is actually a positive feature of the House of Lords. I think it is far better to have more experts in Parliament than less, especially when one considers the fact that their Lordships are not paid salaries.

On the issue of expenses, I would like to make it clear that we do get value for money from the House of Lords. Members of the Lords are given allowances when they attend, and the costs are low compared to foreign upper houses. As a sound-money-Tory, I feel comfort in knowing that the cost of the House of Lords is indeed small when one considers the value that the House of Lords provides in terms of legislative scrutiny.

Moreover, the House of Lords is often accused of being ‘stuffed’ by Prime Ministers seeking to pack the Lords with political allies, donors, et cetera. However, there are checks on this such as the House of Lords Appointments Commission. Even when considering this custom known to Prime Ministers desperate for supportive lords, it does not negate the validity, competence, and value of the countless peers who do real and valuable work. Additionally, not all members of the House of Lords are selected by the Prime Minister. Many are chosen or recommended by other bodies including the House of Lords Appointments Commission and by the Official Opposition. Within the House of Lords, Bishops of the Church of England also have seats in the chamber.

The House of Lords is often perceived as a bastion of the establishment, leading it to have elitist views and a tendency to obstruct. The reality is that the House of Lords is actually unable to block bills passed in the House of Commons. It can amend bills, and it can delay them for a year. That is not obstruction. That is responsibility in ultimate submission to democracy. Eventually, the House of Commons executing the people’s will always prevails because their lordships cannot block any bills passed in the Commons. One can also argue that this situation forces the Commons to think twice before rushing laws, and to consider pre-empting any objections or amendments likely to come about in the House of Lords.

The two solutions suggested by opponents of the House of Lords seem to be reform and abolition. Both are dangerous. Those in favour of reform would promote an elected or partially elected House of Lords and claim that, this way, the chamber would gain legitimacy. I have already explained why that view does not hold water. Furthermore, if the upper house is elected, it would rival the House of Commons. This would lead to immense gridlock as seen in the United States. As it currently stands, the two houses of Parliament are not equal but complementary - an arrangement which has endured and bettered the nation for centuries. Abolitionists would argue that the elimination of the upper house would result in cleaner, better, and simpler governance. I will now address this argument.

Before I discuss my direct defences of the House of Lords as a distinct institution, I want to ask for patience as I lay out a general defence of experts, institutional authority, and reasonable social hierarchy more generally. Starting around the Enlightenment, continuing through industrialisation, the rise of capitalism, and worsened by the rise of the isolated nuclear family, secularisation, and globalisation; Western society has surrendered itself to a libertarian impulse and to a hyper individualistic outlook. I want to stress that individualism is not intrinsically harmful - in fact it is beneficial - but it performs better when we approach the individual as part of a broader community, instead of a distinct entity. This has fueled a hostile attitude towards experts, academia, and traditional authorities. Therefore, the question of the House of Lords is not only a political issue, but also a cultural one, reflecting a broader social issue. One need only look across the pond to see the spread of the false gospel of dropping out of universities and pursuing education outside of traditional institutions, to find evidence of this libertarian social view.

Another example is that people often distrust medical and scientific experts, as seen in the countless conspiracy theories supported by large portions of the Western population. This libertarian and anti-institutional view tries to deny the value and indeed the validity of experts, all on the basis of upholding the individual as the highest possible holder of authority, regardless of that individual’s characteristics. This is the cultural foundation on which the political ideology of populism is based. Neither, is a view similar to Nietzsche’s thoughts valid. Such a view would uphold the Übermensch as the highest authority while discarding the rest of humanity. Therefore, the much better and more traditional view is that all individuals deserve dignity, recognition, a voice, and rights but that those who do have expertise – those who have earned personal value separate from their own intrinsic human dignity through the accumulation of expertise – are respected, valued, and consulted. That is the arrangement of Parliament. The House of Commons is made up of ordinary people with popular mandates, but its decisions are meticulously revised and amended, if necessary, by the experts in the House of Lords - but they cannot veto the people’s will. This arrangement reflects a view which is inclusive but honest that some people have something good and valuable to bring to the table, without compromising the dignity and respect given to those without decades of experience or intellectual expertise. Perhaps, this outlook arises from the Protestant Christian conception of priesthood in which there is a priesthood of all believers which allows all Christians to repent directly to God, while the Church contains an ordained priesthood which carries out the sacraments. The priesthood of the laity is affirmed, but the distinct nature of ordained ministers is respected, and valued as essential in the life of the Church.

My first direct defence of the House of Lords is the value that it adds to the political process. The peers in the House of Lords are often leaders in fields such as law, medicine, business, science, and academia. Such backgrounds provide bills passed in the House of Commons with a level of scrutiny with unparalleled quality. MPs in the House of Commons seldom have the time and background needed to conduct such a deep scrutiny of bills. These impeccably qualified peers improve legislation passed in the House of Lords, and through amending bills, they also prevent the unwanted consequences of bills passed by the Commons.

Furthermore, the House of Lords includes a number of crossbenchers. These peers are

non-partisan, and they are not beholden to party whips. Their insights are invaluable because they provide an independent judgement on bills and policy. This impartiality leads to their protection of civil liberties and the rights of minority groups which may be inconvenient to partisan whims. The crossbench is a defence against the radical populism of our time and ensures the safety of the nation in the face of populist fury. While the House of Commons is controlled by powerful whips, opinion polls, factionalism, and party politics, the House of Lords plays the role of the benevolent adult in the room without as many political impulses. It is the chamber of reflection and offers its unique constitutional conscience in making sure that the laws of the land respect our nation’s fundamental constitutional principles. This feature is enhanced when one considers the lack of turnover in the House of Lords, allowing it to provide a long-term perspective without any fear of political consequences. We need this sober forum.

My final defence of their Lordships is the sheer symbolic value that they provide. They are a link to our ancient parliamentarism. The ceremonies, and rituals of the House of Lords are not there for the sake of pomp, they are there because their Lordships ought to be respected, and cherished; and because they are a link to our cultural heritage. Tradition is important, and in an age where monarchy is often mistreated as celebrity, the House of Lords must be tradition’s arm in the constitutional process. The House of Lords includes the Bishops of the Church of England, giving it a sacred and spiritual element representing the traditional morality of the nation.

In conclusion, the House of Lords is a vital part of the political machine of the United Kingdom. The arguments against it are weak and socially troubling. The House of Lords provides invaluable scrutiny based on expertise, and experience. It is the chamber of wisdom needed in a nation gripped by polarisation, populism, and incompetent governance. We are an ancient nation, and the House of Lords provides an ancient perspective. We ought not to be libertarians, but respectful constitutional traditionalists. We ought to defend the upper house of our parliament. It is one of the last lines of defence against populism. It is perhaps our last best hope.

Willa Naylor is a Young Conservative Abroad, and associate member of Constitutional Conservatives. She is also an A-Level history student. She is an aspiring historian and politician. You can follow her on X/Twitter here