Whilst it is difficult to make a convincing intellectual case for an unelected 2nd chamber, it is nigh-on impossible to make the case for a hereditary one.
HOWEVER, human nature being what it is, with politicians being (for the most part) susceptible to all the basest human foibles, if the job of a peer is to scrutinise legislation and to hold the executive to account then being removed from the need for political patronage and electioneering is surely a benefit?
Whilst I’m not seriously advocating for a return of the Hereditaries, the reason that it worked for so long was precisely because peers had no real need for advancement, nor for monetary gain – They and their families were (by and large) already secure. Added to that was the sense of “Noblesse Oblige” – which still had some validity in earlier ages. Sadly gone now, it would seem. Compare that to today where many of our appointed life peers conjure for themselves far too much “Noblesse” and not half enough “Oblige”.
For all the meddling Lords you reference, our current system – during the whole Brexit debate – allowed a significant proportion of our Parliament (both houses) to be infested with active anti-democrats – using their position of privilege to actively undermine a legitimate, democratic mandate. How that is not the biggest political scandal of the last 100 years just shows what a supine media we have (and how sympathetic they were to the campaign to thwart the largest single-issue mandate in the history of these isles)
There’s little doubt that the make-up of the 2nd Chamber needs some sort of reform – the current incarnation is demonstrably not working as intended – but I, for one, would rather not see another elected house to replace the House of Lords, with all the attendant partisan politicking that would go along with that. Nor would I wish to see the institution of the Lords abolished altogether. But the HofL could and should be slimmed down to whatever number of peers is deemed sufficient to carry out the necessary work it does. Each member should be expected to perform their parliamentary duties – if they are unable they should then retire. They can keep the titles, but they no longer receive money from the public purse and have no part in legislation.
We certainly can’t justify the current size of the Lords, – and the eye-watering sums of tax-payers’ money it takes to prop up what is only an amending chamber.
Interestingly, when bien pensant commentators talk of abolishing the HofL altogether they never seem to take their argument to its logical conclusion. The Guardian talks of the Lords being a “broken, morally corrupt, anti-democratic institution” – yet the hilarious double-standard of saying that about the Lords, whilst imagining the European Parliament is democratic, seems to escape them.
The ludicrous short-trousered-Marxist, Owen Jones, writes that we can simply dispose of the Lords, because it is a 2nd chamber, with only the power to amend, with no power to initiate or enact legislation. He thinks it anachronistic to have such an unelected body in the UK of the C21st. All the actual power resides in the Commons – in that they alone have the power to initiate primary legislation. The Commons is directly accountable to the electorate.
In Brussels, of course, the reverse is true. Yes, we are given the opportunity to vote for MEPs – but they have vanishingly little power. (This is something most will cheerfully admit) They cannot propose or initiate legislation, merely amend (like the Lords). The power to initiate legislation – which is really the only genuine power – is held by the entirely unelected Commission. Whose positions are as untouchable by the electorate as those of the Lords.
Obviously, the situation is far worse in Brussels in that those unelected people are the Primary Chamber, those who initiate legislation – as opposed to Westminster, where the lack of democratic accountability is only with regard to the secondary chamber.
If the Guardian’s argument had any consistency, why were they not calling for the wholesale reform of the European legislative framework? Perhaps getting rid of the Commission altogether and passing its legislative function to elected representatives?
In a newly sovereign UK, rather than another elected chamber, can we not just return to a HofL of no more than 200 peers who can carry out the necessary work of a revising chamber without the current partisan politicking. And maybe weed out those members who decided that working with a foreign power to undermine their own country in negotiations was in any way acceptable.
Oh, and no matter what happens – for the sake of our democracy – no Lord Bercow, ever!

I am a firm believer in House of Lords reform. Unfortunately, I haven’t a clue what should replace it and no one else seems to either. I also have a great fear that we might end up with something worse. But could we not at least put a limit on its size? It would be a start. There have been proposals to that effect currently lost on a dusty shelf somewhere.

Very good article, thank you. Whatever we might replace it with, the Lords clearly need replacement. But Lord Salisbury”s suggestion is surely the best: a federal chamber, and, by implication, federal reform asap. In the meantime, reduce the Lords to 100 members, by vote of the 800, and no more new peers created thereafter.

Except, maybe, hereditary peerages for outstanding service. Of which I can think of only a couple of cases since 1945.

Be careful with Lords reform. On our side of the Pond, starting with a republican Constitution, we have been chipping away at the restraints on democratic enthusiasms that were carefully built into it, starting with recognizing party politics by not having the runner-up in the election to the Presidency become Vice-President and continuing with the direct election of Senators, who under the original design were to represent the interests of their state, being elected by its legislature, rather than of the populace. Having a mechanism not beholden to the electorate for suggesting amendments and slowing down legislation restrains the tyranny of the majority at least a little, and you should probably keep it. For that matter, I think you should go back to the Monarch having complete leeway in who is invited to form a government in the event of a hung Parliament.