What the House of Lords is Really for?

The Lords beats the Commons hands-down in scrutinising legislation, but it is also a repository of informed opinion to serve the nation. It is, that is, so long as it remains appointed not elected.     

House of Lords Reform: Are We Nearly There Yet?

Twelve years after coming to office, Labour has still not achieved the second stage of House of Lords reform that was promised in 1997. In July 2008 a White Paper—the government's fifth on the subject—was published, setting out plans for an 80 or 100 per cent elected upper house. This article reviews its prospects. It concludes that although the government is now apparently more in line with the views of its supporters, there are many other obstacles. Fundamental differences remain both within and between the political parties, and several key principles remain unresolved. Progress is therefore unlikely.     

Does It Matter If the House of Lords isn't Reformed? Perspectives from a Symposium at Trinity Hall,Cambridge

In May 2011 the Coalition government published a draft bill for reform of the House of Lords, proposing an upper chamber composed of 80% elected and 20% appointed members serving for single 15‐year terms. These plans reflect aspects of the stated positions of the main political parties, votes in the House of Commons, and broader political and scholarly debates over the past decade. Nevertheless, there is significant opposition from across the political spectrum, and there is a significant possibility that the proposed reforms will not be enacted before the next general election. This article draws on the views of participants (including three current peers) in a Symposium at Trinity Hall, Cambridge to argue that the likely failure of the reforms may be less disastrous than many suppose. Especially since the 1999 reforms, the House of Lords is in many ways a more active and legitimate chamber than is commonly realised.