http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6074478.stm This can only be described as a bloody awful idea. I could rant for hours on the issue, but suffix to say that the power, importance and legitimacy of the upper house is in the fact that the peers arenât meant to be swayed by knee-jerk politics, especially party relate ones, by making it an elected body you then force these issues apon them. As well as the fact that the upper house takes a long term, nationwide view of the issues, and act as the counter balance to the (insane) lower house, if they are an elected body with constituents and are getting paid a salary then they will no longer be able to do this. It will simply become a second version of the Commons. Donât get me wrong, the House of Lords does need reforms, removing the right of hereditary peers for one thing. But these, ... ideas are not only the entirely wrong direction to move in but utter madness. The upper house should be a small, appointed, unpaid body. Peers should be appointed by a independent committee that is chaired with a the parties having minority representation, thus removing these political appointments we have seen so much of under labour. The House of Lords should be filled with Britainâs great people, its finest minds, not who ever gave the ruling party a nice big cheque. It also needs to be given back its legitimacy, whilst the lower house should obviously be dominant, it shouldnât be able to steamroll over the Lords whenever a government cant get what it wants, it derides the entire point of having the upper house to examine bills. As it stands today, the Lords isnât actually that bad, it simply needs some minor adjustments to ensure it works effectively. These 'reforms' would do nothing but destroy the oldest political institution in the world, to be replaced with mayhem. And all for the sake of party politics .