The house of Lords should be reformed. It should not in my opinion however be elected. There are a number of reasons for this. If it were elected, there would be a danger that it would, probably at some moment of crisis, claim legitimacy as the government of the country. This would be constitutionally confused and not a good basis for government. The House of Commons must remain decisive, though the revising, scrutinizing and delaying powers of the House of Lords are all valuable instruments for ensuring that legislation is well drafted, effective and representative.
A second reason for not having an elected House of Lords is that people do not have the stamina for more elections, nor do they have the wish to multiply our political class. A nominated House of Lords allows people to be brought into the political arena, who are not necessarily politicians by nature. They can however bring skills from other arenas in which they have been successful: business; sport; science; technology; entertainment; etc. I would suggest that each political party elected to the House of Commons should be able to nominate members for the House of Lords in proportion to the total number of votes cast in their favor at a general election. This would to some extent redress the unfairness of our present First Past the Post Electoral System. Of course there would be accusations of croniism, but really parties have an interest in nominating people who will be effective and in any case perceived abuse of the system by one party or another can be rolled up into the decision we make when we cast our vote at the general election.
[Response to a question, originally posted on Yahoo Questions: Link ]