I figured out a way to save the House of Lords!  The arguments for and against keeping the upper house of the British Parliament both have merit and I can understand the idea of an elected assembly.  But the House of Lords developed its traditions over 700 years, and that alone should merit a careful consideration of wiping the whole thing out. 

In 1911, the Lords were limited in what legislation they could stop.  It was the right thing to do.  The Lords in 1911 were made up of hereditary peers only, and they were mostly Conservative(the party, not the ideology).  In 1958, life peers were introduced.  Life peers were granted a peerage that lasted the duration of their lifetime and did not result in the title being passed to their children.  This brought a more decided political element to the house, but the resulting addition of experts from various fields of science, art, law and culture was a net plus for British politics.  The peers add amendments to legislation that are generally accepted by the House of Commons.  This ensures that the house has a meaningful existence.  It also compliments the House of Commons, rather that competing with it.

A fully elected upper house(as passed by the Commons last week, overwhelmingly) would have as much legitimacy in the day-to-day function of the legislative and could then compete with the Commons over the passage of legislation.  (As of now, the Lords can only delay legislation one year)  The addition of an elected body throws into doubt the idea that the House of Commons is the supreme body in the theory of Queen-in-Parliament. 

I figured out a way to save the peerage and the House of Lords.  The Queen appoints the Lords, who are then entitled to sit in the House for the rest of their lives.  Why not continue that tradition and then require anyone who is appointed to the peerage to stand for election.  There United Kingdom would be divided into large districts that would elect a certain number of peers.  You must be a peer to stand for election to the House of Lords.  This would allow the cross-bench peers to stand on their merits or expertise, rather than rely on a party to support them.  (Cross-bench peers owe no allegiance to any party and vote the way they please).  The British people have enough common sense to elect more than traditional politicians.  The term for the elected peers would be lengthy-three to four parliaments.  Although appointments would continue to be made through the Sovereign, town councils, local and regional governance and the main political parties could then submit candidates that would be reviewed by a commission.

There is every reason to indroduce as much democracy as possible.  However, few people in Great Britain can complain about the job the House of Lords has done, especially the last fifty years or so.  There should be a merit system to the upper house, but the elected peers would then have legitimacy to have a larger share of the country's burden.  The House of Lords is a unique institution in the world.  I believe that it does not deserve to be turned into another run-of-the-mill senate.  The British evolved their form of government over hundreds of years and that should not be thrown out in a fit of "reform".