Now a democratic Lords may smell better to people brought up to equate "democracy" with "good", but it will spell more bad legislation. It will lead to unchecked power when a party has a majority in both houses comprised of party hacks. Democracy for the lords will remove a check and further entrench the elective dictatorship.
In the event of what the French call "Cohabitation", elected Lords (they'll probably be called something vulgar like senators) will lead to gridlock as you will not be able to fob people with democratic "legitimacy" off with the parliament act. The idea that our politicos schooled in Tribal mud slinging will behave like independent minded American senators is ludicrous. You need to be rich before you become a senator - this gives independence. Both parties (labour are naturally worse) are stuffed with career politicians dependent on their parties for their pay cheque.
The loss to the country of the ability to reward notable subjects with medieval flummery rather than a salary and a party whip will be huge.
Elected lords would be a disaster - better cronyism and corruption. Better still, let the lords decide their own composition independent of party machines.
I agree entirely; I can't think of anything worse than a whole bunch of party apparatchiks being ushered in and Whipped into submission (at least the current Lords do it in their spare time. Possibly), even if it did mean that UKIP might get some more representation.
Except, of course, that I don't think that they will. Let's face it, the Big 3 don't like anyone else horning in on their party and there's no way that they'll let BNP members sit in the Lords: so they will, of course, stitch it up just as they're stitching up the state funding proposals.
Under the current proposals, a political party will need to have two first-past-the-post MPs before they get any state funding; what do you want to bet that the proposals for the Elected Lords has a similar provision, eh?
Fuck, we're ruled by a bunch of corrupt turds, are we not?