This begs the question, given their succes in holding up democracy and civil liberties why push to have an elected Lords at all?
[T]he reason the Lords can vote against the government is their independence from it, not because they aren't responsible to the electorate. A partially or fully elected Lords, would also not be dependent on the Honours list or appointments committee for their votes and could, hopefully, vote more freely.
I'm sorry, my children, but up here in our rarified policial blogging strata we tend to forget that the biggest-selling newspapers in this country of ours are such rags as The Sun and The Mail. Many of our fellow countrymen are, alas, in favour of these draconian laws. If they were not, how would the Fascist Party have so much support?
It's all very well saying that they have been elected with the smallest majority ever but, lest we forget, over a third of those who voted put the cross in the box opposite Toni's cronies. And research suggest that it was the Iraq war, not the attacks on free speech or the desire to control our identities that lost them the support that they already had.
If I may quote the great Winston Churchill:
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
Not having to answer to the rabid electorate is a fundamental reason why the Lords are able to take a long view, and to take the right decisions; they do not need to look to their seats.