The second option is a fully elected house, the advantages of this system is that it is simple, legitimate and accountable. It is backed by reformers in all parties and some cabinet ministers. The problem with this option is that it effectively replicates the House of Commons and could challenge it; it would be a Commons 2. It could become packed with unrepresentative, i.e. not specialist in any subjects like appointed peers would be. This option is unlikely as MP’s see it as a threat to the Commons power, however some MP’s may back it.
The third option is an 80% appointed, 20% elected House of Lords. This was the proposed option in the government’s white paper. Its advantages are that it mixes established figures with a democratic voice. However it is very confusing and elected members may struggle for power and attention over the majority of the appointed peers. Nevertheless this option does not seem likely as it has been abandoned by the government.
The fourth option is to have an 80% elected, 20% appointed House. This option is backed by reformers as a compromise and most of the Conservative Party. Its advantages are that it allows effective elections but retains a handful of appointed experts. On the other hand this is a compromised option and is little advance on a fully elected house. This has a possibility of being vote for, it is the upper end of most reformers expectations.
The fifth option is to have a 60% appointed, 40% elected House. This is backed by opponents to a fully elected house who recognise compromise is necessary. Its advantages are that it brings a lot of expertise to the house and non-partisan groups of people and reformers see it as an improvement on the government’s initial plans. However most members of the House will remain unelected and so, some say, illegitimate. This option has little hope of being adopted as reformers hope for more than this.
The sixth option is a 60% elected, 40% appointed Lords. The arguments for this arrangement are that it is a sensible mix of democracy and stability. The arguments against this option are that it is a cautious and unclear mix of members. It is backed by many MP’s who want reform but fear an aggressive fully elected house, as mentioned in the second option. The chances of this option being implemented are excellent, it is seen as a good compromise and the government would accept it.
The sixth option is a 50% appointed, 50% elected House. This option, even though it lacks strong support, is quite likely as all sides could settle for this. Its advantages are that it offers even numbers and neatness therefore making it easier to understand and bringing a balance of legitimacy and expertise. However this could lead to deadlock and the ultimate compromise.
There is an eighth option but it is extremely unlikely. And that is to completely abolish the House of Lords. But this will probably never happen as it would give the Commons too much power and would not be very popular, even though some MP’s are calling for it.
