In a characteristically British process of accident, compromise and fudge we have ended up with a constitutional setup which actually works quite well. Democracy is all well and good, but democratically elected parliaments have passed any number of daft laws (I'm sure we all have our own long lists). The House of Lords is now largely made up of people who have achieved eminence in a very wide range of fields and there are acknowledged experts on almost any topic you care to name. Its role is to revise and amend, and at times to tell the elected house not to be so bloody stupid, but it cannot overrule the elected house.

The problem with single-chamber legislatures is that they lack this oversight. The problem with two elected chambers is that they may disagree and fight for supremacy, each claiming a democratic mandate. The British system has the best of both worlds, and the House of Lords itself recognises that it is subordinate to the Commons. Of course there is room for improvement, but I can see no need for the Lords to become elected and many disadvantages if this were to happen.

Whether or not you agree with religion, it is important to a lot of people. I don't think it is inappropriate to have people in the House of Lords who can present a certain viewpoint and a certain moral perspective. The position of the CofE bishops is probably anacronistic, but their numbers have been reduced and other major religious viewpoints are in practice also represented.