Examines the debates and developments about House of Lords reform since 1911, and notes that disagreements have occurred within, as well as between, the main political parties and governments throughout this time. It draws attention to how various proposals for reform have raised a wider range constitutional and political problems.

House of Lords reform is often characterised as unfinished business: a riddle that has been left unanswered since 1911. But rarely can an unanswered riddle have had so many answers offered, even though few have been accepted; indeed, when Viscount Cave was invited in the mid-1920s to lead a Cabinet committee on Lords reform, he complained of finding 'the ground covered by an embarrassing mass of proposals'.That embarrassing mass increased throughout the twentieth century. Much ink has been spilled on what should be done with the upper House of Parliament; much less ink has been expended on why reform has been so difficult to achieve. This book analyses in detail the principal attempts to reform the House of Lords. Starting with the Parliament Act of 1911 the book examines the century of non-reform that followed, drawing upon substantial archival sources, many of which have been under-utilised until now. These sources challenge many of the existing understandings of the history of House of Lords reform and the reasons for success or failure of reform attempts. The book begins by arguing against the popular idea that the 1911 Act was intended by its supporters to be a temporary measure. 'No one – peers included – should be allowed to pronounce about the future of the House of Lords without reading Chris Ballinger's authoritative, shrewd and readable account about reform attempts over the past century. He punctures several widely-held myths and claims in the current debate.' Rt Hon Peter Riddell CBE Director, Institute for Government and former Hansard Society chair 'This is at once an impeccably researched academic study, and a thoroughly readable account loaded with lessons for today's would-be Lords reformers.' Lord (David) Lipsey

This book is the only one of its kind, providing a clear and exhaustive analysis of the different approaches to the future of Britain's second chamber. The House of Lords has long been the subject of proposals for reform some successful, others not and calls for the existing membership to be replaced by elected members have been a staple of political debate. The debate has been characterised by heat rather than light, proponents and opponents of change often talking past one another. This work gives shape to the debate, drawing out the role of the House of Lords, previous attempts at reform, and the different approaches to the future of the House. It develops the argument for each and analyses the current state of the debate about the future of the upper house in Britain's political system.

This institutional history charts the development and evolution of parliament from the Scottish and Irish parliaments, through the post-Act of Union parliament and into the devolved assemblies of the 1990s. It considers all aspects of parliament as an institution, including membership, parties, constituencies and elections.

Painting a detailed portrait of the House of Lords since reform removed most hereditary members in 1999, this book demonstrates the chamber's newly diverse membership and substantial policy impact in British politics. It also places the Lords in a comparative context, asks if it can be considered 'legitimate', and examines the likelihood of reform.

This work marks the first time a researcher has had largely unlimited access, and every significant aspect of the Upper Chamber has been scrutinized. The result is a unique portrait, packed with the unexpected, of a surprising institution which is becoming increasingly influential. Meticulous scholarship is combined with clarity in explanation to produce a work that helps to bridge the gap between anthropology and political science.