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.

Peter Raina's magnificent history of Lords reform has already brought into the public domain a mass of original documents and thrown light on the debates they fuelled. In Volume 4 he brings his study up to the present age. & ltBR> The Thatcher and Blair governments were both determined to shake up the system, and in such times the old House of Lords began to look more and more outdated. Mrs Thatcher's inaction on the issue only increased calls for abolition or change. So the Blair government grasped the nettle. In one historic Act of Parliament it ejected hereditary peers from the House - except.

"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."--Bloomsbury Publishing.

The history of reform of the House of Lords has a long history since the Parliament Act 1911, and since the House of Lords Act 1999 removed the right of all but 92 hereditary peers to sit in the Lords, there has been a number of initiatives to further the debate on reform. The latest proposals are contained in the draft Bill (Cm. 8077, ISBN 9780101807722) published in May 2011, which was referred to the Joint Committee. In this report the Joint Committee acknowledges the controversial aspects of certain of the proposals and the members of the Committee reflect wider differences of opinion, many of the report's recommendations being decided by a majority. The majority supports the need for an electoral mandate, provided the House has commensurate powers. The current functions and role would continue, but the House would probably seek to be more assertive, to an extent that cannot be predicted. The Committee recommends a House of 450 members, 80% elected on a system of Single Transferable Voting (preferably that used in New South Wales, not the one proposed in the Bill) for a 15 year term.The main sections of the report cover: functions, role, primacy of the Commons and conventions; electoral system, size, voting system and constituencies; appointments, bishops and ministers; transition, salaries, IPSA, disqualification. The Committee recommends that, in view of the significance of the constitutional change, the Government should submit the decision to a referendum.

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.