| The Lords lacks real legislative power — its views and amendments can be, and often are, ignored by the government | The Lords performs its “think again” role well without blocking the elected government’s policies |
| Many peers are appointed purely on political loyalty, making it a haven for retired/defeated MPs rather than a chamber of all talents | It is less partisan than the Commons due to the many independents/crossbenchers |
| Being unelected, the Lords lacks democratic mandate, making it hard to justify greater powers — it’s a weak check on the executive | An elected second chamber could cause gridlock (as in the USA) if controlled by a different party |
| Many ex-politicians hold seats, some with little experience. Resignation honours (e.g. Boris Johnson, Liz Truss) have controversially awarded peerages on dubious grounds | Many members are genuine experts bringing real-world experience — it is not dominated by career politicians |
| “Cash for questions” scandals suggest some peers are nominated for large political donations rather than public service | It is relatively cheap — peers receive only a daily allowance. An elected chamber would cost more as members would need full-time salaries |
| An elected chamber could use a different electoral system to first-past-the-post | A proportional system would likely result in no party having overall control, increasing the risk of clashes with the Commons |