Here is the response I have received from John Lee (LibDem peer Lord Lee of Trafford) about Lords reform. He has sent this reply to all the people who responded to his letter in the Liberal Democrat News:
Dear Paul
Please forgive this rather impersonal letter but it is the only way I can relatively efficiently respond to everyone who has written.
As expected I have received a number of emails criticising my stance on House of Lords abolition – for that is what it is!
The near universal attitude amongst my critics is that those involved in taking legislative decisions in the Lords should be elected to be “legitimate”; I did make clear in my letter to Lib Dem News that I fully respect and understand this position although I do not agree with it. What I am against is the unnecessary destruction of the Lords as we know it; there is no significant public support for this and virtually all serious national newspapers and respected political commentators broadly support the continuation of an appointed House. Do please read Andreas Whittam Smith’s piece in The Independent and Peter Hennessy’s in The Daily Telegraph.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8519732/Dont-lay-waste-to-the-wisdom-of-the-Lords.html
In addition MPs are increasingly realising that the traditional acceptance by the Lords of the primacy of the House of Commons would cease with an elected Lords, and that the idea of a “senator” with freedom to roam their constituency or region is not regarded as particularly attractive. In any case, how would a “senator” – elected for only for one 15 year term as proposed in the Bill – be “accountable” given that they would not come up for any form of re-selection?
Above all, I have come to respect the huge range of expertise which exists in the Lords. Does anyone seriously believe that the likes of the Lords Bragg, Puttnam, Ramsbotham, Winston or Baronesses like Joan Bakewell, or Elizabeth Manningham-Buller would stand for public election? In my view “senators” broadly elected from the same pool as those seeking to be members of the House of Commons raises the fundamental question: why indeed have a second chamber at all?
To conclude I believe that the current suggested Bill is unnecessary, unpopular and likely to fail. Only in Lib Dem ranks is there majority support for an elected House – a significant minority of our Peers, including David Steel and myself – are opposed. I certainly believe that some changes are needed but these should be evolutionary as promoted in David’s Bill.
In my view the future of the House of Lords transcends Party politics.
With kind regards,
John Lee
Lord Lee of Trafford DL FCA
Liberal Burblings 
Pingback: Lib Dem peer John Lee urges party to abandon Lords reform plans | Mark Pack