Some of these views are good and well thought out. First off, I'd like to state my opposition to the hereditary peers, and my views on bishops are mixed given the moral ideas they give to the house. As for rebellion, and voting with the party, a lack of majority means bills must still be amended to be given approval of the whole house. The money for attendance is, I believe, understandable, they have come to London and hopefully participated in a debate. I believe government ministers and committee chairs have their own offices (which is important for their work). Of course, this covers a very small minority of the peers, so is not a major issue. Regarding "vested interests", accountability is certainly an issue in the lords, but many feel a moral obligation to prove to themselves that they work for the greater good. The lords are large, and should be trimmed down, perhaps with only a small period where a limited number of lords can be appointed every few years.

If I am not mistaken, the european parliament constituencies are based on large regions of the Uk. Having to represent a specific region would play a big part on influencing the decision making process of the lords to suit their constituents. If the voting was done by a proportional system, then the lords would theoretically have less of a right to rebel (due to them being voted for their party, not themselves, and voted democratically across a region). The larger the constituency, the less of mandate they have. And of course, what about the crossbenchers? What would happen to them in the event of an elected house? I think we would lose many of the more independent voices of government.