The "peers" are so-called because they are considered to have "parity" with the monarch, who in turn is judged to be simply first among equals within their ranks . So logically you can't get rid of the "peers of the realm" without getting rid of the monarchy as well. (Incidentally, we've done that once already and we got Cromwell's dictatorship in its place!)

That said, I think it unlikely that either the peers or the monarch will survive, in the long term, the social revolution that has been brought about by the internet, which is rapidly creating a single, transatlantic, English-speaking, online community, which in turn is beginning to take US political values for granted as standard. So how long the monarchy will survive the present monarch is an open question.

The Conservative Party, which stands both the preservation of the monarchy on the one hand, and the maintenance of the Atlantic Alliance on the other, is going to have its work cut out in reconciling the two.

Edmund Burke, Kingston upon Thames, England

Mick Hume doesnt understand that 'democracy' comes in many flavours, translated from its Greek origins it means rule for or by the people. It does not therefore make something less democratic by having an unelected second house. The House of Lords plays an important role in counterbalancing the House of Commons, such as sending back unfit laws for amendment. I for one am glad of this counterbalance, think what laws Blair might have passed unamended if we didn't have the House of Lords. It is good to have a second chamber that does not have to pander to public opinion in fear of votes, but can judge laws on their merits. I believe that the general meritocratic nature of the Lords gives us great expertise in the second house. Do I prefer to put my faith in this achieving elite rather than the populous masses? Without a doubt. Just look at the corruption in America's elected 2nd house. Get rid of hereditary peers and religious peers, that will do fine. If it aint broke don't fix it.

Mr J W Randall, Edinburgh,

Interesting stuff. So what I get out of this is that it is the Lords who have installed CCTV cameras on every street corner, removed the right of the homeowner to be secure in his own home, created databases to record every possible detail of your life, and it's the Lords who have for the last ten years been following every twist and turn in the tabloid press, trying to appear tougher than tough, but mostly achieving nothing except to restrict the liberty of the ordinary citizen while favouring the criminal.

Oddly enough, that doesn't sound too like the Lords I am familiar with. It sounds more like the Commons.

Madison wasn't a fool, you know. He understood all too well that unrestricted democracy leads to all kinds of evils, fads and temporary fashions, requiring some counter-balance. But who knows, maybe a single house is the way to go. After all, look how well it worked for Hitler.

jon livesey, Sunnyvale, CA/USA