Examine the view that the House of Lords is an outdated institution, and should be abolished or replaced

A pre-eminent reason why the House of Lords can be considered an outdated institution and should be abolished, is because it is entirely un-elected and thus contradictory to UK democracy. For instance, despite Tony Blair's 1999 House of Lords Reform Act removing all but 92 hereditary peers, most members of the Lords are appointed rather than elected. The Prime Minister and other party leaders elect those who can stand in the House of Lords based on expertise and is also is made up of the non-appointed: hereditary peers and the Lord spiritual. Clearly, this indicates just how the Lords is entirely undemocratic and thus outdated alongside our representative democracy. Moreover, the religious presence in the Lords, further suggests the Lords is outdated enough to be abolished. Considering the religious diversity in the UK where (according to the 2011 census), there has been a dramatic decrease in those who identify as Christian: from 71% in 2001 to 59% in 2011. Not only this, but an increase in those supporting no religion: from 14% in 2001 to 25% in 2011. Therefore, considering the evidence supporting a growth in religious diversity, it is clear the House of Lords is particularly outdated in the (religious) groups it represents and also is outdated in its nature: as an unelected and undemocratic chamber, thus has convincing evidence as why it should be abolished.
Despite the convincing argument that the House of Lords should be abolished due to its outdated nature, the argument it should be replaced holds a key weakness. Immediately, it can be argued that introducing a second elected chamber would undermine the intended role of having a bicameral parliament- so the Lords can provide expertise without the political pressure those in the commons face, of being professionally affiliated to a party. For instance, many life peers appointed through the 1999 House of Lords act provide crucial (impartial) expertise to Parliament - which would perhaps be undermined if appointed life peers were elected through a traditional campaign process. A few examples of these are: Baroness Amos, who was previously an Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief, Lord Darzi of Denham, who is a professor of surgery at Imperial College London, and Baroness Golding, a Radiographer. Clearly then, although the nomination process is arguably undemocratic and outdated, it cannot be denied that replacing this process with a electoral system similar to the House of Commons - formally established as the Fixed Term Parliament Act (2011) under David Cameron’s government- would essentially politicise the Lords, and thus risk jeopardizing the impartial expertise it provides. Ultimately, the House of Lords can most definitely be labelled as outdated, however the claim it should be replaced, rather than abolished, can prove to be problematic.