Without wishing to delve too deep into the party-political rivalry that has entered this thread, to answer the OP's title all I can say is GOOD!
Without wishing to blow my trumpet too much, I covered this very topic for my degree dissertation just over a decade ago and my reasonings and conclusions are just as valid now as they were then.
Firstly, I accept that the reforms brought in by New Labour to remove the voting rights of hereditary peers were probably the right thing to do. To make the Lords an entirely elected second chamber, however, would be a very dangerous step and one which would threaten the very basis of our parliamentary democratic system.
As things stand, the House of Commons (or 'Lower House') holds the ultimate democratic legitimacy, having been elected directly by the vote of the people (the weaknesses of the electoral system such as First Past The Post notwithstanding). The House of Lords, or' Upper Chamber' merely exists to act as a 'check and balance' to the legislative actions of the 'Lower House'. In practice this means that any proposed legislation - or Green Paper (or 'Bill') after being read and voted for approval in the Commons is passed to the Lords for reading and approval. The Lords can reject any 'Bill' and propose amendments to it up to three times (or 'Readings') before the Commons can force it through despite their objections. This is important given their primacy in terms of legitimacy, but the Lords has served its' purpose as a form of "Are you sure?" and "Are you sure you're sure??" check and balance on the Commons.
Do not under-estimate the Lords. The traditional (and sceptical) view is one of grey old 'fuddie-duddies' who have lost touch with the modern world rejecting anything that doesn't protect their way of life and well-being. The New Labour reforms helped to eradicate this element from the Lords, but each elected party also helps to reduce this by appointing new members during their term. To generalise, they tend to be a cross section of people with a great deal of life experience and, despite being from a well-off background, have a social consciousness that widely expands that of their background (charity founders/benefactors for example) and can offer that to the benefit of the nation. There have been numerous examples of the Lords providing a better reflection of public opinion than their elected cousins in recent history.
To turn the Lords into an elected second chamber is extremely dangerous in my opinion. As soon as you give the Lords (or 'Upper Chamber') greater legitimacy by making it elected, it will demand greater involvement in the policy and law-making process than the current 'check and balance' status than it currently holds, and why shouldn't it? It will suddenly be equally as legitimate as the Commons (or 'Lower Chamber'). We will then end up with a political system similar to that in the US with the Senate and the House of Representatives, with both vying for legitimacy and ultimately little getting done.
I'm not saying our current system is perfect - far from it - but think long and hard before changing it!
