JUST a short time after the resounding, and costly, defeat of the Liberal Democrats’ proposed electoral changes they are ready to have another go.

As part of proposals to replace the House of Lords heredity system to an elected system, the Lib Dems wish is for the single transferable vote (STV) system to be used, as it massively favours the party which generally finishes third.

I favour the hereditary peers system as opposed to an elected system, not because it’s good or fair, but because it prevents a clash between the monarch and the new leader of the House of Lords, who would be effectively an elected President.

The leader of the House of Lords, currently, is usually appointed by the Queen’s Prime Minister.

Under the replacement system, the general public will have elected the Lords so who would elect their chamber’s leader?

I can see no benefit whatsoever of this change, only more bureaucracy, bickering and stagnation in decision making.

When a system, with all its faults, is better than the proposed replacement it should, if it has to change, be at least put to a referendum.

But I fear David Cameron will stand back and let Nick Clegg get his way on this – as the price of keeping the coalition united.

Mark Anderson, Middleton St George.