REFORMING the House of Lords to make it more democratic is one of those things that most Britons agree with but almost nobody really wants to do. It has been argued over, off and on, for a century. It appeared in the election manifestos of all three major parties in 2010. On July 10th the House of Commons finally approved a bill that would create a four-fifths elected upper chamber. But the prospect of heavy defeat on a measure to set a timetable for debate means the legislation has stalled. Lords reform - and, with it, the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition - dangles precariously (see article). Opponents, who style themselves "the sensibles," are in their pomp. More Conservative MPs voted against House of Lords reform than voted last year to call for a referendum on membership of the European Union - generally thought the party's most caffeinated issue. Labour, which in theory favours an elected upper house, is determined to string out the debate, so as to aggravate tensions between pro-reform Liberal Democrats and a divided Conservative Party. The lords themselves will surely dig in against change. Two questions emerge from this mess: is House of Lords reform worth fighting for? And what should the government do now? The principle behind Lords reform is simple and right: those who shape the laws of the land should be chosen by voters. Most of the world's upper houses are elected, either directly or by regional parliaments (former British colonies are prominent among the exceptions). Countries with elected upper houses tend not to clamour for less democracy. Britain should join them, with a wholly elected upper chamber. Opponents retort that an elected Lords of any sort will be more assertive, routinely amending and delaying legislation. This may well be true. The Lords has become more stubborn since the last Labour government ejected most hereditary peers, making the upper house less ridiculous. But this is partly the point of reform. Britain's central government is hugely powerful (at least, when it isn't trying to reform the House of Lords) and far more centralised than in most democracies. The executive power needs a more effective check. Rebels also claim that reform will eat up huge amounts of parliamentary time. They insist it is barmy to start fiddling with the constitution when the country faces "a howling economic gale," as one Tory puts it. However, it is doubtful whether the economy would benefit from the undivided attention of politicians. And Lords reform does not have to drag on. The argument that it will gum up Parliament is a disguised threat, issued by the people who plan on pouring the glue. The government should be prepared to force them into the open. The final argument in favour of the present House of Lords is the most sensible: it works. For all its imperfections, it has a good record of improving laws and it is a reservoir of wisdom: among its 800-odd members are bishops, scientists and retired generals. Yet expertise is not sufficient qualification for political office. A former army chief is an expert on military matters, but not on financial-services regulation or health care, and should not be voting on bills to do with those things. The notion that unelected experts should be able to shape laws belongs not to mature democracies but to polities like Iran. If the upper house needs experts, it should call them in. Lords a-leaping All this argues for a fully elected upper house. The current bill, which would lead to four-fifths of the "senators" being elected for non-renewable 15-year terms, is far from perfect. Yet Lords reform is so slow that a leap in the right direction is welcome. If a mostly elected Lords does become bolder, it will come to seem highly offensive to have a rump of appointees not constrained by the popular will. Reform will complete itself. But this change must be put to the people in a referendum. That is partly a matter of politics. Both the Tory rebels and the Labour Party have demanded a ballot, so their bluff will be called. It is also a matter of principle. Reform will profoundly change Britain's political system - not something that should be done without popular approval, especially at a time when European democracy is in such a shoddy state (see article). Let the people break the deadlock.