Oh lord.  Will we ever see an elected upper house?

Another plan for Lords reform has been published. But yet again there appears to be little political will behind the idea

It is a certainty that each of the main parties will have something on reform of the House of Lords in their election manifestos. Equally as certain is that the documents will offer three different versions.

This week, Jack Straw, the Justice Minister, (who also has constitutional reform responsibilities – don’t ask) reported back to Parliament with the findings of his 17-month long cross party investigation into the future of the upper house.

The White Paper presented lots of options, but no clear plan. This is unsurprising. The major barrier to progress is the lack of consensus about what to do.

Straw’s proposals:

• Not all peers would be elected, but most would
• Numbers would be cut from over 700 to “not more than 400-450 and maybe less”
• The voting system to elect peers is open to debate
• Peers would be paid somewhere between the devolved legislators and MPs

I’d hate to ask the bloke what he plans to cook at a dinner party.

But to be less unkind, it’s not really his, or the government’s, fault. Since not only can’t the parties find agreement, there is also disagreement within the parties. The respective front benches generally give the impression of favouring a primarily elected chamber, but privately they worry that this could lead to gridlock. And the current Lords membership argue that much of the talent and expertise present would be lost if its composition was determined by the ballot box.

Straw plans a further round of consultation before making clear what the government’s line is. As the accompanying headline to a recent Peter Riddell article in the Times reads: “Missed the Lords reform? There’ll be another one along soon”.