Of Lords reform

I believe there has been legislation regarding reform of the House of Lords on the statute books for over a century, and very little has been done in actual reform.

There has been a reduction in the number of Hereditary Peers, which results in there being an election of said Peers into the House when one of the few still aloowed to sit, dies.

On the face of it, the Upper House seems and anachronism, especially with Hereditary members, but in order to replace or reform it, a Government needs to carefully consider how it's key function, in scrutinising Government business, is to be carried out in an evenhanded and neutal manner.

Any kind of elected upper House, as sensible as it sounds, runs the risk of replicating the political make up of the Lower House, and said scrutiny not being as rigorous as it needs to be.

And so we come to the current Goverment and it's plan to reform the Upper House, and a remarkable statement to the Politico website from a Peer that perhaps the Lords would scupper Government business if the Peers themselves did not agree with the proposed reforms.

"That sure is a fine legislative agenda, itd be a shame if something were to happen to it".

If this threat is carried through, it would be a remarkable turn of events, for an institution built on convention and tradition. By convention, the Lords cannot block any Government Bills that contain manifesto commitments. If this convention were to be ignored, then the basic running of Parliament would grind to a halt.

Perhaps Labour's decision not to press on with blocking the Illegal Migration Bill in the Lords was on the prospect that if, as expected, Labour were elected, then the Lords would be less likely to block their Government's business.

A wrong assumption it would appear.