Further reform of the House of Lords seems very unlikely in the short term after the House of Commons rejected
all reform options. John Alderdice had predicted this outcome to me the
other day, though I was getting a bit sceptical; Robin Cook appeared to
have built up a bandwagon behind the concept of a completely elected
upper house, and it all began to look like Tony Blair facing defeat
over this issue which would have strengthened Cook in the event of Iraq
going wrong.

But John was right. The Commons voted against
100% election by 289 to 272; very narrowly against an 80% elected
option by 284 to 281, more heavily against 60% (316 to 253) and finally
against Blair’s preferred option of 100% appointment (323 to 245).
Meanwhile the House of Lords voted for 100% appointment by 335 to 110.

I
can see a logic in Blair’s (and John Alderdice’s) position. Why should
the Commons want to give more electoral legitimacy to the Lords? Who,
after all, will be bothered to vote? Do the democratic credentials of a
secondary chamber really matter all that much? And, how easy will it be
for me to get in to an appointed as compared to an elected house? Not
that the last of these questions bothers many people of course…