There have been a lot of enquiries and committees on the subject of Lords reform in the past 15 years. One of the generally agreed principles is that one party should not have a majority, which is why the proposals include proportional representation for the elected members and the largely non-partisan nominated members and Lords Spiritual.

It is likely that the non-partisan "cross-benchers" (who function as a technical group in the House of Lords) will be the third largest group in the reformed House. The Liberal Democrats will probably be the next largest. There will then be smaller numbers of members from various other parties.

Under the new order no one will serve for more than fifteen years, so the old idea of membership for life will disappear.

No. What you would get is an assembly without a partisan majority, in which the libdems imagine being the perpetual swing group.

Except they are the 3rd party in a first past the post system because they gained the status of second party in enough electorates.

A multi-seat constituency system is going to tilt over time more toward the Greens being the balance of power, as in the Ozzie Senate ~ indeed, the Ozzie Dems were the balance of power for a while, but in making a deal with the Conservative Coalition (Libs and Nats) on a VAT, they relegated themselves to irrelevancy.

It would be a small bit poignant if the Lib Dems got the House of Lords reform through as their last gasp before their already existing coalition with the Tories knocked them down in a similar way. The poignancy would be substantially tempered by the fact that the idiotic gits had it coming for being foolish enough to strike the deal.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.