Why you should care about a reformed House of Lords

The question prompted by Labour’s plan is not so much why, but why has it taken so long? Dr Jess Garland writes

Opponents of the proposals have not challenged the idea that the Lords is in pressing need of reform (PA Archive)

If we were to design an upper house of parliament from scratch today, what would the public reaction be to a proposal for one of 800 members, each with a job for life, chosen either by the sitting prime minister or by hereditary right? It would rightly be met with outrage and incredulity. Yet that is exactly what we have in the House of Lords at this very moment; a bloated second chamber of peers for life including 92 all-male hereditary Lords.

It is an embarrassing state for affairs for a modern democracy, which is why it is welcome news that Labour has outlined proposals to sweep away the current anachronistic Lords and replace it with an elected second chamber that better represents all parts of the country.

This looks set be the centrepiece of a wider overhaul of our politics which will devolve sweeping powers from Westminster to national, regional and local communities.