I have been pondering a blog entry about the lords reforms all day. This morning in the bath I was all set to write a fairly long entry about it; the subject certainly deserves looking into in some depth. Yet, now that I have sat myself in front of my computer and started to write, what can I say? On the one hand we have the fact that the upper house functions as a fairly good safety measure in case the commons ever goes too far. On the other, we have the fact that it is undemocratic, and that some lords are lords simply through birth. Then again, he fact that some lords didn’t choose to be there – ie, they are not motivated by personal ambition – may in fact be a good thing. I like too how certain members of the public can be appointed to the lords on merit, like Lord Winston and Lord Attenborough, bringing their expertise and wisdom to the chamber but without having chosen to be there. That, perhaps, is the way to go: not an entirely elected chamber, but a chamber with some members appointed on merit. Nevertheless that is not to say I find the idea of hereditary peers at all palatable: the notion that some people can be ‘born to rule’, holding power simply through accident of birth, has no place in a modern western democracy.