Or perhaps I should say House trading. That is, if you support an elected House of Lords (so we can secure some more seats there for our people), we will allow you to go forward with the boundary changes that might secure more seats for your people in the Commons. Striking deals like this is no way to craft major reform of the constitution. The latest salvage plan appears to be the removal of the 92 hereditary peers (oddly enough, they are the only elected members, albeit in a rather odd fashion), in order to make way for a fresh set of 92 elected members of the Lords at the next general election.
Most peers are agreed that the House is overcrowded and that there should be a way to enable retirement, removal for non-attendance and, of course, expulsion of members who are convicted of criminal offences. Lord Steel has been pressing for years to achieve this through his very important and useful House of Lords (Cessation of Membership) Bill. After a very long time it has passed Second Reading. Indeed the House might be minded to make further sensible reforms to its own procedures and membership if given the chance.
It would be a shame to lose the expertise that is provided in specialised subjects by many of the hereditary peers. If we need to make room for more elected peers, then maybe those members of the House who are in favour of 80 or 100% election should be true to their principles, vacate the seats that they believe they ought not to occupy, and make way for the elected . . . .