Since I'm sure today's peerage list will provoke a flurry of calls to 'elect the Lords,' this is just a friendly reminder that the *composition* of the Upper House can't be divorced from its *function.* [1/8]

One of the frustrating things about the debate over Lords reform is that it tends to focus on the composition of the House without considering its role in Parliament. Indeed, many advocates for an elected House seem to assume its continued subordination to the Commons. [2/8]

It's understandable why MPs don't want to lose their primacy. But should an elected Upper House really be expected to defer to the Commons? Should it really be bound by conventions that only arose because MPs are elected and peers are not? [3/8]

If members of the House of Lords are elected, it's almost inevitable that they'll eventually push back against the Commons, especially if the political complexion of the Upper House differs significantly from that of the Commons. [4/8]

In such a situation, the Salisbury/Addison convention is unlikely to hold, and regular use of the Parliament Acts could be the only way to ensure the Commons' primacy. But that would hardly be ideal! [5/8]

Simply making the Lords elected and then calling it a day is likely to cause a constitutional train wreck later on. Instead of treating the composition of the Upper House as a discrete issue, it must be considered as part of a wider examination of its constitutional role [6/8]

including, perhaps, its possible place in a federal UK. But the cynic in me is doubtful that this will happen. A wider examination of the constitution is likely to prove thorny, whereas simply making members of the Lords stand for election would be relatively easy to do. [7/8]

If that's the case, Westminster could be in for a very bumpy ride! [8/8]