Reform of the Lords is about power: about whether MPs regard an elected second chamber as a challenge to the Commons. That has always been the block on change, and remains the main doubt about Jack Straw’s fresh attempt to end the stalemate.

Mr Straw argues that the current balance between the Houses can be maintained with an elected element. He cites second chambers overseas to claim that there is no necessary correlation between composition and powers. But many peers, and MPs, maintain that a change in composition must affect powers. Supporters of a fully-elected second chamber cannot just repeat the mantra about the primacy of the Commons. Such a chamber would require a written constitution to enshrine formal checks and balances between the chambers.

But, first, the Commons has to reach a decision, unlike four years ago when all options were rejected. Mr Straw came under fire from many Labour, as well as Tory MPs, for proposing a preferential system of voting between the options. Much of the opposition is overdone. Such a vote would, after all, be only a preliminary step, with plenty of opportunity for further votes once a detailed Bill appears.

According to a YouGov poll for the Hansard Society, two thirds of the public supports the existence of a second chamber, four fifths believe that there should be at least some elected members, and more than half think that they should be more independent of party politics than the Commons, though a majority (56 per cent) do not feel that they understand how the Lords works.

The likelihood is that, early next month, the Commons will back one of the mixed elected/appointed options and that the Lords will then vote even more heavily than in 2003 for an appointed House, as Labour peers are more hostile. (The frontbench Tory line of “we want reform, but not this reform” was a largely unconvincing attempt to mask an opposition to an elected House).

After the votes, the Government has promised to take stock. In practice, Gordon Brown will have to decide whether to engage in a long drawn out battle next winter, or wait to make a specific pledge in the next Labour manifesto.

Whatever happens on the big issue of composition, there is, however, a growing consensus that, at minimum, the appointments commission should be made statutory, taking over the key decision on political nominations made by party leaders; and there should be no replacements for the remaining 92 hereditary peers. Ministers would also favour an age limit and provision for retirement/resignation. Any reform should also ensure that membership is a job, not an honour, as Meg Russell of the Constitution Unit, a leading authority on the Lords, commented yesterday.

Above all, as Mr Straw argues, there is a need for a decision: either a shift to a largely elected House or an appointed chamber with, at least, the minimum tidying up package. But both sides need to be more candid about the implications. An appointed House will remain a limited, revising chamber, and an elected one is bound to become more assertive.

Times Recommends

• It’s not just about Iraq, it’s about Blair’s style
• You can’t rank hospitals like football teams
• Minarets are not an essential part of Islam