We are likely to have a predominantly elected second chamber, but it will not happen soon and it will not be fully elected. This is the most likely, though far from certain, outcome of the Lewis Carroll world of the votes on Lords reform.

Nothing is quite what it seems. For all Jack Straw’s pleasure at breaking the stalemate and creating “momentum” behind reform, his White Paper plan for a hybrid chamber will now have to be rethought substantially.

Of the two Commons votes on Wednesday, the 305 to 267 margin for an 80 per cent elected House is the more significant. That was backed by Gordon Brown and David Cameron (though not a majority of Tory MPs). The bigger majority of 337 to 224 for a wholly elected House is very misleading.

A sizeable number of MPs, including Mr Cameron, Mr Straw and close allies of Mr Brown (he did not vote on this division) shifted from backing 80 per cent to opposing 100 per cent. But 103 MPs moved the other way. This included many admitted “wreckers”, who favour a wholly appointed House but had earlier voted for 100 per cent elected (as did 63, mainly, Labour MPs). This was in order to muddy the waters. They argue that, since 100 per cent elected creates many complications and problems which have yet been discussed, it is unlikely to happen.

The “wreckers” — whose conclusions are shared by many peers of all parties — may be correct that a 100 per cent elected chamber will not happen. But they are probably wrong in believing/hoping that nothing will occur. They underestimate the significance of the Commons establishing a clear preference, in contrast to the 2003 stalemates, for a predominantly elected House. Wednesday’s votes were, in part, a reaction against the alleged, and real, abuses of patronage and the loans for honours affair. These votes make it harder to claim that current conventions about relations between the Houses can continue. An 80 per cent elected House, let alone a 100 per cent one, would be more assertive and could not operate as the present one does under the terms of the 1911 and 1949 Parliament Acts. To maintain the primacy of the Commons would require tight statutory definitions of powers, in effect a big step towards a written constitution, and possibly a larger role for judges. And would the removal of the bishops lead to disestablishment of the Church of England?

There are also big questions about the method of election, where all three parties have different views. And would there be a big bang or a phased changeover? I also predict a counter-reaction against the idea of having more party politicians (at considerable cost) who will be depicted as either clones of, or inferior to, members of the Commons. As we will hear from countless peers in next week’s debates, the post1999 Lords has changed considerably and been effective in forcing the Government to change Bills (as Dr Meg Russell of the Constitution Unit has authoritatively shown).

Establishing the principle of election for the second chamber is a big step, but Wednesday’s euphoria has obscured many tricky questions which have not been fully considered by the Government, or publicly. Democratic legitimacy must not be at the cost of losing the merits of the current Lords.

Times Recommends

• It’s the beginning of the affair
• Afghanistan: still a price worth paying
• Heroes of the downtrodden