The solution to the long-term future of the House of Lords is always after the next election, and has been for a century. The more you look at details, the harder it becomes to produce a workable, let alone an agreed, plan. So yesterday’s White Paper from Jack Straw was tentative and green, providing lots of analysis and options but few signs of a firm or early package.

We are back to the problem that has existed ever since all but 92 of the hereditary peers were ejected from the Lords at the end of 1999. Despite several inquiries and debates, there is no consensus. In March last year MPs voted for both a wholly and an 80 per cent elected chamber (by majorities of 113 and 38). This masked deep divisions in each of the main parties, while peers favoured an appointed House. When the Cabinet discussed the paper last Thursday, ministers still disagreed, with some backing an indirect system of election.

Yesterday’s statement comes after talks chaired by a painstaking and patient Mr Straw in a cross-party group of frontbenchers. There was a strong consensus in the group for the name “Senate” but the Government has not committed itself to this, supposedly to avoid a preoccupation with name over function and composition.

The Commons would retain primacy, with no change in powers for the reformed Lords. Members would serve a single, non-renewable term of three electoral cycles, 12 to 15 years. Elections would be at the same time as those for MPs and the chamber would be cut from more than 700 to no more than 450. Members would be paid a salary between that of members of devolved legislatures (a maximum of £53,000) and MPs (£61,820).

The paper discusses a wholly and an 80 per cent elected House and the Government and the Tories are sympathetic to some appointments to ensure an independent element.

Several big questions remain. First, the paper outlines four electoral systems: first past the post (backed by the Tories and many Labour MPs); the alternative vote; the single transferable vote; and an open or semi-open list system of proportional representation. The choice is crucial to whether a government would have a majority in both Houses, or would face a second chamber with no overall majority, as now.

Secondly, the transitional arrangements are very complicated: in short, how long do existing peers survive and will they be phased out gradually or just allowed to die off?

The proposals had a rough ride from backbenchers in both Houses yesterday, although the front benches of all parties are theoretically in favour of a predominantly elected second chamber. The crossbench or unaligned peers are, unusually, becoming vocal, with 61 eminent members of the Establishment under Baroness D’Souza, their convenor, arguing that an elected House would be less independent, less expert and less diverse.

Mr Straw plans to consult further before giving a manifesto pledge but he has to win over Labour ministers and MPs as well as other parties. For the Tories, Nick Herbert and Lord Strathclyde reaffirmed support in principle for election over appointment. But do not expect early action from a Cameron government, which may be more concerned with the Commons and Parliament as a whole. So current peers need not fear early execution.

Times Recommends

• In the real world, the public sector must pay
• Playing politics in a land of double Dutch
• Be like the plinth people: not set in stone