Already five of the six deputy leadership candidates have signed up in support of the Campaign for a Democratic Upper House.

Only the Labour party has a longstanding commitment to reform the Lords, it is something that has been part of the Labour movements struggle for a better and more equal society since the birth of the Parliamentary Labour Party. In the 1910 election, nearly 100 years ago – the Labour party increased its MP’s from 29 to 40 after the House of Lords blocked the ‘peoples budget’. The Lords was hereditary, unaccountable, overwhelmingly biased towards a single party regardless of public opinion and militant in defence of the interests of one class above all others. Arguably only one of these criticisms has been fully overcome in the last century. Having pushed through some reforms in the last 10 years we must move to entrench a truly democratic legacy – Labour must live up to our constitutional commitment to putting ‘power in the hands of the many not the few’. Only the Labour party can fully see through these reforms, they will never happen under a Conservative regime – we must deliver then on our destiny, and drive through these reforms completing a journey started nearly one hundred years ago.

According to the Noble Lord Adonis the city of Manchester would make an ideal home for the House of Lords.

....and for me, you perhaps wasted your greastest opportunity at one.

He will be the prime minister that helped oversee the most radical democratic reform is centuries, yet at the time it mattered most, the vote, he chose an option his own party near enough unanimously rejected.

You all know by now that I am one of the few Blairites around here, but I just find it so hard to believe that Tony Blair could be stupid enough to have taken a stand on 50/50.

He needed to personify all those buzz words more than ever in this. 'Bold' and 'progressive' spring to mind.

Whoever helped make those decisions needs to be sacked with immediate effect or resign in disgrace.

I'm delighted by this news, its a historic day, but I am massively gutted that the government itself didn't collectively go all the way.

This doesn't strike me as 'reverse gear' it strikes me as leaving you car on an escarpment and taking the handbreak off.

The Tory leadership went further by supporting an 80% elected house and come the next election, should Gordon Brown try and laud this historic move, the Tories will quite rightly remind us all.

That said, I don't yet know which option he voted for, although I would assume he went with the government. Anyone know?

Article on Lords reform by Jack Straw MP, Leader of the House of Commons

This week MPs will vote on Lords reform. This is an opportunity to take a step forward on a subject on which Labour has campaigned throughout our history. The free votes, promised in our manifesto in 2005, are there to set out the direction of travel on the issue.

Here's a chat with the Leader of the Commons Jack Straw, He has a few things to say about Lords Reform

It is widely recognised that power comes in two forms; that which is imbued by rules and that which is accrued. London Mayor Ken Livingstone, has accrued more powers that those conferred on him by the GLA Act, largely through his willingness to make proposals and statements and effectively "dare" those holding the power to contradict him. His intervention over the London Eye row is an example of this. Equally, powers can atrophy and an example of this would be the Monarch's decreasing potency in parliament over the last century. The choice of Prime Minister has passed from the Monarch to the majority party without any rules being changed.

This understanding of the dynamic nature of power is essential if we are to conclude satisfactorily any reform of the House of Lords.

It is, in my view, completely absurd that political patronage still forms such a major part of the British constitution in the 21st century.

Some of the arguments put forward to defend the staus quo are plain daft. In particular, it is repeatedly argued that because, unlike MPs, Lords do not have to worry about reselection they are more independent. In fact, if anything, the opposite is the case. The reason for this should be obvious to anyone: candidates for the House of Commons are selected by local parties while candidates for the House of Lords are selected by party leaders. The reason the government is held to account as often as it is in the House of Lords is because no single party has a majority in the second chamber. The only way of guaranteeing that this continues is by introducing elections - not for some peers, not for 50% of peers - for all members of the Lords.

To vote in an online poll click here.