On Sunday I wrote an article for the Observer in which I laid out why I am in favour of reforming the House of Lords but against introducing elections. You can read the full article below: Abolishing the Lords would be political vandalism It's all too easy for the emerging debate on House of Lords reform to be described as a battle between those who want modernisation and those who want to retain the status quo. Let me be clear – I am in favour of modernisation and reform; what I am not in favour of is abolition. I write "abolition" because the proposals put forward for elections to the second chamber do just that. They abolish its current role as an amending and revising chamber, filled with a rich expertise on every conceivable subject, and effectively replace it with a new body of more than 400 new politicians. And the moment you fill the second chamber with politicians, each with a mandate from the people, you significantly change the dynamic between the Commons and the Lords. We may be able to hide behind the fig leaf that the Parliament Act will remain in place, but the reality is that a senator with a super constituency-sized mandate would certainly be in a position to argue the case that their new mandate gives them a greater legitimacy. In fact, I have not heard a single argument that convinces me that an elected second chamber would not dilute the primacy of the Commons in some shape or form. Nor have I heard an argument that convinces me that such a chamber won't lead to legislative deadlock. Some argue in favour of this. They say that, as Conservatives, we should actually support something that makes it more difficult for the government to legislate, but I fundamentally disagree. A strength of our democratic system is that the voter has a clear understanding that each party stands on a manifesto and whoever is elected will have a mandate and the ability to deliver their manifesto pledges through making law. If people are unhappy with the government, then they can throw it out every four or five years; that is how our system works. The idea that deadlock between two chambers is a good thing is complete madness. You only have to look at the US public's exasperation with the paralysis that sometimes takes hold of its legislature to see that this won't work. And not only that it won't work, but that the public, many of them already feeling disenchanted by politics, won't thank us for it. This certainty that a British government can deliver is important. It is the primacy of the Commons that means the markets have faith in a British chancellor to deliver his economic programme. There is no chance of deadlock, no risk that a deal between the two chambers can't be reached in time. In short, the government's words are backed by their ability to deliver and an elected second chamber risks the destruction of that credibility. Another argument is that this was a Conservative manifesto pledge, so we must deliver on it. But this is a myth. The Conservative manifesto pledged: "We will work to build a consensus for a mainly elected second chamber to replace the current House of Lords." It said nothing about delivering an elected chamber in this parliament and neither does the coalition agreement, which simply says: "We will establish a committee to bring forward proposals." A reform of this type needs cross-party consensus on the what, the why and the when, something that we simply do not have. But even if we did, and were determined to push ahead with this bill, now is not the time to do it. In private polling undertaken last week, exactly 0% of people said that House of Lords or political reform should be the government's main priority for the next year. Even when prompted with it as an option, only 6% of people agreed. Then there is the question of whether such fundamental constitutional reform should be put to the nation in a referendum. Given that we're going to have a referendum for introducing an elected mayor in Coventry surely we should have one for the biggest constitutional change in our country for 400 years. Unsurprisingly, almost two-thirds of people agree we should. If such a referendum were put to the nation, then I'd obviously campaign for a no vote, but with such low interest in the subject neither side would have an easy ride on the doorstep. With 56% of the nation saying they have no interest in Lords reform, I am sure the first question anyone would ask after opening their door would be: "Why are you standing here, wasting my money on this, when you should be sorting out the huge problems facing the country?" Finally, those who argue that a referendum isn't needed, as the polls show public support for an elected second chamber, are forgetting that people change their mind once they have heard the arguments. Polling showed people were in favour of AV for the first three months and early polls showed strong support for regional government in the north-east, yet we all know the final results of those referendums. As I said, I am not opposed to reform, and there are options to elections, options that will help our second chamber achieve the "legitimacy and public confidence" mentioned in the Conservative manifesto. We can remove the hereditary peers, introduce term limits, ban members who have committed crimes and remove prime ministerial patronage. These are still reforms, they still modernise, but, unlike elections, they do not risk the fundamental strength of our legislature.