As anyone who is interested in these matters no doubt knows by now, the House of Commons last night voted clearly (337 to 224) for a 100% elected House of Lords. This was only an indicative vote; the Lords will have a parallel vote next Tuesday after which there will be further negotiatons and then a draft Bill, said to be likely to arrive within a few weeks.

But what does it mean? I’ve seen some euphoria about Britain finally getting a complete democracy, but there’s a lot of water to go under the bridge.

The Guardian says: “…much could still depend on what happens after Mr Blair leaves office. If Gordon Brown succeeds him, the fate of Lords reform may depend on his commitment to pushing this through before the next election. Last night allies indicated that he was prepared to pursue legislation either side of the next election, but Mr Brown’s appetite for a constitutional clash in his first years as prime minister may well be small. ”

Peter Riddell in The Times says: “Members of the House of Lords probably have three or four years before the tumbrils start to arrive.”

The Telegraph, which amusingly has the story hidden away on its web front page in tiny print (it can hardly be against democracy, but then it can hardly be against the traditional Lords either), says: ‘many MPs claimed the vote in favour of a fully elected Lords was a “brilliant” delaying tactic that would ensure there was no reform for the “foreseeable future”.’

Simon Carr in the Independent notes: “Gerald Howarth made the bravest point of the day: getting rid of the hereditary peers would expose the Queen as the only hereditary office holder in the country.”

Interesting political times when we are looking at a coronation in the Labour Party soon…