Opponents of the idea – which, not surprisingly, includes most hereditary peers – complain that the plan is incomplete, biased (because most hereditary peers are Tories), and that it gives the Prime Minister too much power.

Conservative peer Thomas Galloway Dunlop du Roy de Blicquy Galbraith, better known as Lord Strathclyde, is a former Leader of the House of Lords who helped push through the deal to save a mass of hereditary princes in 1999.

He is no fan of Labour’s drive to shake things up. “It will make the House of Lords a statutory creature appointed by the Prime Minister for the first time and that makes me very uncomfortable,” he said.

Jim Bethell, another former Conservative minister who sits as a hereditary peer in the House of Lords, said: “Running the best candidates from the start in order to improve this government’s electoral record is disgraceful and marks a change in the tone of the relationship between the House of Commons and the House of Lords.”

Even in the House of Lords itself, it is difficult to find anyone who defends the hereditary principle. But there are deep reservations about the idea of ​​an exclusively appointed chamber, especially as more fundamental reform is being put on the back burner.

Bad blood

Despite the grumbling of the Viscounts, the passage of the Labour bill is virtually guaranteed, due to the long-standing convention that the House of Lords cannot block a government election promise.