The Committee tasked with examining the draft Bill on Lords Reform has failed to reach consensus on even the basic principle that the Lords should be elected. Nine out of 26 voted against elections.
It is unsurprising that the Lords voted against reforming themselves but what about the other members of the committee? The MPs from the three main parties were elected on manifesto commitments to progress Lords reform and after 100 years of debate it finally looked as though we were getting somewhere.
Before the recommendations even saw the light of day however the leaks and petty infighting were threatening to discredit the process entirely and now an unholy alliance of the usual suspects are rallying together to oppose this much overdue reform - often for tactical rather than principled reasons. The same old scare tactics are being dusted off and dragged out; it will be atomically expensive (cue made up figures); it's too confusing (cue patronising references to British voters' ability to understand the basics of voting); and then a particular favourite: British democracy as we know it will collapse under the weight of a more modern parliament.
The public need not wait for a referendum for confusion to reign or the main issues to be sidelined.
It seems the politicians cannot decide whether the reforms are large or small, radical or incremental. Some Conservatives are arguing that a mainly elected second chamber would be a fatal blow to the primacy of the Commons while the Bill's main champion, Nick Clegg, downplays its importance for fear of seeming out of touch with bread and butter issues like jobs or health.
Labour have always supported reform of the Lords but the party's insistence on sticking to their referendum runs the risk of looking like avoidance tactics in light of the current political landscape. While a Labour majority government with Liberal Democrats joining the Yes side could comfortably commit to a public ballot, a coalition government with Conservative rebels running amok is an entirely different prospect. Labour supporters who genuinely believe in Lords reform should be wary of the referendum question overtaking all others and being abused by those who want reform kicked into the long grass.
And more importantly all this political game playing ignores the key fact that the voters want an elected Upper House. People may not be united on the details but polling shows that between 54-82% of the public have supported an elected Lords since 2000 and a You Gov poll published this week found that 69% of people the principle of an elected second chamber. Only 5% wanted the status quo.
Yes there are still issues to be resolved. On primacy in particular more thought is needed as of course elected senators may behave differently from appointed peers. The draft legislation has safeguards; lengthy, non-renewable terms which international evidence shows us keeps the lower chamber in check but additional legislation may be needed. That is what the committee scrutinising the bill was supposed to be dealing with. Unfortunately while the Lords panic, the committee loses its head and politicians from all parties run for the safety of political self-interest we are at serious risk of finding ourselves right back at the beginning.
Together, both chambers of parliament have spent over 140 hours debating Lords reform since 1999 and British governments have been trying to reform the second chamber for over a century. Quite frankly this has taken up enough time already and now more than ever we desperately need a smaller more effective and efficient House of Lords that when it comes to the economy, jobs and our public services - actually represents British voters.
If you hold the power to help decide how Britain is run you should be elected by us, the British public. That's democracy. The voters know it so how long can the politicians afford to fool themselves?
Katie Ghose also blogs at www.electoral-reform.org.uk/blog