So we need reform Not to let the government get its way but to keep the Lords acting as moderators whilst ensuring its composition is fair and reasonable. New Labour are proposing that Hereditary Peers are allowed to stay but lose the right to vote which has some merits but their voices, when rational, may not sway the political animals that will vote with or against the government come what may. Public nominations with their inherent public elections would generally be too costly and perhaps difficult to pursue and the electorate may not have the inclination to vote at all or, yet again, vote on purely political grounds. This means that Peers must be accountable. And there must be sanctions that can be imposed upon those that aren't.
Peers do a job.
This would weed out all the no-hopers who only turn up to swing a victory for some political party. That's not unreasonable. Now many a Peer will undoubtedly baulk at the idea that they will have to lose a few of their directorships in the city and elsewhere because of the demands that membership of the Upper House entails. If some leave fine, those that stay will be those who are really committed to what they do. The political alignment of an individual Peer is, historically, much less important than their carrying out their role impartially and with the interests of the nation at heart.