Whatever David Cameron says, Tony Blair won't go until one of two things happens: either Inspector Yates must find some amazing smoking  gun in the cash for peerages inquiry; or, more likely, he will stay till he has ticked off a few more legislative items of unfinished business.

House of Lords Reform is one of those areas - and according The Guardian today, a firm set of proposals is about to be put forward:

The aim of the paper, to be published next week, will be to cut the size of the House of Lords from more than 750 to about 540 seats. The issue has bedevilled Tony Blair's time as prime minister and this is Labour's last chance to reform parliament before the next election.

The Guardian

The detail of these proposals will be interesting. The Guardian's sources indicate that it will result in a half-elected chamber of 450 members, with 30% appointed by parties and 20% appointed by a commission.

Such a high level of appointments suggest that the system will be far from democratic.  However, after 10 years of a Blair premiership this is hardly surprising.

Back in 1998, when Paddy Ashdown was giving his final address as Lib Dem leader he laid a challenge to Tony Blair: "...I have one great question about you. Are you a pluralist or are you a control freak?" (more on the BBC news coverage of the time)

The question looming largest of Paddy's mind at the time wasn't Lords reform, but Blair's response to the Jenkins Commission on electoral reform.

Its taken over 10 years to get rid of all the hereditary peers a new system will still rely on appointments for half our peers.  Paddy Ashdown's early hopes seem so dated now.  Was there really ever a time when people really thought he would also act on electoral reform?

Also in today's news:

• Nick Clegg uses the current interest in the home office to explain the Lib Dems prisons policies in The Independent.

John Reid's further problems this weekend have forced prisons onto the media agenda again, why we send people there and what prisoners achieve whilst banged up.  Johann Hari in The Independent today rehearses the kind of liberal arguments that most readers of this blog would agree with:

"This waste is being replicated at Her Majesty's sadistic Pleasure across Britain. The Adult Learning Inspectorate has reported that 60 per cent of prisons are failing to provide adequate training, and only 8 per cent of prisoners are doing meaningful work."

Johann Hari, The Independent

More simply put is a very short filler in The Times which merely presents data collected by the International Centre of Prison Studies comparing the prison populations in different countries:

• USA - 738

• Russia - 611
  

• Poland - 230
• Scotland - 149
  
• England and Wales - 148
  
• The Netherlands - 128
  
• Germany - 95
  
• France - 85
  
• Sweden - 82
  
• Irish Republic - 72
  
• Slovenia - 65

The Government contends that the fall in crime is inextricably linked with the record high prison population.  However, many others believe that by following in the footsteps of America we are merely institutionalising crime as a part of our society.

Is this part of the crime debate that the Lib Dems are willing to highlight in their "We can cut crime" campaign?

Also in today's news:

• You Gov's monthly poll in The Telegraph says Lab 31 (-2); Con 38 (+1); Lib Dem 18(+1)
  

During a recent parliamentary by election, the future of the local hospital became a major issue.  In order to play down the issue Labour wheeled in John Reid, then Health Secretary, to deliver a strong rebuke to the campaigning smears of their opponents.

"The hospital is safe for as long as I am Health Secretary" declared Dr Reid.

Unfortunately, this cut little ice with those that knew a little about his ministerial career.  His list of appointments shows he's the most moved Minister in the Government:

• As a Junior Minister John Reid served as Minister of State for Defence from May 1997 until he became Minister State for Transport in 1998;
  
• then he was Secretary of State for Scotland from May 1999;
  
• Secretary of State for Northern Ireland from January 2001;
  
• Chairman of the Labour Party and Minister Without Portfolio from October 2002;
  
• he was Leader of the House of Commons for just three months after the resignation of Robin Cook;
  
• Secretary of State for Health in June 2003;
• after the 2005 General Election he became Secretary of State for Defence;
  
• and Home Secretary from 5 May 2006.
  

Rather bizarrely, to add to the mix, his own parliamentary seat also has twice been abolished in boundary changes.

So eager to keep moving ever onwards, no wonder that he now wants to split up his current job.  At least then he will be able to have his customary change of job title for which he is now overdue.  

Opinion is divided about what this will achieve (The Telegraph and Marcel Berlins in The Guardian highly sceptical, The Times cautiously supportive and no comment in The Independent.)

However, even his harshest critics could not say that Dr Ried doesn't at least have experience of a wide number of Government departments from which to draw comparrisons.

Scotland is slowly rising up the media's agenda as we approach the May elections.  Several papers cover David Cameron's move northwards of the entire Shadow Cabinet.

Alan Cochrane in The Telegraph puts the Cameron vs Tory right wing debate into a Scottish context; Matthew Tempest in The Guardian gives a reasonably prosaic canter around recent Scottish political history and The Mirror condemns Cameron for flying to Scotland rather than using the train. The whole thing is summed up best by the sketch in The Scotsman.

Its left to Michael White in The Guardian to give the most interesting analysis:

"Whatever the outcome the Scotland Act stipulates that Holyrood MSPs must pick a first minister within 28 days or face fresh elections. So Mr Cameron's Scottish leader, the genial Annabel Goldie, may find herself backing a Labour minority government as the least worst option."

Michael White - The Guardian

One is left with the feeling that the media still doesn't do Scotland.  That the Guardian feels the need to give such a back-to-basics outline of what has been going on over the last 10 years points to the fact that we've all been obsessing about Westminster a bit too much.

New Year, New Party - that's the rallying cry of millionaire Scotsman, Archie Sinclair, according to the Daily Telegraph today. 

"A new political party is being set up by a member of one of Scotland's most historic families to try to halt the growing bandwagon towards a referendum on the break-up of the United Kingdom."

SAS clan calls for new fight to save the union - The Telegraph

The precedent set by other new parties isn't hopeful.  Unfavourable comparisons will no doubt be made with Veritas, the Pro Euro Tories and the Natural Law Party. (Indeed, Mr Sinclair is lucky that the rumoured entry of Robert Kilroy Silk to the Celebrity Big Brother house hasn't materialised.  The comparisons might have become too much to bear.)

However, The Scottish Socialists, UKIP and the Green Party have shown that new parties can seek electoral success - even if the birth pangs might be difficult (see Tommy Sheridan, Robert Kilroy Silk again and David Ike)

Scottish Voice - the current front runner for the new party's name - says it will represent the centre-right and, in particular, the preservation of the Union.

The Scotsman today has an interesting poll of Scottish opinion putting the number of Scots who "trust the Holyrood parliament" at 56% - down 25% from where it started in 1999.

As a left winger in Scotland you have a multitude of parties to choose from - but clearly Archie Sinclair feels that the single offering on the right would benefit from some competition.

In proportional systems there will always be an incentive for rich magnates to give politics a go in this way.  However, even though the field is relatively open for him, he will have a struggle on his hands in order to avoid the same personality problems that have diverted most other parties - both minor and major - in the past.

The Today Programme's Christmas Repeal has been seeking listeners views on a favourite current liberal topic - which laws should be repealed.

If you missed the result, follow this link, which shows that the runaway winner was the recent Hunting Act.

However, the result was so runaway that many sensed that the result might not have been a true sampling of the public's opinion:

"A total of 52.8 per cent of the telephone and internet votes went to repealing the hunting ban. It was well ahead of the 29.7 per cent of the voters who wanted to scrap the 1972 European Communities Act, which took Britain into what is now the European Union.

The huge vote raised suspicions that the annual political parlour game for devotees of the combative morning show had been subject to unsportingly effective campaigning."

 "Row as 'Today' programme's poll is won by fox-hunting alliance"  The Independent

Anyone genuinely surprised that such a poll might be hijacked needs to go on swift introductory course on 21st Century lobbying.  The real surprise of the poll was that the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act did so badly (attracting just 1.6% of votes cast)  However, after recent events the Pit Bull Terrier lobby will have its work cut out to build up a voting machine as effective as the Countryside Alliance's.

Also in today's news

• Patrick Gray, director of Oxford Policy Research, proposes an elegant and classical solution to Lords reform:

"I suggest that 20 names be selected at random each year from those who voted in the previous election. An opt-out should be offered for any who do not wish to be considered. Those selected would serve for 10 years. Training would be provided and a salary sufficient to make service attractive to people from all walks of life, but not so high as to make it irresistible to those with no serious interest in public affairs."

Patrick Gray, The Financial Times

• Ming's interview on the Today programme this morning seems to be attracting interest - both the BBC and the Guardian (with the help of PA) are currently running his comments as their main political story.