The presence, or otherwise, of the remaining hereditary peers in the House of Lords is probably considered neither here nor there by most of the public at large and their retention not a political priority of any party. However, one might boldly assert that this issue is not of least importance in the struggle to preserve the British Constitution as the bulwark of law, national unity and individual liberty, but the most important.
The abolition of the only democratic element in the House of Lords would be deeply hypocritical of the Government, which is looking to strengthen Quangos like the OBR, introduced in the Blair/Brown years, which remove policy decisions beyond the reach of parliamentary accountability and add new undemocratic tiers of government. In addition, supranational organisations are increasingly given authority over national policy, arguably sometimes against the national interest. Thus the 'long march through the institutions' is set to make short work of a representative parliament and the Constitution it upholds and upholds it (or has done, albeit imperfectly, so far).
The current regime has used the expression "accident of birth",in relation to the remaining peers, who just happen to be the only members who were democratically elected to sit and vote in the Upper Chamber. One wonders how many Labour MPs, peers and supporters have any idea of the origins of the phrase? It was first used by Beethoven as a joke against an aristocratic friend and patron of his,
The rights of the aristocracy have been entirely dependent on honour, duty and service, against ambition, avarice and ideology, which are more likely to be found among life peers and those in the Lower House. The hereditary peers have several distinct advantages over other members in that they were usually made aware of their duties of public service early in their lives, are representative of both land and people, not just the eligible electorate or the Party of which they are members.
The consequences of the constitutional vandalism of the Blair/Brown years is becoming more and more apparent. Furthermore, the vacuity of the "doesn't fit in with modern Britain" attitude and push for unspecified change and modernisation are starting to look a bit thin and meaningless other than excuses for the implementation of radical socialist policies and the continuation of constitutional vandalism to neutralise opposition and hogtie future governments as happened during the Conservative administration leading to its unpopularity and fall.