Analysis By Nick Assinder Political correspondent, BBC News website

Big battles loom over Lords reform

So here we go again with plans to reform the House of Lords.

Commons leader Jack Straw is having another throw of the dice more than a decade after Tony Blair promised to do it, eight years since a "halfway house" was created and four years after voters were presented with the farcical sight of MPs throwing out seven options and leaving the government with no policy at all.

This time, Mr Straw hopes and believes it will be different and conclusive and that the current House of Lords will be replaced by something completely different and with a new name.

He has produced fresh proposals and will offer MPs an unprecedented PR-style voting system in order to whittle down a new series of options - from a fully elected to a fully appointed chamber - to just a single one, with a 50/50 split his favoured option.

But no one is running away with the notion that this will be simple, or that a conclusion will be clear cut.

And the proposals have already been branded by Tory Theresa May a "lowest common denominator" solution which would satisfy no one and perpetuate the problem of cronyism.

Her party wants 80% of the new chamber elected, while the Liberal Democrats want at least that proportion elected.

Stitch up

One early problem will see MPs required to vote to agree to Mr Straw's novel voting process, which will ask them to list their options by preference.

That has already caused some anger from those in all parties who believe it is a "stitch up" aimed at stopping them throwing everything out.

Mr Straw has sought to ensure a conclusion to debate

And ministers have made it plain that first vote will be whipped as will all votes on the other aspects of the package, with the single exception of the composition of the upper house.

So there will now be heated debates over the proportion of peers who should be elected, how they might be elected, what powers they should keep and what salary and redundancy packages they should receive.

There will be arguments over the continuing right of bishops to sit in the upper chamber - and even suggestions there should be no second chamber at all.

Mr Straw's proposals suggest a reduction in the overall number of members from 746 to 540 with 50% elected, 30% appointed by party leaders and 20% by an independent commission.

Members, who will no longer be called peers, will sit for a maximum of three five-year terms and elections will take place at the same time as European Parliament elections, using the same regional lists system of proportional representation.

Rival power

But there are plenty of MPs from all sides who will take issue with just about every bit of those proposals.

For example, there are demands for a far higher proportion of elected members, up to 100%, from ministers including Peter Hain and Hilary Benn and senior Tories including Kenneth Clarke.

Mr Bryant leading calls for a larger elected membership

They believe it would be undemocratic to continue with any appointed element, saying it would undermine the legitimacy of the chamber.

Labour MP Chris Bryant leads a group calling for a far higher elected element, between 60% to 100%.

Others, including Liberal Democrat peer Lord Steel and Tory Lord Howe, argue that the house should be wholly appointed for fear it might otherwise rival the power of the elected Commons.

Conservative MP Sir Patrick Cormack has laid his own proposals which would see all members except bishops and archbishops created life peers, with no elected members.

Labour's George Howarth has attracted support for a Commons motion demanding a unicameral system of Parliament, under which there is no second chamber at all.

The senate

Then there will be a row over the way the elected peers are chosen. The regional list method sees voters putting their crosses against a party, not an individual's name, with party bosses then choosing which of their list of approved candidates is given a seat.

That system has already been branded by some as a charter for cronyism because it can leave the power of patronage firmly in the party leaders' hands.

HAVE YOUR SAY The un-elected Lords provide a check on our headstrong lower house Chris, Telford, UK Send us your views

It is not known how Gordon Brown will react to the notion of having such a thorny issue running through the early days of his expected premiership, or how the Lords themselves might vote on whatever the final package is.

There are also going to be debates over exactly what the new chamber should be called, with many suggesting "the senate", and how individuals will still become peers in recognition of good work, but will not be able to sit in it.

Mr Straw also sparked some dismay when he said the transition to the new arrangements will not be complete until the middle of this century, with numbers of life peers dwindling gradually as they retire, resign or die.

He also left open the question of whether the remaining 92 hereditary peers would be removed immediately and, if so, whether they should be offered any compensation.

So far, then, the emphasis seems to have been on the opposition to Mr Straw's proposals.

He clearly hopes , however, that the current debate will finally move into consensus territory and that, finally, this long-running issue will be put to bed.