It seems that the Prime Minister has replied to Lord Pearson's letter on the subject of whether more UKIP peers will be appointed with the following words:
The Government’s policy is to ensure that the House of Lords continues to work well.As this is somewhat meaningless I suspect there must have been something else in the letter and as soon as I find out I shall report on it.
I have committed previously to keeping the party peers under review and will, of course, give further consideration to the points you raise when we come to consider recommendations over the course of this parliament.
Meanwhile, we are faced with a dilemma. On the one hand, the House of Lords has been packed by political hacks of various kind by the previous Cameron and the Blair/Brown governments and we really need no more members. In fact a purge is in order. On the other hand, UKIP should have some representation in Parliament and they are unlikely to get that in the Commons despite the number of votes they received.
If we take the view that peers should be appointed on merit and regardless of party affiliation or electoral votes then all is well. But if we take the view that the Lords should somehow, indirectly represent opinion then UKIP should have more peers.
If the Prime Minister calls a moratorium on more peerages then all is relatively well though why there should be so many Lib-Dem ones remains a mystery. But if he appoints numerous Lib-Dems who lost their seats then UKIP will have something to complain about and so shall the rest of us as the House of Lords is an important part of our constitution, such as it is while we are in the EU.