The recent scandal involving peers of the realm allegedly with their snouts in the trough, nothing new there, raises yet again the debate about a second chamber and the pathetic efforts so far to reform it.
Time to grasp the nettle and think the unthinkable.
For many years my wife harboured the forlorn hope of becoming Lady Osborne, and so, ever the one to please her, I considered the various options.
After a rigorous process of elimination, I opted for the 'cash for honours' route.
I was the soul of discretion as I showered my chosen political party with wodges of hot sweaty money in large brown envelopes handed over in dark alleyways, but sadly, my chosen political party lost the 1997 election in a mire of sleaze, and without a receipt to my name, I became the forgotten man.
With my 'slush fund' badly depleted, I was cast adrift, and my tentative overtures to the party in power to rebuild my credibility were rebuffed.
Call me the Vicar of Bray if you will, but actions speak louder than words, and there were others ahead of me in the queue with stronger claims than mine.
But don't get me wrong.
My desire to reform the House of Lords is not born of malice or any sense of injustice.
Think of me if you will as an Olympian with nothing more than altruistic motives and a burning wish to serve my fellow human beings, or certainly those less fortunate than myself.
Here follows Osborne's manifesto for the greater good: 1.
Abolish the House of Lords - full stop! 2.
Repeal the Life Peerages Act 1958 and divest all life peers of their titles with immediate effect, whether they be 'troughers', 'trouserers', criminals or any combination of the three.
3.
Let the judges serving on the new Supreme Court retain their titles, and besides, where would we be without the likes of Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers? Now that's what I call a title! At least their lordships sitting in loc judiciaris can be seen to be doing something useful from time to time.
4.
Adopt the Roman and American bi-cameral system, and replace the House of Lords with an elected Senate.
In keeping with its Latin meaning 'House of Elders', there must be a minimum age qualification, I suggest fifty, to keep out pimply youths, and as with the House of Commons, there should be no compulsory retirement age.
Let the people decide if any particular candidate is past his or her sell by date.
5.
Candidates for both Houses would stand for election in the same way as do Members of Parliament, at least once every five years.
It should not be beyond the whit of the common herd to put an X in two boxes instead of just one.
The rest is simply fine tuning, and I leave that to the pencil pushers in the public sector, who know more about 'troughing' and 'trousering' than we could ever learn in a lifetime of regret.
Brilliant or what!?! And who knows, there might be a peerage in it for me, and Lady Osborne can at last hold up her head in polite society.