I missed that info in the pre-election stuff. In my opinion, removing hereditary peers makes sense - that's a system that's archaic, sexist and privileged. Removing responsible, weighty, knowledgeable, mentally sharp, nominated peers, especially cross-bench ones, purely because of age seems wrong and ageist. It would seem more useful to review the process where prime-ministers can unrestrictedly nominate people to the peerage and other ways peers get nominated.
If they are wanting to cull numbers in the House of Lords, surely it would make sense to have a process to remove people based on lack of commitment to the role, lack of expertise, poor health and bringing the job into disrepute (this would deal with the Ruth Hunt problem - btw I think that petition is still active).
Whatever changes to the House of Lords that happen, need to be done in a very measured and staged way. The second house provides a ballast to our legal system and sometimes a voice of sanity when the HoC is behaving stupidly, all the more important if there isn't a strong opposition to the party in power like now.