Up until Lloyd George presented the People's Budget in 1909 the Conservative/Unionist leadership in the Commons and the Lords took a very sensible and adept approach to Liberal legislation. Bills which embodied traditional Liberal bugbears such as temperance reform, land reform and education were rejected or amended by the Lords, while those involving social reform with a lot of public support - such as the Trades Disputes Act - were let through. The aim was to divide traditional, Liberal radicals from 'social' radicals, who would get annoyed at the amount of time which was being wasted on Gladstonian hang-ups and eventually cause the Labour Party to break its electoral pact with the Liberals and stand alone. The People's Budget put a shell through this strategy as the Lords rejected it, rallying the left around the government and enabling the Liberals to present the Tories as the enemies of social reform.
So what if the Conservatives had used their heads and let through the People's Budget? This presupposes a degree of control over their peers that I'm not sure the Tory leadership in the Lords ever had, but let's ignore that for the moment. An election was due by 1912 which the Tories may have been well-placed to win. They would have received support from voters irritated at the increased taxation imposed by successive Liberal budgets, as well as the compulsory National Insurance Contributions (which were unpopular when first introduced in 1911/12). As it was the Unionists got more votes than the Liberals in both 1910 elections and got almost exactly the same number of seats. If they had avoided the deathtrap that was the 'People v Peers' contest, and managed to cause more discontent within the Liberal-Labour alliance than was the case, then they may well have won a majority by 1912.
This means we get Balfour as PM again, without a Home Rule crisis on his hands and without an emasculated House of Lords. He does still have to deal with the Tariff Reform divide within his party. The left is split between the Liberals and Labour and a number of the Liberal reforms which were passed IOTL have died on the order paper or at the gestation stage. What happens then? Who succeeds Balfour when he retires, as I think he must at some stage?
This is all based upon the Lords being clear-headed enough to resist temptation and pass Lloyd George's Budget. Is this asking too much of them? They did pass the Budget eventually, but only after they had precipitated a general election - their rejection wasn't based upon a hard headed calculation of the situation but upon a mixture of pride, fear and a visceral hatred of radical Liberals like Lloyd George.