I agree with pretty much everything you have written. I am strongly in favour of a 100 percent elected chamber. Anything else will be subject to manipulation. (Some of the proposals for special representation for faith groups, trade unionists etc remind me of the ‘functional groups’ that were a feature of the Indonesian parliament under General Soeharto.)

As for the staggered introduction of elections, I agree it’s unnecessary. A complete house could be elected with members initially serving short, medium and full terms, perhaps by lot.

I would be in favour of members serving a single term of 8-10 years, one third retiring at regular intervals, with elections under the STV (single transferable vote) system.

As an additional thought, you could possibly also include an element of corporatism – in addition to voting for your local representative, you could vote for a selection of expert/interest groups (Unions, the CBI, the Royal Society, Stop the War, Transsexual Dentists Against Speed Cameras) who would put forward candidates for a limited number of seats. That might help preserve that “collection of experts” function that supporters of the Lords tend to bang on about.

Also, I’m leaning more to the longer non-renewable terms myself after reading these comments… they do have their merits. I’d still stick with 8 years tops, though.

Yes the electoral system should be PR, but the list system used for Euro elections is possibly the worst of all PR systems, it helps concentrate powers in the hands of the parties and elect yes men.

As for the term lengths, provided the terms are non-renewable and rolling I think long terms are preferable. Firstly it makes the members less opinion poll and short term focused and secondly it smooths over the fluctuations in popularity giving a calming influence on the governing party.

I’ve just written to my MP and posted a copy on my blog, unfortunatly I expect it will do little good.

(Definition of real – NOT just anything the current PM disagrees with, ie nobody should be ejected for thought-police reasons)

I like the idea of a long term as well though and ideally would like to see a long term (8-12 years perhaps) but no opportunity to stand again after the term ends. I think that one of the few benefits of permanent appointment is that members of the Lords are much less opinion poll focused than those in the Commons ard are able to advocate positions which are difficult in the short term but bring huge long term gains. I wouldn’t like to see that lost by descent into a scramble for votes.

I would also like to see the Lords reps elected on a different system than the Commons – I think it would be illuminating to have the two chambers representing different ways of measuring public opinion. It wouldn’t have to be whole nation PR (although I do like that, given that we’ve got independants appointed anyway) – perhaps the list system, as used for European elections or perhaps another, who can say.