Michael,
It’s an interesting article which I’ll try and answer with in more detail later.
Just a couple of initial quick thoughts>

Ironically I think the old “undemocratic” Lords performed its checking function much better than the present one which seems to me to be too full of apparchniks too tied to the party line rather than the free-thinkers or non-conformists of old. But both solutions are/were profoundly undemocratic, we should be looking to improve the system.

A possible solution (that needs a wee bit of work on, I’ll admit!!) could be this- you mentioned that a figure of 155-200 would be ideal to form a UK Senate. Get the three devolved assemblies to vote on and provide a list of members, in proportion to their electorate.

The English canditates (comprising of roughly 120 or so) however could be voted on by the actual English electorate. Such elections would take place two years into a normal government. As a Unionist you can probably see the advantages of this system, it would also go some way to curing the present democratic deficit which has been thrown up by devolution.

I like you and usually agree with you. That however, is an awful idea!!

It smacks a little of the German model, which I think is a terrible idea for the UK. Secondly, why would there be ANY differences between the way in which the constituent parts of the UK elect their Senators?

I would personally like to make one thing clear, as a Democrat and a Socialist, the idea that any member of the decision making process, whether a member of the Legislature or the Head of State, being chosen on Hereditary principle sickens me. The idea that in a 21st century "democracy" to have an unelected Upper House, an disproportional Lower House as well as an unelected Head of State, makes the UK very undemocratic.

I personally agree with the idea with a Senate, but in order for the UK’s Upper House, be that as Senate or an elected House of Lords, I think adopting criteria based system would be the best idea. Having 200 odd Senators would be a good enough number in my opinion, but I feel that all the candidates that put their name forward should have a certain degree of experience, as the principle role of the Upper House would be to scrutinise legislation. I feel that, like in Seanad Éireann, it should be made up of specific panels, each scrutinising an area of legislation, like Health, or Industry. Members of the Health panel should have viable experience in Health, whether that is Doctors, Administrators, former civil servants in the Health Departments etc. These candidates should then be all voted on by the general public and elected. This will mean that the Senate will be proportional to the Commons, as it will be democratically elected, but also retain an edge in terms of the scrutinizing of legislation.

"like you and usually agree with you. That however, is an awful idea!!

It smacks a little of the German model, which I think is a terrible idea for the UK. Secondly, why would there be ANY differences between the way in which the constituent parts of the UK elect their Senators?"

Ok, I’ll try to expand my thinking on this a bit more.

The Bundesrat, which acts as a the equivalent of a Senate in Germany, actually performs its function quite well in that first of all its composition is more often than not opposite politically to that of the Bundestag and so it doesn’t just ask as a rubber-stamp for whatever federal government is in power. Secondly, in the more important matters it pulls in the varioius lander “assemblies” closer to the centre, they have to take into account how their regional policies may affect the wider interest of the country as a whole

As you’ve probably gathered by now, I don’t believe the devolution of power to the three assemblies in Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh has been beneficial to the overall governance of the country. Salmond, in particular, exploits the increasing divide between the national government at Westminster and his own minority one, but even apart from that, there are problem with the coordination of policies and this can will even get worse if and when more powers are devolved.

So, building a link directly between the three assemblies and the sovereign parliament could start to mend this gap. The citizens of the three countries have alreadythe opportunity to vote for their regional representatives, following the regional election in each country then shortly after the assemblies themselves could vote or reach agreement on their people for a senate place (3 for NI, 4/5 for Wales, 10/12 for Scotland).

People in England, to the chagrin of some, obviously don’t have their own devolved assembly to vote for, giving them the alternative option to vote directly for up to 85% of the Senate’s place will provide a kind of symmetry and may just reduce the growing discontent with the present unfair parliamentary set-up in the UK. You’re right in saying that this would mean differences in the selection/election of senators between the different parts of the UK and as a Unionist this would not be an ideal situation….but it’s the reality (unfortunately) that already there are constitutional differences between the four parts of the UK, my method may help to prevent those differences becoming wider and eventually irreconciliable.

Still think it’s an awful idea??!

(I should add that in my ideal scenario the people standing for election/selection would not br failed career politicians, but people who would add something different to the debate, more technocrats and experts than the simple party-yes-people. Also, it should be a "full-time" post, so no more Sammy Wilsons please sharing his time between local government, the Assembly and the HOC!!)

I think O'Neill has just talked me round into at least considering the idea. He certainly makes a good case for why the English component should be elected. Perhaps ours could be elected at the same times as Assembly elections are held?

I would favour a 100/200 member chamber directly elected with equal membership for each of the component nations. In other words each country would get 25 or 50 members each.

It would be elected at the same time as the House of Commons on national proportional lists. It would act as counterweight for the size of England in the Commons. So NI has the smallest voice in the Commons would have the biggest voice per head in the upper house, then Wales etc.

Such a House would have no veto over the budget (of course the Lords does not look at the budget at all) but would have power to suggest amendments to it. It could block bills approved by the Commons for a year (as is the case by the Lords) but have an absolute veto on certain constitutional issues such as the Lords retains over dismissal of judges and suspending Parliamentary terms.

Such a body could also have functions such as appoving appointments to this newly created "UK Supreme Court".

Although constituencies would be divided on national lines, lets remember that mainland parties outside the Nationalists will still sit together despite their territorial allegiances. Obviously that will be different for the NI parties.

So why the idea. Well all four countries are theoretically equal in the Union and it would confirm that the Union is not "Greater England".
Of course in the US massive California has the same amount of votes as tiny Rhode Island in the US Senate. Or if you want an example of where there is hub component within a union state (like England is in the UK) then remember that in the USSR (not a good comparison I grant), massive Russia had the same amount of members in the Soviet of the Nationalities as little Estonia!

Inter-government matters should be dealt with through "Federal Council" - possibly attached to the Privy Council - which will act as public inter-government forum and have committees specialising in areas such as justice, finance and health.

That way minority groups/viewpoints currently excluded by the "two and a half party system" would have more of a voice in parliament. (not to mention having elections in NI based on real issues rather than a 400 year old urinating contest)

However if we had an elected upper house it would reopen the question of whether they should have the power to block legislation eminating from the lower house. Perhaps they should albeit with a provision allowing the lower house to pust legislation therough if they can muster a 2/3 majority.

As to whether the Head of State, being chosen on hereditary principle is undemocratic. While Im not a big fan of the monarchy One has to acknowledge the fact that all the indications suggest that it still enjoys the support of a majority of the UK population who surely have the right to choose the their head (and form) of government ?

I'll throw this one in just for the hell of it.
Why could we not have a second chamber in which no-one elected to it is allowed to have any affiliation with any of the main political parties in the lower house?
People from the CBI or TUC (despite their obvious loose connections) could be excepted and the role of the upper house would be to review the decisions of the lower house and "return for further discussion" anything thought to be detrimental to the national interest.
I will admit I haven't thought this through in any detail but the initial idea just appeals to me.

By what criteria would you define "main political parties in the lower house?"

Which of the parties below would you count as "main parties"

Labour 352
Conservative 193
Liberal Democrat 63
Democratic Unionist Paty 9
Scottish National Party 6
Sinn Fein 5
Plaid Cymru 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party (SDLP) 3
Independent 3
Independent Conservative 2
Independent Labour 1
Ulster Unionist 1
Respect Unity Coalition 1
Speaker & 3 Deputies 4 (Do not normally vote)

In my ideal little world probably all of these!
The idea would be to get people into the second chamber because of what they have achieved in fields other than party politics. I'm thinking economists, academics and such like who don't have to put a party ideology first and good ideas second.
I know it's completely utopian but it would be nice to see a chamber free from dogma.