I think there should be an elected upper chamber - whatever it is called. Whether or not there actually has been any wrongdoing, recent events have shown that the current system is open to abuse. Of course an elected upper house will bring its own problems.

An elected upper chamber will bring a need to rethink its role as it will have more authority, whether the House of Commons like it or not. I think that a bill should have to pass through both houses before it can become law.

I would like to see an elected upper house be based on something like regions so that thinly populated parts of the UK are better represented than they are at present. It might provide a useful counterbalance to the London-centric mentality we see too much of.

However the upper house is elected, please no party lists. That is a back door form of appointment, though I do think that some form of Proportional representation is needed.

I agree with the proposal for secret ballots in parliamentary votes. That change alone would make several of Dazbo's other suggested changes unnecessary.

The old saying that "all power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" is all too true and we have seen the effect of too much power in too few hands on both our main political parties in recent years. Apart from the latent corruption (I'm not saying there has been actual corruption, but there has been behaviour that looks too close to the line for comfort) there is the effect of a whole generation feeling disenfranchised and losing interest in the political process. I have seen that effect on my daughter where my wife has almost had to drag her to vote on one occasion - on the very valid grounds that too many people fought for her right to vote for her to just give it away.