and the Church of England bishops. That's the most important step; I'm not too worried whether the Law Lords keep their voting powers or not (I regard them as responsible, intelligent people who are not driven by party political considerations, and having the best legal brains able to give speeches on legal matters in the Lords is quite good).
I'm a disestablishmentarian (and not just because I like long words), so the bishops have to go; and I don't think the hereditary lords were "regular people". Take the proportions of their party affliation, that determined the basis for the vote on which hereditary peers were retained:
In accordance with the Standing Order, they were elected in proportion to the four organised groupings in the House of Lords by the hereditary peers in their respective groupings. This gives 42 Conservatives, 28 Cross-bench, 3 Liberal Democrats and 2 Labour.
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/en1999/1999en34.htmThere was still a huge number of lords whose job was 'landowner'. While some conservatism in the second chamber might be a good idea, party Conservatism had gone much too far. The rules of inheritance were also very sexist, of course.
I also like the ability to co-opt some of the best from various fields - eg Robert Winston, to talk about reproductive science - into the House and its committees. So I would retain at least a few appointed peers, the appointments done by a committee that should try to be independent - either no politicians on it, or a spread of them.
I'd like the majority to be elected, for a reasonably long period (10 years? Perhaps in staggered elections, every 2 years?), and I'd like this to not end up dominated by party loyalists. But I'm not sure of the mechanism to ensure this. A national vote, perhaps with each voter choosing their favourite 3 candidates? It sounds a bit like Sports Personality of the Year or Big Brother, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
The powers of the House should remain roughly as it is - perhaps make it so that they can reject a bill from the Commons until the next general election. After that, the government would have a renewed mandate, so the Lords would have to let the bill pass.
Sporadicus' description - "antidemocratic, elitist & anachronistic" - is fairly close to the mark, especially for the pre-1999 chamber. 'Elitist' isn't that bad a thing to be, if it means those of great ability, rather than those of a social class.