The post you are reporting:
OK lets look at political reform. I will ignore local government and the EU in this and refer to just The Commons and Lords.
Starting with the Upper Chamber. I personally believe that a mainly elected upper house is ideal. I say mainly because I believe that there is and should be some room for appointed members. I would like to see no more than 20% appointed with only half of these being political appointments, the remainder being professional/expert appointments. I have no problem with 80% of the Chamber being elected by a PR system and would suggest a long term, say 7 years that does not tie in with the HoC elections (or EU). The political appointments (10% of the total) would provide room for political peers who have parliamentary experience with the numbers allocated proportional to the elected proportions. On the Upper House PR I would have a high benchmark for any party to get over in ordeer to get a member. This would be to freeze out cranks and extremists. 10% of the vote would be my benchmark. The professional apointments should be non-political and made by an independent appointments panel and should include retired Armed Forces personal, lawyers, accountants, engineers, doctors etc etc....non of whom should affiliate to a political party.
Moving to the Commons.
We need to reduce the number of MPs and to level out the number of voters in each constituency. This will increase the proportion of marginal seats (very healthy) making the election result (still first past the post) more responsive to the public mood. I personally would reduce the number of seats by a bit more than the 10% DC wants, to about 550. I would not go lower because the Executive being drawn from the legislature means that the payroll vote would be too high reducing the scope for rebel MPs and 'characters' to enliven parliament.
I would have the number of seats kept at a fixed level of 550 but with the boundaries being constantly under review by the Boundaries Commission to keep the number of voters roughly the same. Other countries manage this so there is no reason why we should not. That does mean getting rid of or truncating any appeals process.
I do not like the idea of fixed term parliaments myself and would not have them.
I also do not like the idea of a seperate English parliament but there is an issue here that must be resolved. First of all we need a review of the powers and responsibilities of the devolved parliaments. I would ensure that they are the same for Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland with revenue raising powers and, if anything, give them even greater responsibilities than they have now in Scotland.
So how do we deal with England? I would ensure that all members of the Westminster Parliament who represent Scottish, Welsh and N. Irish seats are denied any vote or role on laws that apply only to England and are devolved to their home countries. It is a simple and straightforward piece of parliamentary procedure that would have no significant costs or beaurocracy attached. English matters can be resolved by English Westminster MPs sitting as a 'Council of all England' - an elegant and low cost solution to the situation. The only problem that would occur is when the UK Government is one that derives its majority from 'Celtic' MPs only as they would not command a majority in England. A government would have to be sensitive to this.
With revenue raising powers in the devolved assemblies we can then deal with the Barnet formula and ensure a more equitable settlement by which the English for instance are not subsidising free Universities for Scottish students.