Call it The Senate, The Council, or even darn it keep it as "The House of Lords" - but replace the current farce as soon as possible. As for the premises, well that's another can of worms - keep it mostly virtual but choose a needy city and build a national centre of government for ceremony and occasional plenaries. But it's not just about premises. And if we're replacing the current thing .... then with what?
Many call for a fully-elected upper chamber. I reject this idea. It's too difficult to find enough people with sufficient ability to be MPs so how we would find another few hundred to be "new lords" I cannot fathom; sure, they exist - but how to attract the most useful, honest, un-partisan, un-self-interested of them into politics, there is the question. Politics is a machine for turning idealists into cynics and as this becomes better and better understood the whole machine becomes more repellent except to those who are cynics to start with. Another problem is how to run the selection and election processes. What would be the constituencies? How would the "lords-candidates" advertise themselves? How would we prevent wealth from being a deciding factor? How would we prevent the whole thing being an extension of the party-controlled House of Commons? How would we convince enough people to vote - and how would we encourage voters to actually read the various candidates' manifestos before making up their minds?
Gordon Brown has floated his "Senate of the Nations and Regions" theme once again, using H of L reform as a convenient band-wagon for his unionist vision of the constitution. Here's my take on it (spoiler alert - I'm not enthusiastic).
Others recommend abolition without replacement. I reject this. Checks and balances - vital. We need more of them.
Here's my proposal: I'd like to call it "The House of Experts" but that might be too provocative, and certainly self-defeating. But it's the right idea. Here's how.