Much of my view on Lords reform can be found here. But as I see it, the problem is two-fold and all started with the Parliament Act 1911, where in order to remove power from the Lords, the King agreed to flood the chamber until enough people would vote the way that he and Askqith wanted. This was the start of the constitutional decline.
As such, we cannot, sadly, return to all hereditary peers, because a PM may come along and try something similar. Politicians ultimately are there for themselves and are encouraged to extract as much power and influence as they can in the short time they have. This stands opposed to the incentives of hereditary officials who want to ensure that they have something to pass down to their children.
However, because of public sentiment, I think that the hereditary officials need to be seen to be working, not just getting to vote on policy by right of blood. This is why I propose a system of “High Sheriffs” across the country who look after their local councils in the same way that the King looks (or is meant to look) after government. These would be people who officially represent the King when he is not there, do all of the civil ceremonies etc.
I also think that life peers should exist, but there should be a limit to minting new ones. I suggest in my proposal 5 per year, 4 from the PM, and 1 from the LotO, with all having to be nominated by local councils first, and not allowed to be (former) MPs or civil servants.
Lastly, I propose that all professors be allowed to stand for membership to the house and a life peerage, but that the title then becomes regulated and requires royal assent to grant, to ensure the quality of our highest-ranked academics.
