Would an elected Senate be a better replacement for the House of Lords?

No, just another election and with members from where, with power to change and buttheads with an elected Parliament...... the last thing the UK needs is to follow the likes of political system in the USA

No. On what basis would you elect it?

In a federal country, you have a good basis for two elected Houses. A Senate to represent the states equally, and a House of Representatives to represent the people. Which is exactly what the USA and Australia do.

But the UK is unitary so this doesn't apply. And if you have two elected houses, they can get deadlocked because they both have democratic legitimacy. Which happens from time to time in both aforementioned countries, usually over the Budget. (Last time it happened in Australia, the Governor-General sacked the Prime Minister and appointed his opponent instead, on condition that he ask for an immediate general election, and that solved the problem. The USA has frequent government shutdowns because this isn't possible there.)

New Zealand considered this in the 1940s and in 1948, abolished their unelected House. Since 1950, they've worked perfectly happily with just one. Most of Scandinavia works quite well that way.

There was a debate some time ago in the House of Commons where various options for the House of Lords were considered but they couldn't agree on any of them. And this is why - if you have a second chamber that is in any way elected, and your country isn't federal, in what way is it not just the House of Commons Mark 2? So what's it FOR?

At least the way it is, the House of Lords is a revising chamber consisting of experts from all walks of life who can chew Bills over and make them better. Some of them say that Bills often arrive from the Commons in a bad state and their job is to improve them. Given the way that debate is so often guillotined in the Commons so there isn't time to talk everything through thoroughly, they have a point. The Lords can't actually block anything, so the Commons will always get its way in the end, but they DO have the time to bring some expertise to bear which the Commons doesn't have as it consists entirely of professional politicians. And that often makes useful amendments that DO make Bills better.

Where else could you get the likes of Lord Bird, who actually HAS been homeless and in trouble with the police frequently in his younger days, and then went on to found "The Big Issue"? Who else could be better placed to contribute to debates on these matters with some real knowledge?

Maybe it could be reformed a little more - get the bishops and the hereditaries out, for one. But really, the only workable big alternative is to scrap it.

Yes, an elected chamber representing geographical counties would be better than the House of Lords.