I do like the idea of an upper house that can review, advise, and delay legislation, but not block it. Even better if its members possess expertise.
Nineteenth century liberals would be amazed that it took so long.
Now, IMHO, eliminating hereditary peers from the House of Lords is a solution in search of a problem.
Is there any legislature in the world where this isn’t true?
If so, it is probably because there aren’t any brilliant experts.
Where one stands here may have to do with how you define democracy. If you go with “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard” (H. L. Mencken), an elected senate with inevitably enhanced powers will be another improvement.
Certain hereditary peers were also given life peerages so that they could stay in the House anyway. Lord Salisbury, for one. [actually that statement is out of date. Salisbury retired from the Lords in 2017]
If we are going to change the Upper House at all, I would prefer to see one whose legitimacy is undisputed and which can and will defy the wishes of the House of Commons, so that nothing can get done. A rubber stamp body which always gives way in the end is worse than what we’ve got.