Hold on to your hats (and your hatstands, and your sofas, and your mahogany bedside units). Relations between the electorate and politicians look set to hit a new low later this week, with the publication of a slew of intrusive details about the household furniture and indeed the houses themselves that taxpayers have been funding for senior MPs. It is hard, against a background of “he spent £150 on that?”, for the Government to raise the tone of the debate by talking about minute details of constitutional reform, but that is what it is trying to do.

Both Gordon Brown and Jack Straw have declared themselves keen to forge a new relationship between government and citizen. Yesterday Mr Straw announced a welter of initiatives in this vein, from allowing demonstrations outside Parliament again to changing the role of the Attorney-General and tinkering with the judicial appointments process. Oh, and giving government departments permission to fly the Union Flag whenever they want - it's one of those moments when you think, they need a Cabinet minister to decide that? And it needed announcing in the Commons? What planet...?

Even with the Union Jacks metaphorically flying, it was hard to see how any of it was going to affect the ordinary citizen. The MP, yes, with a few more powers, such as, most importantly, on going to war; the civil servant, yes, with a law enshrining their integrity and impartiality; the judiciary and the law commission, yes, they were in there; and the House of Lords, with a promise of reforms to come.

All that, as Mr Brown trawled around Stevenage saying he wanted everyone to vote in the local elections. So which is going to have the greater impact on the electorate's relationship with its rulers? What is Mrs Stevens of Stevenage going to be talking about in her lunch hour? A new statutory code for the Civil Service, or the MP for Little Spending spending £1,800 on a sofa and £6,233 on a new bathroom at your expense (“It had a perfectly good bathroom when I sold him the house,” said the previous owner). The soft furnishings are going to win, aren't they?

The reason why details of MPs' expenditure has such a damaging effect is straightforward: it highlights, in words that everyone can understand, the gulf in living standards between ordinary people and their MPs. It prompts a voter to ask: just what world do they live in? What world do they inhabit, when I am frightened about meeting my mortgage repayments, struggling to fill up the tank once a week and thinking twice before buying a joint of meat, while they get all of this free, funded by me?

And that impression - that Parliament no longer represents the interests of ordinary people - is what damages politics. So imagine for a moment that you are Mr Straw, charged with renewing the link between governor and governed. Do you reach for Bagehot and hum about the Royal Prerogative? Do you convene citizens' juries to consult upon a British “statement of values”? Or do you tear up the rulebook, ignore all the wise people counselling caution and tradition and what is constitutionally possible blah blah, and do something bold? Like: let the public send the people who really represent them in a new second chamber. I would allow one representative of any body that could show the support of more than, say, 500,000 people - from churches to charities, the Football Association to small business owners. Let the RSPB nominate somebody to sit in - what shall we call it? - the Senate.

Then winkle out some inspiring community leaders and appoint them too, or ask their local communities to nominate them. Those with the highest public support get the seat. No elections. Do it by petition.

I would retain a certain number of political appointees - former senior Cabinet ministers, say. I might allow further appointments, by an independent body, for recognised leaders in specific fields, such as education or law or finance. I would encourage school children to vote for, say, two representatives aged 14-16, and another two aged 17-18.

I might give ethnic minorities votes for their own representatives. And I would allow a couple of purely popular votes, based on a public petition system. If Davina McCall or Ant and Dec are elected to Parliament, good. How's that for biting back at celebrity culture? The more popular you are, the more likely you're going to end up in the Senate.

Nobody would be represented by a political party. Take up a certain public position, or be chosen by the public, and you would have to serve, for a certain number of days a year - could be as few as 10 or 20 - for no pay, but some basic expenses. Like jury service. How long would they serve? Two terms of five years each, maximum? I don't know. Should it be compulsory? I'm not sure; let's discuss that, too.

This second chamber would be more democratically legitimate than the House of Commons. It would represent the interests of the people, beyond the party machines. It may even be that my Senate would illuminate the better side of the Commons; the very unprofessionalism of the second chamber would highlight the professionalism of the first. But, my, what a way to rejuvenate interest in politics: watch Anne Robinson squaring up to a bishop. I'd vote for it.

So, you could do something like that. Or you could make a statement to the Commons about flying flags on government buildings - and see whether anybody notices, or whether they are too busy discussing your taste in soft furnishings.

Times Recommends

• We have kit and leadership. Let’s go
• Behind the scenes at the biggest deal
• Conferences — what a waste of money