Is Sir Keir serious about replacing the House of Lords?

Or is the Labour leader merely seeking to divert headlines from criticism of his Blairite following of the agenda set by a Conservative government? His rather vague proposals have certainly achieved press and broadcast media coverage but there are few who would argue with the Opposition's contention that the basis for filling the Upper House is  indefensible in a modern democracy, 

Younger readers may not realise that the Liberal Democrats went into the 2010 general election with detailed proposals for an elected Upper House, There were sympathetic noises from Labour who under Tony Blair had gone no further than hobbling the hereditary appointments system. Yet when it came to the presentation of the Reform Bill under the coalition, Labour refused to support a timetable for the Bill which would have prevented Tory extremists (and some Labour backwoodsmen) filibustering it out of existence. We need a cast-iron assurance from the Labour leadership that they will not similarly weasel out of their responsibility when a future Reform Bill comes to the House.

One aspect of Labour's reboot of Lords reform to be welcomed is tying it to regional representation. The major flaw of the Liberal Democrat scheme was that it did not address the built-in metropolitan bias of the Lords, though one hoped this could have been tackled during Committee Stage if the 2010 Bill had been allowed to proceed.