I'm open to plenty* - I'd just like the approach to look at everything rather than tinker with particular things that may be disliked (and the getting rid of which might have serious unintended consequences).
At the heart of things I'd like to see an increase in checks and balances not a decrease (which is what I submit would happen if the second chamber - in whatever form - was just stripped from the equation).
We have a system that is too far tilted in favour of the executive as we'll see demonstrated again in the next five years and if people are really serious about getting rid of anachronistic institutions like the House of Lords and suggesting a codified constitution (I'm not saying you are but I'm putting both suggestions on the same table) then these things need to be considered as part of a new system rather than making comparisons between the UK (a constitutional settlement that has evolved over time) and other newer systems that came as unicameral and codified off the shelf.
I think the danger is that we might look at other places and say, "If it works for them then why shouldn't it work for us?"
We should be saying, "We want to improve x, y and z - what can we learn from elsewhere than could be applied to our situation in order to make that improvement." This would be in contrast to just apeing others and hoping that all the other circumstances that apply elsewhere and not here aren't particularly important to their success (or lack of failure).
* Edit 2:
That covers a different second chamber (and even no second chamber if the useful aspects of the House of Lords could be kept in the system elsewhere), electoral reform, limits on terms, reforms of local government, increased devolution, more respect for devolved institutions, &c.