If by "kick in the balls" you mean it would give Labour an absurd amount of power, then sure, but that seems like a rather far stretch of the meaning of the phrase. Labour would have to do extremely well indeed in an election to get a majority of the English seats in this Senate, but with their large majorities in Scotland and Wales, they'd be all but guaranteed a permanent "Senate" majority, even if you assume that the Conservatives managed to convince the DUP to caucus with them.

Within the English state, of course, the Tories would be quite comfortable, but that's about it.

Also, last I checked, the US House of Representatives didn't have proportional representation, but essentially the same system as the British Parliament, i.e. first past the post in single-member districts. If they actually did get proportional representation in the UK, both Labour and the Conservatives would lose out, while the Lib Dems, UKIP, Greens and other smaller parties would benefit greatly. Perhaps you meant something else by proportional representation - merely that in the House, England would not be as badly disadvantaged as in the Senate?

So as for your proposals - there's something to be said for installing a separate English parliament and harmonizing the powers of the four states (everything else is already done), and I certainly think there's also something to be said for proportional representation, but it'll never fly. A "Senate" with equal representation for the four states is a terrible idea however, as it's absurdly unfair to the English (even more unfair than the present state of things where non-English MPs get to vote on strictly English affairs but not the other way around).

There is a more radical but intriguing possibility, but it will be a very long time before that becomes viable if it ever does. Which is to genuinely go to an American or German model - not having four states, but fifteen, twenty, however many. Everybody agrees that the English cities and regions need more autonomy - perhaps having a state of Cornwall or a state of Yorkshire within the United Kingdom, just like the states of Wales and Scotland, is not that absurd. It would certainly solve the problem of the massive disparity in size between England on the one hand and the other three on the other.

As a Belgian, I can safely say that federal countries with only a very small amount of constituent parts are a pain in the ass - it works considerably better with more states as there is room for shifting coalitions and it's not always a fight along the same lines.