The UK House of Commons (HOC) voted yesterday for a 100% elected House of Lords (HOL). Of course the HOL themselves have to agree before it becomes law, but do we think a fully elected HOL is good or bad? Or do we care at all?

The advantages: we end the system whereby a congenital idiot can have a say in the running of the country simply by an accident of birth; or where a convicted criminal can continue to dictate what the rest of us do, simply because he is still a "Lord".

The disadvantages: the HOL would be as consumed by party politics as the HOC is, to the considerable detriment of the country, IMO. And of course the disadvantage for the government would be how they would be able to raise party funds if they can't sell peerages any more :-)

My idea was that instead of just treating the HOL as a second HOC, which the proposed law would do, why not have the HOL populated by people proposed and seconded by members of the public (like us), rather than decided by the political parties?

I would prefer to see party politics absent from the HOL as much as possible. So instead of just having Lab, Con, LibDem, (etc.) candidates for each seat, nominations could be received from the public and then voted on. The people I would expect to be nominated would be public figures held in high regard for their intelligent and objective views - not necessarily politicians (preferably not!), but maybe broadcasters, writers or academics, or folk musicians of course, or ?? (you decide). Of course I would expect there would be a lot of nominations for pop stars, 'celebrities' or Page 3 girls, but that might not be such a bad thing - anybody would IMO be better than another bunch of feckin' professional politicians. The nominations could then be seconded and voted for online.

This is just an idea I throw into the "maelstrom of speculation". Any comments folks?