Random selection ran into a chamber more worried about competence than patronage. The floor’s most-respected No case defended the principle of scrutiny — “We do need the House Of Lords, to keep the laws being passed fair and sensible” — before landing on the question, “If members are chosen by Lot, who will watch them?”
The No side was not a wholehearted defence of the present arrangement. One voter conceded, “The current system is broken,” while others preferred an elected or partly elected chamber, fixed terms and tighter qualifications; the most forceful objection was that random members might lack the knowledge to test complex legislation.
Yes voters made the opposite case: that expertise had curdled into appointment and privilege. The floor’s strongest Yes argument said random selection could produce “a far more representative, democratic, independent membership”, while another attacked a Lords “filled with unqualified people that the Government at the time just puts in as a reward”; several proposed a mixed chamber, opt-in qualifications or abolition altogether.
The two sides largely talked past each other. Yes treated legitimacy and independence as the urgent test, with “jobs for the boys” the recurring charge; No treated the second chamber as a brake on haste, warning that lay members risked “short term self interest and populist rather than rational policies”.
That leaves a specific constitutional verdict: voters here rejected the lottery, but not the complaint that the Lords needs remaking. The winning argument was less “leave it alone” than “reform it without surrendering expertise”.
23 Opinions
Chosen at random? That is a dreadful idea. For jury service you need enough intelligence to interpret the evidence and deliver an unbiased verdict. I think there should be an elected upper house, but with much stricter criteria on who can stand. With voters fully aware of what their experience is and what they bring to the table. As well as rules that allow them to be removed for necessary reasons, should they arise.
The trouble with representatives is they only really represent themselves. A collection of pople who are interested, infomed and experienced, like many in the lords is a reasonably effective control of the venal stupidity of many MPs. Its not ideal, but then no perfect solution exists and this seems to actually work quite well
They should be elected positions with a 5 year term. No life peers no hereditary peers. You should have to had served as an MP prior so you know roughly what you're doing . You must be resident full time in the UK & if youre a millionaire you're disqualified
While I do think we need a second chamber, random selection of individuals seems a pretty poor way of doing that. I do think the Lords needs reform, but an elected (or partially) elected house with fixed terms seems a better way of doing it
The problem with lay members is that they would then rely on experts to interpret the legally complex work, who would hold all the real influence. You could probably do this with outside experts, but then your back to parties stuffing the house with their allies
When it WAS filled with people who had expertise it made sense, but now it's filled with unqualified people that the Government at the time just puts in as a reward, so that they get paid for the rest of their lives, but don't actually have the knowledge they need on the topics being discussed.
Yes, but better if we abolish it completely. However choosing people (citizens) via lottery would be an excellent idea to have a the House of Commons reflecting society. Then elections would be to choose PM who would be responsible for government and the government would be scrutinized by parliament.
The second house should be full of experts in certain fields those that have dedicated their life to that work... it could be a voting selction made from those with knigthoods for their work as they have a say in what laws are passed. Having a house full of unelected officials seems rather undemocrat
A second chamber composed of knowledgeable people even when promoted by partisan favour provides a break on potentially hasty legislation raised by the commons. Elevating the hoi-polloi to perform this important role risks the enactment of short term self interest and populist rather than rational policies.
Reform of house of Lords is needed £300 a day should be scrapped. Voluntary peers would very more acceptable. Cutting the power of prime minister and king to promote nobodies to peerageies as well. Too many