ConstitutionNational 21h 31m left
Should members of the House of Lords be selected by lot, as jurors are?
The House of Lords currently consists of life peers appointed by the Prime Minister on the advice of an independent commission, along with bishops and formerly hereditary peers. In March 2026 the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act removed the remaining hereditary members, leaving a chamber of appointed life peers. Proposals for sortition, or selection by lottery like juries, have been discussed for decades as a way to create a more representative second chamber, with recent polling showing public support for replacing it with a citizens' assembly chosen at random.
2 Opinions
We do need the House Of Lords, to keep the laws being passed fair and sensible. I'm not convinced that choosing members by Lot is a good way. We have the Lords to watch the government, who watches the Lords? If members are chosen by Lot, who will watch them? Who will ensure they know what existing laws we have, or teach them how government works? Who will make sure they are unbiased, and honest?
Current selection to the house of Lords is currently used by the political parties to fill the Chamber with their own people, electing members will just create a 2nd House of Commons filled with professional politicians who couldn't get elected into the actual HOC. By using random selection from the electoral rolls we get a far more representative, democratic, independent membership with a far greater range of life experience, knowledge and skills than both current Houses.