House of Lords
Jul. 11th, 2011 09:29 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sobriqueSo, one of the things that I was pondering, after the last time the 'appointing people to the House of Lords' came up.
The House of Lords, to my mind, serves a very valuable purpose - in much the same way as the 'tenure' system does. It allows people to stand for something, without having to worry about losing the next popularity contest.
Which is why it's _always_ going to be flawed if it's done by election, or by appointment from Parliament.
So why not make that a 'national lottery' instead? Same selection criteria as jury duty, although maybe with ability to opt out?
'Winners' are appointed, and receive a 'tenured' seat in the house of Lords.
It'll mean you'll get all manner of people, from all walks of life in the mix.... but isn't that really what's needed, when acting as a feedback mechanism on legislation? That you've a representative sample of the population, who are able to say 'hang on a minute'?
The House of Lords, to my mind, serves a very valuable purpose - in much the same way as the 'tenure' system does. It allows people to stand for something, without having to worry about losing the next popularity contest.
Which is why it's _always_ going to be flawed if it's done by election, or by appointment from Parliament.
So why not make that a 'national lottery' instead? Same selection criteria as jury duty, although maybe with ability to opt out?
'Winners' are appointed, and receive a 'tenured' seat in the house of Lords.
It'll mean you'll get all manner of people, from all walks of life in the mix.... but isn't that really what's needed, when acting as a feedback mechanism on legislation? That you've a representative sample of the population, who are able to say 'hang on a minute'?
no subject
Date: 2011-07-11 06:44 pm (UTC)Which I'd argue is the more important, day to day thing that the Lords does, compared to the high profile standing up to Government it occasionally does.
no subject
Date: 2011-07-12 07:45 am (UTC)But ... well, that's kind of the case at the moment, isn't it? I mean, once appointed, it's hard to remove someone from the Lords.
The same's true of the judiciary, and academic tenure. Mechanisms to remove people exist, but generally only for misconduct.
I think that might as well be a member of the public, than a political crony. Although perhaps you'd want to apply some initial selection criteria?
How about the 'can sign a passport photo' criteria?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional
Again, no guarantee of competence, but at least an indicator that they're not completely apathetic scumbags?