LETTER: End of the peers?
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.LETTER:
End of the peers?
Sir: A more representative moderation of the proposals emanating from the Commons might be achieved if the membership of a House of Moderators was determined by random selection from the population as a whole (rather like jury service) than by heredity or government appointment.
Members of the public could be offered Moderator service, for a period of, say, one to three years, during which they would be expected to debate government proposals, and for which they would receive an attendance fee and expenses. I suspect attendance would be higher, debate livelier and the results more pertinent to life as experienced by the vast majority. It would also be an opportunity for the man in the street to participate in his own government, rather than simply placing a cross in a box every five years.
T HORSNELL
Cambridge
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments