Random reshuffle

You don’t need an elected chamber to be democratic (“A house of ill repute”, April). A profoundly democratic solution, rooted in an old and noble tradition, is to select members in the same way we select juries. This overcomes at a stroke concern about a second elected chamber that might compete with the Commons. A random selection of people on electoral registers—who would individually be free to turn down the offer—would deliver an impartial, representative and democratic House of Lords. The process of selection would not be prone to the corruption, cronyism and the stain of hereditary and religious privilege which characterise the current House.

Members would be supported by a highly expert team of researchers backed up by a well-funded library, to ensure they were equipped with the best evidence and analysis on which to make decisions. The current House of Lords Library and researchers would serve as an excellent foundation for this enhanced service. Valued members of the current House could be employed as researchers: their experience and talent need not be lost.

Members would be paid well (say, £90,000 per annum) but would not be allowed to hold a second job, directorships or accept any form of additional income. They would serve for a fixed term—say, six years—but to retain their position they would have to meet engagement criteria such as attendance, voting, taking part in committees and so on. They would be entitled to ceremonial trappings such as robes, heraldic devices and titles.

Of course, this would mean abolishing the old Lords and eliminating all their privileges.

Ken Chad, via the website

The bicameral model exists in Canberra, Australia, but with both the upper and lower chambers being elected. The drawback is that the upper chamber differs little in its behaviour from the lower chamber in terms of braying and hooting. The concept of special expertise for the Senate, rather than popularity at the hustings, has gone, so the (theoretical) wise voice has been lost.

On the other hand, the numbers have a more sensible balance, with 76 senators in the upper chamber and 151 members in the lower chamber.

A big difference in Australia is that voting is compulsory… though voting for a candidate is not. One may write across the ballot paper, “They are all plonkers”— it is a perfectly valid option...

David Cooke, via the website

I am in broad agreement with Bill Keller. Recently there has been a clear fall in standards of members of both the Commons and the Lords. The committee that accepts nominations to the latter must be strengthened to allow it to enforce minimum standards of “eminence”. No political hacks; cabinet-level posts as a minimum for former politicians (but no serving secretaries of state); and only top leaders of all major churches—although even that is arguable in these more secular times.

The top people in all disciplines, who wish to give their time, should be considered. By all disciplines I include engineering, science and medicine as well as the law, finance and business. Applying the wisdom of truly successful people in multiple fields would ensure that laws sent from the Lower House would return better than they started out.

Logic says we should drop the titles of Lower and Upper House, in favour of First and Second Chamber. But the existing titles are quaint and British, so I, for one, am against changing them.

Norman Harris, Croydon