|
|
|
 |
 |
Select the House of Lords by lottery |
|
Score
68%
|
|
71 votes,
Feasibility
80%
Originality
71%
Humour
70% |
|
"More than any other political group," Viscount Cranborne, Leader of the House of Lords, claimed recently, "the Lords is a body chosen by lot". In his speech attacking Labour's plans to abolish hereditary peers, Cranborne stressed the benefit of representation of the common man by "amateurs" rather than "professional politicians".
'Why not replace the lottery of birth with genuinely choosing people by lot?'If choice by lot and amateur politicians are so beneficial, why not go further? Why not replace the lottery of birth with genuinely choosing people by lot? And what better way to choose them than by means of the one regular event which British men and women of all ages, backgrounds and views are actively involved in - the National Lottery? In short, why not hold a second weekly lottery draw, its prize not a mere money jackpot but a seat in the House of Lords?
Owing their positions to nothing more than fate, Lottery peers would, as a body be at least as independent as hereditary peers - and far more representative of British society in terms of age, balance of the sexes, geography, educational, social and ethnic background and political outlook. Who has a better idea of what ordinary people are saying in the Dog and Duck than its regulars? They would complement perfectly those chosen for their eminence and experience to be life peers.
Rule by lottery has worked in the past. Britain, the 'midwife of democracy', should learn from the 'cradle of democracy', ancient Athens. There, the day-to-day business of government was entrusted to the Council of Five Hundred, which was chosen annually out of the whole citizen body by lot. The only qualifications were that one had to be over 30 and a citizen of good standing.
'In Athens, the Council of Five Hundred was chosen annually out of the whole citizen body by lot'The Athenians were not alone among the people of the ancient world in recognising the value of using the lot to select a representative group of citizens. The Talmud records that Moses used lots to choose the 70 elders of the Children of Israel and the 22,000 designated first-born. "The ancients knew," observed the renowned classical scholar Jowett, "that election by lot was the most democratic of all modes of appointment".
Ah, but what if a lunatic or fascist wins the draw? That is a risk which we have been prepared to take for hundreds of years with hereditary peers, and there is no evidence that the great hereditary families (including even the Royal family) are any less prone to insanity or extreme political views than the rest of us.
And safeguards can easily be put in place. To prevent someone like Sir James Goldsmith greatly increasing his chances of winning by buying £20 million in lottery tickets in one week, no one would be permitted to buy more than one ticket per week for the peerage lottery.
The National Lottery has faced persistent criticism for taking from the less well-off and giving it (such as by allocating large amounts to promoting upper-class pursuits like opera) to the affluent. How good it would be for the Lottery's image if Lord Rothschild, the hereditary peer in charge of allocating funding from the lottery, were to supervise the handing over of his seat in the Lords to one of his customers! The second lottery draw would raise a large amount of money for good causes, since none of it would have to be given away in prize money.
In his Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes stated that "Good Council comes not by Lot, nor by Inheritance." While taking his advice to heart, I submit nevertheless that, in the absence of any viable better option, the future of the House of Lords lies not in the lottery of birth but in the National Lottery.
An idea by Daniel Lightman, 13 Old Square, Lincoln's Inn, London WC2A 3UA. From a letter to the House magazine (Jan 27th '97) - the proposal harks back to G. K. Chesterton's Napoleon of Notting Hill where the king was chosen by lot.
Make Lottery winners pay to be LordsNicholas Albery comments on the above item:
This scheme would not necessarily require a separate lottery. The main winners of the ordinary Lottery each week could have the option, at the time of their winning, to take a seat in the House of Lords, on payment of say £250,000 - with half this amount going to the government and half to the charity of their choice. They would replace whoever had been in the House of Lords longest. There would be no attendance expenses paid.
'The main Lottery winners could have the option to take a seat in the House of Lords, on payment of £250,000'The chance of winning the main prize is so small that the Goldsmiths of this world would find it an expensive and arduous way to buy a Lordship.
The winners' contributions would thus help towards the expenses of parliament, so that the House of Lords becomes self-financing. The members of the House of Lords might be largely from the working classes, but would have the means to keep up the aristocratic lifestyle poeple expect of a Lord.
Being in the Lords would give the winners something to occupy their new leisure time, and would keep them in touch with national problems - perhaps in this way encouraging them to spend part of their new-found wealth in socially responsible ways. Restricting new entry to the main Lottery winners (plus any government appointees, as at present) would also ensure a very gradual transition from the present set-up - and gradual change helps make innovations palatable.
Hereditary peerage for bonus numberBrian Eno e-mailed the following comment.
I have had a similar idea to the 'House of Lords by Lottery' suggestion. My idea is that a seat in the Lords should be the first prize in the lottery - and if you get the bonus number too, the peerage becomes hereditary.
|
|
|
|
|
