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.