The House of the People is a milestone in the debate over whether a permanent Citizens' Assembly should be established in the United Kingdom. Members deliberated on and proposed policy recommendations which were incorporated into the People's Charter.
Problem and Purpose:
The United Kingdom (UK) throughout the 2020’s has experienced a prolonged period of social and economic stress, leaving many in a state of desperation as the cost of living becomes heavier. Consequently, trust in traditional representatives has declined, as the public increasingly feel political elites are disconnected from them and non-respondent to the issues affecting their lives [p.3, 1]. Considering this, Assemble organised a nation-wide citizen assembly to sit from 20th – 22nd July 2025 in London which it named the House of the People; presented as a parallel parliament it seeks to generate a continuous citizen’s presence in national politics, where democracy is done every day instead of once every five years [p. 3, 1]. The Assembly aims to prove the public can be trusted to navigate and decide on the critical issues impacting their lives, with the goal of establishing a permanent citizen assembly within the parliamentary system to set the agenda and ensure politicians are responsive [p.3, 1].
Background History and Context:
Beginning in the 2010s, citizen assemblies have become an increasingly prominent method to enhance citizen political engagement, especially regarding policymaking, although they have remained purely advisory [pp. 121-2, 2]. Most have been conducted at the local level, such as the 2021-2 Newham citizen assemblies which were focused on improving the community through initiatives including increasing access to green spaces [3]. Often citizen assemblies within the UK have only addressed a single issue, limiting their scope; from 2019, 61 local minipublics were solely dedicated to the matter of climate change [p.120, 2]. For the few citizen assemblies which have been conducted on the national level, the majority have been a onetime occurrence to address a single topic, for example, the 2017 Citizen Assembly on Brexit which sought to contribute to the negotiations by providing a platform for the public to express their wants from Brexit [4]. Assemblies addressing multiple issues have been conducted, such as Democracy Matters 2015 Northern and Southern assemblies, however these were mainly experimenting if public deliberation was effective, they were subsequentially not repeated in following years [pp. 214-6, 5].
The UK reflects a widespread modern Western trend of declining confidence in democracy and increasing political disengagement [p. 162, 6]. Public trust in the government has fallen from 38% in 1986 to 15% by 2019, while a 2025 Electoral Commission survey shows only 14% of the public trust politicians. This dissatisfaction is cross-party, with 54% of the public feeling that politicians do not care about them [p. 7, 7] [8]. Consequently, voter turnout has fallen every decade since the 1980s, staying below 75% since the 1992 general election [p.14, 7]. Simultaneously, people feel their average quality of life has dropped; by June 2025, 86% of the public felt the cost of living was a major issue afflicting the UK, a percentage which has been consistently high since October 2022. Furthermore, one in four adults struggle significantly to get by financially per month [9]. While traditional electoral processes weaken, the public, particularly young people, seem involved with alternative forms of political engagement, presenting a potential remedy for the hopelessness and apathy currently plaguing Western democracy [p.167, 6] [p.16, 7].
Assemble was formed in 2024 with the aim to replace representative democracy with deliberative democracy [10]. During the 2024 general election, it ran multiple assemblies with the aim of organising the campaigns of local, independent candidates; the assembly would decide upon who the candidate would be and the policy program they would campaign upon. Thirty-two of these assemblies were run across eighteen communities, they even found some moderate success on election day, with citizen assembly candidates collectively receiving 60,000 votes and one elected to parliament [p.11, 1]. Concurrently, Assemble had organised twenty-five local assemblies across eleven communities to both address local political issues and provide a year preparation for the first sitting of the House of the People. Overall, 856 people attended these assemblies, and their numerous proposals laid the basis for the deliberation which would occur in the House of the People [p.12, 1].
Organising, Supporting, and Funding Entities:
The House of the People was primarily the result of effort by Assemble, who had established various local assemblies throughout 2024 to provide participants, volunteers, and topics of deliberation; it worked to coordinate the fundraising, design, and organisation of the House. It successfully brought together various local assembly groups and organisers to ensure participants could reach the venue and that there was a staff of well trained, committed volunteers. The House was particularly reliant on a group of seventeen volunteers fulfilling the role of facilitators who ensured the effective delivery of the assembly and efficient management of deliberative sessions. Support also materialised from other organisations; The Sortition Foundation oversaw the process of member selection and Dembrane, an AI-powered tool, was utilised to improve the flow of deliberation by recording group conversation, so participants could better understand their conversations. A report on the House’s organisation and proceedings was provided by Assemble.
The Assembly's venue of Conway Hall was secured by the financial support of the Red Panda Paw Trust, who's a large donation enabled Assemble to rent the hall. Most of the House's expenses were covered by Assemble who is primarily funded by the Climate Emergency Fund and from contributions from hundreds of individuals [10]. Costs derived mainly from providing accommodation, but this enabled a diverse range of the public to attend.
Participant Recruitment and Selection:
The House of the People conducted a meticulous recruitment process which aimed to produce a membership reflective of the composition of the UK’s population, however, due to a shortage of resources it was unable to enact a full sortition and stratification process. Therefore, it took an adapted approach which attempted to emulate the random sortition which characterises citizen assembly selection [11]. Operated by the Sortition Foundation, selection was divided into two separate methods, the first saw 60 of the 80 House members elected through democratic lottery. It was open to anyone aged over 18; its methods of promotion, particularly social media, enabled it to engage with a large, random proportion of the population, over a 1000 people would sign up to the lottery.
The remaining 20 members were directly nominated by the local assemblies Assemble had established which were associated with the House; in this process, called Community Nomination, a participant at a group discussion table was given a token which they would then dedicate to another person at the table, it was recommended the chosen individual express effective deliberative qualities. The purpose of the method was to prevent nominations becoming a popularity contest; instead, it would provide House relatively experienced deliberators. The candidates produced by both methods were narrowed to the 80 who would attend the House through a stratification process to ensuring members reflected national population in terms of age, gender, education level, ethnicity, geography, and disability. The report section titled ‘Was the House of the People truly representative?’ displays the as Assembly successful in producing a demographic make-up which closely matched the public [pp.21-2, 1].
Participation of chosen members was secured by providing transportation and accommodation so they could attend the House’s venue. Of the 80 participants, two-thirds were supported with transport and 80% were supplied accommodation. The House always took the well-being of its member seriously with a mental health practitioner and accessibility representative available throughout the sitting; a live feedback form was provided for members to express grievances during sessions. Provision of a quiet room allowed for someone to take some time out of proceedings if they felt overwhelmed or troubled, these provisions ensured people received support if needed.
Methods and Tools Used:
The House of People’s structure was orientated to maximise deliberation over the three days it sat. Deliberative sessions comprised most of the assembly’s time, these were focused on drafting proposals for the People’s Charter. Assemble had organised a total of twenty-five local assemblies over 2024, these assemblies were crucial in deciding which topics participants in the House of the People would deliberate on. Firstly, the reports they produced guided deliberation on the first day with three sessions dedicated on discussion over the ideas inside the reports, and ideas which were underrepresented. Secondly, local assemblies decided upon the four topics guest speakers would deliver presentations on to the House, influencing the course of deliberation and the proposals produced on the assembly’s second day.
Deliberation was entirely in-person and was conducted mostly in table groups consisting of between six to seven people, the topic these tables discussed fluctuated depending on the day. On the first day, deliberation covered the broad breadth of ideas proposed in the local assembly reports. They soon become topic-specific due to the house’s division into four groups, each focused on one subject covered by experts, members engaged in highly specific deliberation on the information delivered by the experts in their presentations, drafting proposals for charter concerning their topic area. After engaging in the topic groups, people would return to deliberate with their table group, ensuring topic specific information was shared. These table groups were overseen by a facilitator whose purpose was to act as a neutral guide, they managed the groups' structure, ensured participants stuck to time limits, and encouraged less vocal members to express their thoughts.
To support these table groups in deliberation, the house used Dembrane, an AI-powered tool which recorded and transcribed members discussions, highlighting the common ideas expressed. These helped groups synthesis their conversations and were particularly useful at refocusing deliberation when members felt overwhelmed. Participants were informed how transcripts would be stored and that they would be deleted after use. Despite some difficulties on the second day where it would lose connection or produced inconsistent transcripts, Dembrane helped contribute to 80% of members feeling very connected to each other during the process.
Feedback sessions were held at the end of the first and second day to allow members to express their thoughts on the House; day two exposed frustrations and concerns, especially regarding participants feeling overloaded with information but lacking the time needed to process it and produce proposals. . Facilitators therefore decided to restructure the third day based on the feedback they received, granting more time for participants to refine proposals. Unfortunately, this required facilitators to condense various proposals of one topic without member scrutiny. The report notes this to be an imperfect and undemocratic compromise, nonetheless it succeeded in opening more time for deliberation over proposals on the third day, it additionally included a question and answers session to allow members to conduct scrutiny over the proposals before voting for them.
What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation:
The House of the People convened in July 2025 over the span of three days, a major milestone in Assembles aim to establish a permanent body of deliberative democracy within the UK. It comprised 80 demographically representative members of the British public and tasked them with drawing up a People’s Chater; a citizen-created plan comprising of policy propositions and visionary goals for change, addressing significant issues facing the UK. Fundamentally, the House worked towards the goal of replacing the House of Lords with a citizen assembly by proving the effectiveness of citizen engagement.
As the assembly only loosely follows a phase structure, with deliberation occurring throughout the process, I will recite what occurred through a day-by-day overview.
Day One:
The day commenced with the lead facilitator explaining the purpose of the House and the rules of discussion to members. Respectful deliberation was emphasised and members collectively agreed on rules of engagement.
Deliberation commenced immediately; members were proposed the question ‘What change do you want to see in the UK?’ Each person on the table was given three minutes to express their view before commencing open conversation. This session served to allow test their deliberative skill and become accustomed to the structure of a citizen assembly. After this, deliberation started to engage the issues facing the UK, three consecutive sessions were dedicated to the reports local assemblies had produced for the House. Members engaged with the question ‘What ideas from local assemblies resonate as UK-wide solutions?’, facilitators guided tables to remain report focused. Participants also considered the issues these assemblies had underrepresented. Efforts to draft proposals for the charter began to commence with the encouragement of group facilitators.
Impressively, by the end of the first day 59 proposals had been put forward by all tables combined, facilitators ensured each had proposed a maximum of five. When there was uncertainty on what proposal to put forward, informal voting was utilised. The day ended with facilitators reviewing feedback.
Day Two:
This day consisted of a learning phase, with members engaged with presentations delivered by experts addressing four topics, these topics were chosen by local assemblies and were:
- Political Corruption and Democratic Renewal
- Wealth, Inequality and Economic Justice
- Genocide and Unjust War
- Climate and Ecological Breakdown
The House was divided into four groups, with members being allocated to a topic which matched preferences they had expressed. Experts where then given the opportunity to present to one of the groups their case concerning their selected area, all members were allocated the Expert Briefings and Testimonial Handbook which contained a summary of all the presentations. Following the presentations, members were given the opportunity to question the experts on the specific topic. Members then broke off into small groups where they deliberated on the question ‘What do you think about what you’ve heard and what needs to be done?’ A feedback session then commenced between the tables and the experts, once this was concluded, tables began drafting topic specific proposals for the charter based on the new information they had received.
The structure of this learning phase is a consequence of the limited time the assembly had operate on, with each group only listening to experts in one topic, however, it did allow for more deliberation to occur, as seen in the afternoon session where members engaged with all four topics after returning to table groups. Time was divided equally between topics and group facilitators delivered quick summaries of the presentations, while also presenting the proposals the topic groups had submitted. However, it was clearly expected of members to exchange the information they had obtained from their different topic groups so to allow effective and informed contributions by all.
Day Three:
As mentioned in Methods and Tools Used the third day was restructured due to the feedback received by facilitators concerning shortcomings with deliberative ability and time in day two. The 59 proposals issued on day one were condensed into a handful so they could be voted on later, they were placed under the topic title ‘Housing, Education, Public Services, and Other’.
The last day of the assembly began with members being reorganised into their topic groups to rework and finalise their proposals, they were advised proposals should contain ‘clear, specific action.’ After one hour and twenty minutes of deliberation each topic group in consensus returned 12 proposals. Most of the day was then occupied by five question-and-answer session which gave members the opportunity to scrutinise and clarify the proposals.
48 proposals were put forward for the charter after deliberation had ended. Voting was conducted via app, and spare phones were provided to members who could not connect onto the internet; facilitators guided members through the voting process. It involved two steps, firstly, members voted for each proposal on a scale from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree;’. Any proposal which scored 70% or over ‘agree’ votes made it onto the charter. This high requirement generated some form of limited consensus among participants; of the 48 proposals, 36 met the target and were included onto the charter. Secondly, members ranked the proposals of each topic, the highest ranked one would become the headline demands of that topic on the People’s Charter
Influence, Outcomes, and Effects:
The most immediate outcome was the People’s Charter, its five headline demands calling for taxation of wealth, slashing of political corruption, choosing life over GDP, ending support for genocide, and reclaiming our spaces are only the tip of the 36 proposals embedded within the charter. Neither are they just pure slogan with each proposal giving a brief description of what it proposes, for example, taxation of wealth proposes applying VAT onto baking services. Besides its proposals, the People’s Charter reflects that even with limited time, citizens could formulate an extensive, informed plan of policy recommendations to tackle complex, sensitive issues. In this regard, the most consequential outcome of the House of the People is it demonstrates informed citizens being involved in policy making is achievable.
The impressive engagement of the 80 citizens and the favourable comments they made concerning their experiences has encouraged Assemble to reconvene the House of the People at Liverpool in September 2026. Incorporating criticisms of the first sitting, especially regarding the pressure and unsatisfaction felt due to the limited time members had, the assembly will span a week. Its goal will be to strengthen and improve upon the proposals of the People’s Charter so it can be delivered to Parliament [p.98, 1]. Due to its recency, the long-term effects of the House remain unclear, however, it can be assumed its success has galvanised deliberative democracy campaigners in Britain to continue engaging the public through minipublics, and strengthened the conviction for a permanent citizen assembly in the United Kingdom.
Analysis and Lesson Learned
In this section I will undertake a critical evaluation of the House of the People by applying Smith’s six-dimension analytical framework of democratic goods: inclusiveness, popular control, considered judgement, transparency, efficiency, and transferability [12]. I will see if the House effectively realises these goods.
Inclusiveness:
Smith’s criteria for inclusiveness demands the democratic process is truly representative of the population it aims to target, in the case of the House of the People, this is the United Kingdom’s national population.
He firstly asks who has the right to participate, who consists of the demos, and then once defined is the selection process fair enough to encompass all those varying groups [p. 21, 12]. In the case of the House of the People, the assembly conducted its recruitment process with the intent to reflect the demographics of the wider British public, and in this it was successful. Composition of the House was almost identical to that of the wider public in most categories [pp. 21-2, 1], effectively enfranchising all impacted interests. Nonetheless, Smith emphasises the importance that selection methods as not excluding marginalised groups; in this capacity the House falters as it used recruitment methods which possess the potential to be exclusionary. The democratic lottery heavily relied on self-selection which can replicate inequalities due to the inconsistency of participation rates across social groups [p. 21, 12].
Stratification was implemented to the results of the democratic lottery, which aligns the House back into meeting Smith’s criteria, clearly signally the intention of Assemble to mobilise engagement across all social groups. However, as Spada & Peixoto highlight, citizen assembly's still face fundamental challenges which dilute their capacity to be representative, including small sample sizes [13] The House compromised 80 people, far below what is deemed the minimum requirement of 1,000 people for national polls [p. 142, 13]. Therefore, it remains just a vulnerable to traditional criticism which claim that assemblies, not matter how demographically proportional to its target audience, cannot represent a much larger grouping of people, in the cause of the House, millions.
Despite this, the House of the People excels at fulfilling Smith’s assertion that the presence of a citizen must be complemented with the ability for them to express their voice [p. 21, 12] Equality of voice was realised in the house by the presence of facilitators, who actively sought to encourage more timid participants to engage in deliberation and signalled when more confident speakers where being overbearing [p. 26,1]. This support allowed all members within the House to have an equal chance to impact upon the final output of the assembly.
Popular Control:
Popular control as defined by Smith, is about granting citizens the ability to control the process in which they are engaged in. This is in terms of their ability to set the agenda, guide the deliberation process, and dictate the end results. He identifies four key parts of the decision-making process where popular control must be realised: problem definition, option analysis, option selection, and implementation [pp. 22-3, 12].
In terms of ‘problem definition’, Smith concerns over that institutions which commission assemblies often frame the agenda in a way to be self-serving or to avoid contentious issues, limiting the scope for citizens to engage with issues critical to them [p. 23, 12]. No such problem afflicted the House of the People, as here citizens exclusively decided upon the issues the assembly addressed, mainly through the scope of local assemblies tied to the project who delivered issue reports and chose which topics would be covered by experts. Although this meant most of the participants in the House itself did not decide upon what issues they would deliberate on, it prevented agenda-setting by the organisers who lacked any ability to push through their initiatives, seen most evidently in the establishment of a permanent citizen assembly not dominating the proceedings.
Citizens ‘option analysis’ was bolstered by the fact they had been able to decide upon the issues deliberation would focus upon. Nonetheless, it was still limited as information was provided by the House’s organisers; for example, it chose the experts who performed the topic presentations to members, which were heavily depended upon to formulate proposals for the People’s Charter in these subject areas. Deliberation was therefore narrowed towards the issues covered by the experts, diluting the ability of members to conduct option analysis, despite the broad range of topic-specific issues which were covered in the presentations. However, this was likely to occur, specifically for the limited period the assembly ran for, only covering 72 hours, which demanded deliberative sessions produced results, a problem participants consistently brought up with facilitators as impeding on their ability to produce fully-fledged proposals they found satisfactory [pp. 46, 63: 1]. Though popular control was diluted, in this situation it was a necessity so the various citizen decided topics could be adequately considered.
‘Option selection’ was performed excellently by the House, not only where participants the sole drafters of the proposals forwarded, they exclusively decided upon which ones would be included onto the People’s Charter. The only instance where it was not fully achieved, was through facilitators drafting the proposals on the topic ‘Housing, Education, Public Services and Other’; this was a minor failing, occurring o satisfy members frustrations over confined time and feelings of being overwhelmed [p. 64, 1]. Proposals required a 70% super-majority to be included onto the charter, signifying the strength of citizen control, Spada & Peixoto question the validity of super majority voting stating it favours results enforcing the status quo [p. 152, 13]. However, in the case, the radical transformation called for in the People’s Charter suggests a clear break from meeting status quo objectives.
Lastly, concerning implementation, due to Assemble being as pressure organisation and not affiliated with the government there is no clear pathway to how any of the policy recommendations in the Charter could be implemented. In this regard, the House fails to meet Smith’s requirement for popular control. Nevertheless, Assemble remains committed to the People’s Charter, and has declared its intention to bring the Charter before Parliament [p. 98, 1].
Considered Judgement:
Within his framework, Smith presents considered judgement as the ‘capacity of citizens to make thoughtful and reflective judgements’; under this criterion, the House of the People’s effectiveness is based on the quality of the deliberation it produced, along with deliberations ability to generate appreciation of others viewpoints [p. 24, 12].
Engagement in deliberation was the core of the House’s structure; over the three days, eight in person deliberative sessions were held. Organisers strived to produce a well organised, reflective deliberative process as seen in the role played by facilitators and the usage of the AI tool Dembrane in discussions. Experienced facilitators oversaw table groups; they kept sessions productive and where aided in trying to encourage problem solving by Dembrane’s recorded transcripts [p. 26, 29-30: 1]. These could be subsequently reflected upon to see how participants could reach consensus and were successful in encouraging more thoughtful engagement between members, especially for the more timed members who eventually smoothed into the process. The deliberative process is particularly effective in developing engagement in the less politically active, helping them to think participatory wise, as it directly challenges pre-existing knowledge [14]. The House was also advantaged in generating considered judgement by in person deliberation which reduced the appeal of distractions due to the proximity and directness with other participants creating an expectation to contribute
Along with constructing quality deliberation, substantial procedures were followed by the House and its facilitators to allow constructive interaction with different viewpoints. Rules of engagement collectively agreed upon by members reflect Smith’s ‘enlarged mentality’ as it enabled opposing views to be expressed and discussed in respectful tones, enforced by facilitators [p. 24, 12] [p.24, 1]. By creating a non-hostile environment, conflict was a rare occurrence, which allowed for more consideration by members of views their prejudices usually dismissed. This graceful attitude proved a success as remarkable consensus was achieved within group decisions to draft and submit proposals for the Charter, acknowledgement must be made of the ability of the assembly to produce an extensive programme of policy recommendations with consistently high endorsement by all members, clearly reflecting its capability to deliver considerate outcomes [pp. 79-97, 1].
Transparency:
For a citizens’ assembly such as the House to be deemed ‘legitimate and trustworthy’, it must be open to citizens scrutiny, Smith separates transparency into two aspects. One concerns providing openness to those participating within the process and the other concerns allowing judgement by the wider public [p. 25-6, 12].
Concerning participants, the House of the People was continuously clear. Participants were informed on the first day of the purpose of the assembly and how it would be conducted [p. 23, 1], making it clear to participants the People’s Charter has no immediate means of being implemented. Throughout the sitting members were continuously informed on why certain decisions had been made and of the process conducted to decide upon the issues they were deliberating.
External transparency is more ambiguous, as its adherence to Smith’s framework alters considerably; the preparation before the House convened saw a substantial effort by Assemble to build publicity. Action undertaken included a social media campaign to encourage the public to apply to the recruitment process, and a network of various local citizen assemblies was established across communities which were directly connected to the House of the People project, supporting its organisation [p. 12-3, 1]. This great effort becomes hollow considering the reduced publicity received when the assembly was sitting, it’s not elaborated on if the social media campaign was adapted; furthermore, with its conclusion the action taken was simply just the publication of a report, along with an article by an independent evaluator which sits inaccessible behind a pay wall [15].
Therefore, under Smith’s conditions the House performs weakly, it’s heavily restricted attempts to garner public outreach however may be justified by how Van der Does & Jacquet note the impacts mini-publics on the wider public seems to be positive but considerably limited, making their effect unclear [16]. Acknowledging this may help to explain why the House abandoned aspects of transparency, especially regarding its limited funding, which it chose to gear towards improving inclusiveness by covering accommodation and transportation costs to bring in members from geographically disadvantages areas [p. 28, 1]. Nonetheless, the assembly’s openness with its participants fulfils enough of Smith’s to a reasonable extent, even as poor public outreach lowers its compliance.
Efficiency:
Under his framework, Smith frames efficiency as the trade-off between costs and benefits for participating with a democratic innovation [p. 26, 12]. It asks whether the costs of time, administration, burden on citizens, and money expended to convene House of the People is justified within the value of its result.
Concerning this, the House performs well; the burden demanded on the citizen was lessened by Assemble covering the time and monetary cost for most members, increasing the incentive to attend. After the sitting was completed, participants consistently described favourably their experience of the process, saying it left them feeling empowered and proud in the result [p. 76, 1]. Furthermore, some members have continued to remain engaged, helping organise the second sitting in September 2026 [p. 99, 1]. As for the organisers, Assemble, the success of the House of the People in displaying citizens could competently deliberate on serious issues to produce thoughtful proposals furthered its goal of the establishing of a permanent deliberative body in the UK’s political system. The announcement of the assembly’s 2026 reconvening date vividly shows the confidence placed in the House of the People to stimulate change.
Among all the involved groups, there is a strong consensus the House was worth the costs spent to enact it, the ‘acceptable costs’ had been satiated [p.26, 12]
Transferability:
Transferability for Smith assesses whether a democratic innovation can be reflected contemptibly in different contexts [p.26, 12]. Citizens’ Assemblies are very portable models, with multiple bodies organised across the world, from British Columbia to Ireland.
Smith also frames transferability as including the ability for the innovation to function within different regimes, mini-publics have been replicated in authoritarian states such as China to perform an advisory role [p. 227, 16]. However, in the case of the House of the People, such transferability will be hard to replicate; it by all means is a grassroots assembly, organised by and funded by advocacy groups which seek to empower the citizens with decision-making authority. All these requirements will not be enthusiastically accepted in authoritarian states.
Another core aspect of transferability refers to its issue saliency, sometimes the issue the citizen assembly addresses is not priority in a different context. On this matter, the House holds particular relevance, owing to one of its wider goals seeking to reverse the trend of declining faith in democracy through mobilising citizens to propose solutions themselves. Warren & Gastil note how rising partisanism has led citizens to naturally distrust all things ’political’, withdrawing from public life, but they emphasise citizen assemblies possess the ability to amend this, due to their responsiveness [17]. This suggests favourably for the capacity of the House of the People to be reflected across much of the Western world where political apathy leads to growing feelings of powerlessness [18]. Replication would require a tremendous amount of political will and grassroots activity, nonetheless, it’s commitment to enhancing the role of the citizen in decision-making leaves the House with high transferability potential.
To conclude, the House of the People sits neatly into Smith’s analytical framework, complying considerably well with all six goods. This is encouraging as the project seeks to enhance the ability citizens have to decide on solving the issues which impact them most so to combat growing disconnection and apathy which engulfs the state of as traditional institutions seem unresponsive. Although, caution must be considered regarding how the assembly will seek to address issues concerning its transparency as it prepares for its second sitting, the inability to evoke wider public image and trust can prove fatal in such an ambitious project. Furthermore, improvements over its selection process and learning phases can further aid in the House of the People members being inclusive and achieving considered judgements.
References
[1] The House of the People (2025), The People’s Charter: Full Report on the proceedings of the House of the People. Available at: https://www.houseofthepeople.uk/the-peoples-charter
[2] Long, K. (2026) ‘The politics on mini-publics: How organisers justify local climate mini-publics in the United Kingdom’, The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 28 (1), pp. 119-143
[3] Democratic Society (2021) Newham Citizens’ Assembly on Greening the Borough – Recommendations Report Executive Summary.
[4] University College London, The Constitution Unit (2017) A Considered Public Voice on Brexit: The Report of the Citizens’ Assembly on Brexit.
[5] Prosser, B. et al. (2018) ‘Pedagogy and deliberative democracy: insights from recent experiments in the United Kingdom’, Contemporary Politics, 24 (2), pp. 210-32
[6] Del Valle Ruiz, A. G. (2017) ‘The Slow Death of Western Democracy and What Comes After’, Journal of International Affairs, 71.1, pp. 161-174
[7] Uberoi, E. and Johnston, N. (2022) Political Disengagement in the UK: Who is disengaged?, Briefing Paper 07501, London: House of Commons Library, p. 7
[8] he Electoral Commission (2025) Public Attitudes 2025 [Online]. Available from: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/research-reports-and-data/public-attitudes/public-attitudes-2025
[9] Office for National Statistics (2025) Public Opinions and Social Trends, Great Britain: June 2025, p. 2
[10] Assemble (n.d.) About Assemble [Online]. Available from: https://timetoassemble.org/about.
[11] Institute for Government (2024), Citizens’ assemblies: What are citizens’ assemblies and how do they work?. Available from: https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/citizens-assemblies
[12] Smith, G. (2009). Democratic innovations: Designing institutions for citizen participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
[13] Spada, P. & Peixoto, T. C. (2025) ‘The limits of representativeness in Citizens’ Assemblies: A Critical Analysis of Democratic Minipublics’, Journal of Sortition 1 (1), pp. 137-59
[14] Jacquet, V. (2019) ‘The role and future of deliberative mini-publics: A citizen perspective’, Political Studies, 67(3), pp. 639-57
[15] Roberts, I. (2025) ‘Exclusive: House of the People – a Case Study’, Antiparty Journal, 16 September. Available at: https://antiparty.substack.com/p/exclusive-house-of-the-people-a-case?utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true
[16] Van der Does, R. & Jacquet, V. (2021) ‘Small-scale Deliberation and Mass Democracy: A systematic Review of the Spillover Effects of Deliberative Minipublics’, Political Studies, 71, pp. 218-37
[17] Warren, M. E. & Gastil, J. (2015) ’Can Deliberative Minipublics Address the Cognitive Challenges of Democratic Citizenship?’, The Journal of Politics, 77(2), pp. 562-74
[18] Dean, D. G. (1965), ’Powerlessness and Political Apathy’, Social Science, 40(4), pp. 208-13
