[Captain Crash]

(Original post by gladders)
I'm saying that, as pro-electors keep telling us that having both elected chambers is some kind of basic human right, it behooves us to test this claim by looking at the rest of the world.

What do you know, it's a false claim.

I don't believe anyone serious suggests that democracy is a human because the rest of the world. Hell, if that's our benchmark, we'd still have slavery.

(Original post by gladders)

I would argue that to a point, yes; Lords are meant to be experts in their field, so they have a great deal of knowledge about how such matters inpact on the ground; for example, Baroness Butler-Sloss, a former Family Court judge, has a strong reputation on adoption law and child welfare. Or Baroness Eaton, who is a town councillor and member of the Local Government Association, is highly knowledgeable on local government mechanics.

Quite, although I might point out that the same was true in the commons until relatively recently. You would have MPs who used to be army officers whose opinions were genuinely valued by all sides on matters of defence - indeed, it was the opinion of Sir Roger Keyes, ex-admiral and MP, who brought down Neville Chamberlain over his opinion of the British war effort.

However, whilst there are experts within the Lords, it would take a very blinkered view to suggest that the Lords is filling up with anything but hand picked political flunkies (i.e. the likes of Prescott, Warsi etc...) and like the Commons (although to a lesser extent) isn't the bastion of expertise it once was. A prime example of this is the recent NHS bill which, despite the well thought out opinion of experts like Lord Owen, was pushed through by political ideologues.

(Original post by gladders)
Secondly, they simply have more time, and without the whips, are able to self-regulate: the Commons sucks at scrutinising delegated legislation because the whips do what they can to frustrate any attempts to change how it scrutinises legislation.

Would this neccesarily change with an elected house? Would time suddenly disappear because people are elected? (Also, FWIW, the Lords do have whips, although understandably they are less effective than they are in the commons)

[gladders]

(Original post by Captain Crash)
I don't believe anyone serious suggests that democracy is a human because the rest of the world. Hell, if that's our benchmark, we'd still have slavery.

Tell that to the DPM - he keeps saying it's a basic necessity. It clearly isn't.

Quite, although I might point out that the same was true in the commons until relatively recently. You would have MPs who used to be army officers whose opinions were genuinely valued by all sides on matters of defence - indeed, it was the opinion of Sir Roger Keyes, ex-admiral and MP, who brought down Neville Chamberlain over his opinion of the British war effort.

Unfortunately times have changed since the 1930s and many MPs (although not all I'll grant you) are career politicians. If that were ever to change I'd be delighted; but at the moment it's quite deficient.

However, whilst there are experts within the Lords, it would take a very blinkered view to suggest that the Lords is filling up with anything but hand picked political flunkies (i.e. the likes of Prescott, Warsi etc...) and like the Commons (although to a lesser extent) isn't the bastion of expertise it once was. A prime example of this is the recent NHS bill which, despite the well thought out opinion of experts like Lord Owen, was pushed through by political ideologues.

I don't think the story of the NHS Bill is entirely as you portray, but you do make a good point and I accept it. I don't seek to defend the present House of Lords. It's far from perfect and you highlight a very obvious valid criticism. However election of the Lords won't address the problem and invites a great deal more problems. Rather than doing this, the best option is to make appointment to the Lords properly meritocratic with all such peerages being in the gift of a statutory Appointments Commission, which could make selections based on decent criteria. The power of appointment should be removed from the PM.

Would this neccesarily change with an elected house? Would time suddenly disappear because people are elected? (Also, FWIW, the Lords do have whips, although understandably they are less effective than they are in the commons)

I think time management in the Lords would change certainly, as the members will seek to deal with constituency matters (I don't care how fervently Clegg denies it, they will encroach on MP territory), and more significantly the Lords will start to seek more legislative initiative to compete with the Commons. Right now it tends to reserve itself to scrutiny and only very occasionally proposing its own legislation.

[ThinkEmily]

Any debate on Lords reform should begin with 'what is the purpose of the upper house'. Too often the beginning is 'lets make it more democratic'etc. I'm sorry to say but elections are no guarantee of quality. Especially not from list PR on 15 year terms. Parties putting their favourites to the top of the list is essentially appointing, as at present.

Reform is needed. Remove Bishops and remaining hereditaries. Set rules on attendance (cut some more that way) and reform the allowances system.

The core issue is that our system makes the Lords a body for scrutiny. Electing gives more legitimacy and would result in a challenge to Commons primary and potentially stagnation. Even after the reforms made by Labour we have seen a bolder, more challenging Lords. That was the result of only relatively minor reforms. The effect of proposals should not be underestimated.



This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my GT-I9100

[gladders]

Government wins Second Reading, but 124 Noes. A substantial Tory rebellion.

[gladders]

Interestingly, Dennis Skinner, the Beast of Bolsover, opposed Second Reading!

[TheHistoryStudent]

Personally I'm not in favour of lords reform, only really for the reason that I think than if they were elected, the lords would become little more than another layer of the House of Commons, with lords being elected based on what they say at election time, spewing out empty promises and sound bites, rather than any actual expertise they may have actually being put to good use.

What I think would be better, would be still an unelected group as it is now, but one where entry is based on your skill-set - e.g. if you are a doctor/scientist/business person etc, and so have specialist knowledge in a particular field, and hence whether government policy is a load of **** or not... (it's also for this reason that I think religious leaders should be allowed in too - bishops, rabbis, Imans etc...) - selection of a potential lord being done by an independent organisation from government/parties, accountability being to that organisation/the public, and the lord being able to be sacked if they get up to no good...

Those are my initial thoughts on the subject anyway, although admittedly I'm not that clued up on the faults/benefits of the current system... To be honest I think ordinary people are more concerned with the economic situation than a reform of democracy in this country at the moment. And of course, as a student, I'm just glad Nick Clegg didn't get his way on this issue... another nail in the coffin hopefully for either his own leadership or the Lib Dems for when the next election comes around.

[ajp100688]

As other people have said the Lords don't have any great powers. They can suggest amendments and send bills back to the Commons but if it goes through this process three times then the Commons can just pass the bill anyways regardless of the Lord's problems with it.

Thus all they do is use past experience to edit out mistakes and improve legislation. Why do we need to elect these people who essentially are proofreaders of our legislation. It's all they do, if the Commons wants to ignore them then it does and has done many times.

By making them elected all we'll get is yet more professional politicians and second rate ones at that who couldn't get into the Commons. It's a pointless reform, only being pushed by the Lib Dems because they failed at getting AV and see a PR elected House of Lords as a trojan horse to get more influence in the parliamentary system. How long do you think it'll be until the elected Lib Dems in the Lords start getting very vocal and acting almost as though they're members of the Commons, in order to gain the Lib Dems more publicity? It's pretty telling that the Liberal Democrats keep refusing to hold a referendum on the issue, which is hilariously hypocritical when their whole argument for Lords reform is that the country needs more democracy.

[goape]

(Original post by cesca42)
The reactionary answer would be "DEMOCRACY!!!" That was my first reaction when asked if I support an elected second chamber.

But then you think about it... do we really want more party politics? Can we deal with more party politics?

I say yes, get rid of life and hereditary peers. Instead, fill the chamber with experts in various fields so they can scrutinise legislation in a non-partisan way, without subscribing to party politics.

Yep I came in this thread originally thinking elected House of Lords FTW, I leave it agreeing with you 100%.

[Reformed2010]

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
There's little point in abolishing the chamber which is constituted entirely from people who have absolutely no need to worry about pandering to the voters for reelection, therefore can focus on the long-term welfare of the country rather than scoring short-term political points. There are several benefits of the current Westminster system over the US Congressional system.

You assume the Lords amendments are for the benefit and welfare of the country. On what basis are you judging this, how are you reaching such conclusions? I like to think the average citizen knows or should be allowed to decide what is best for themselves. As well as having a reasonable guess what is good for the country as a whole. Clearly you assume the Lords are great and wise, who should be allowed to amend laws and have no method of being punished when they make decisions we, the people, disagree with. Screw that. You can stick your paternalism and shove it. YES TO LORDS REFORM.

[gladders]

(Original post by Reformed2010)
You assume the Lords amendments are for the benefit and welfare of the country. On what basis are you judging this, how are you reaching such conclusions? I like to think the average citizen knows or should be allowed to decide what is best for themselves. As well as having a reasonable guess what is good for the country as a whole. Clearly you assume the Lords are great and wise, who should be allowed to amend laws and have no method of being punished when they make decisions we, the people, disagree with. Screw that. You can stick your paternalism and shove it. YES TO LORDS REFORM.

Reformed2010, I don't think he's arguing that the Lords gets it right every time; but they offer an informed and different perspective from the Commons. Nonetheless, the Commons can always override the Lords if it's convinced it is correct - and in that way the democratic imperative is served.

Can you answer something for me: what is it about the Lords that you want to reform?

[Reformed2010]

(Original post by gladders)
Reformed2010, I don't think he's arguing that the Lords gets it right every time; but they offer an informed and different perspective from the Commons. Nonetheless, the Commons can always override the Lords if it's convinced it is correct - and in that way the democratic imperative is served.

Can you answer something for me: what is it about the Lords that you want to reform?

Did you know Bills that start in the House of Lords cannot be overridden using the Parliament Act? thus the argument the Commons can always veto the Lords is mute. On top of this I disagree with the notion that laws I am expected to obey, should be influenced, amended, created or interfered with by people who lack my, and the country as a whole, legitimacy. I don't care if the Commons through its democratic legitimacy 'sanctions' the Lords, the Lords still have powers over legislation. On top of this, how then do we punish the members of the Lords who take decisions we disagree with? How do I remove those who vote against issues like Civil Marriage, Abortion, Constitutional arrangements and so on that I disagree or agree with? I can punish my MP with my vote but I can't punish a Lord.

[gladders]

(Original post by Reformed2010)
Did you know Bills that start in the House of Lords cannot be overridden using the Parliament Act? thus the argument the Commons can always veto the Lords is mute.

I think you mean ‘moot’. Anyway, why would the government start a Bill in the Lords, where, as you say, the Parliament Act doesn’t apply, when it can start them in the Commons?

On top of this I disagree with the notion that laws I am expected to obey, should be influenced, amended, created or interfered with by people who lack my, and the country as a whole, legitimacy. I don't care if the Commons through its democratic legitimacy 'sanctions' the Lords, the Lords still have powers over legislation.

You’re welcome to believe that, but why should I care? I myself happen to be quite content with the Lords legislating, as long as the Commons always has the final say. Why do you think your view is superior to mine?

On top of this, how then do we punish the members of the Lords who take decisions we disagree with? How do I remove those who vote against issues like Civil Marriage, Abortion, Constitutional arrangements and so on that I disagree or agree with? I can punish my MP with my vote but I can't punish a Lord.

Because the Lords do not have the final say. If anything naff comes out of Parliament, it can only ever be made with the approval of the Commons. Why would you need to remove Lords when they never have the final say?

[Polka Dot]

I am in favour of Re-forming the the house of lords. By that I mean I would like to reestablish hereditary peers. This would restore independentl minded, free thinking individuals to parliament. They would be able to vote with their conscience rather than the party whip. Hereditary peers owe their position to an accident of birth rather than party patronage.

The current system has left the house of lords filled with party cronies and wealthy party donors. How is this better than Hereditary peerage? No one chooses the family they are born into it is left up to God and I think that is a better system of ensuring our second house is filled with free thinking individuals who owe nothing to outside people. A hereditary house of lords is exactly the upper house we need to keep our elected politicians in check, who feel because they have been elected they somehow have a mandate to change our constitution willy nilly to benefit themselves.

[Teaddict]

Well the argument is that of democratic legitimacy and accountability. However, It seems curious that many of those seeking to enlighten us as to the benefits of an elected Upper House oppose reform in the Commons. Surely if proportional representation and enhanced democratic credentials is good for the House of Lords, surely they should be equally as beneficial, if not more so, for the Commons? I mean seriously, in the 21st century, surely we should be electing our Members of Parliament by proportional representation?

Fair play to the Liberal Democrats of course, as a pathetically small party they inherently support electoral reform and democratic changes to the House of Commons, but the Conservatives and Labour? Shame on them, shame. How can you justify the weak of the two chambers being more democratic than the stronger chamber? Surely that defies logic? The strongest chamber should surely be subjected to greater democratic scrutiny than a mere revising chamber?

As far as I am concerned, however, the desire for effective governance, in respect of this chamber, should outweigh the desire for democratic legitimacy and accountability. I would much rather the House of Lords was entirely unelected but whose membership is drawn from a wide sample of society and professions, and whose job is to revise; as it currently does, legislation from the Commons.

I made a post surrounding constitutional reform, in respect of the Commons and Lords, on another forum - I made the following conclusions in terms of the reforms we should seek to enact:

House of Commons

- To be elected by a form of proportional or semi-proportional representation: My preference is personally the system used in Welsh elections, the Additional Member System whereby an individual can elect an MP and a party by the use of two votes.

- Constituency boundaries to be equalised so as to ensure that an individuals constituency vote is worth the same in each seat.

- The use of open primaries to ensure that party representatives are selected by the general public, or by caucuses; a meeting of the parties local supporters and members. Such a thing is very rare in the United Kingdom, however, has been shown to work. The most recent example of which was the selection of Dr Sarah Wollaston as the Conservative Party candidate for Totnes in the 2010 General Election; the method of selection was an open primary.

- The use of Citizens Initiatives to ensure that Members of Parliament are true to their constituents - if a large body of a constituency feels unsatisfied by their Member of Parliament, they should have the right to revoke his or her seat in Parliament and call for a new election. Referendums in the ability and competence of Members of Parliament would not only prevent individuals from becoming complacent but would also give due weight to constituency interests rather than whip and party interest.

- An automatic assumption that constitutional changes either enacted domestically or internationally (European Union anyone?) should be put to a ballot of the people. Clement Attlee may have considered referendums a device for demagogues and dictators, however, on issues of important constitutional reforms, the public must be consulted. The Coalition government took some lead in the European Union "Referendum Lock", however, this was just symbolism as it relies on Ministers sanctioning what is considered important; personally, I do not trust Ministers to sanction what is important, thus it should go to the public to decide. It was once the argument that referendums were incompatible with the British way of doing things, however, given that there have been at least fifty referendums, at either local or national level, since 1997, such an argument has long since died.

- A high-threshold veto-referendum to allow the public to block government policy should there be significant public opposition to it. There should be a debate surrounding whether such a block should be permanent or session dependent; The former requiring a referendum to reverse the veto.

- Nemo iudex in causa sua - no one should be a judge in their own cause and this principle should apply to Members of Parliament as well. The idea that it is Members of Parliament themselves who set their pay and allowance scales is insulting and such powers should be outsourced.

House of Lords

- Removal of the Prime Ministers ability to appoint Peers.

- Removal of any assumptions as to automatic peerages; former Prime Ministers, Speakers of the House, etc

- Removal of the annual party-list appointments

- All powers surrounding appointments to be handed to an Independent Appointments Commission - perhaps named the Royal Appointments Commission (I do like including the term Royal in names) to be accountable to a Select Committee of the Commons and Lords with powers to veto appointees on grounds of questionable interests and arrangements.

- A temporary ban of five years on Members of Parliament seeking appointment to the Lords. It would be ridiculous to permanently ban honorable and respectable Members of Parliament from further serving their country by seeking appointment to the Lords, however, it should not be an alternative route into government and should thus be subject to a temporary ban. Perhaps extent the temporary ban to candidates as well.

- Establishment of a retirement age based on attendance and participation.

- Restoration of the Law Lords ability to sit within the House with enhanced powers to debate and vote upon criminal legislation - it seems odd to deny experts in law, and our highest ranking judges, their opinion on criminal legislation. Yes it violates the separation of powers argument, however, such a principle is inherently violated as a result of ours being a parliamentary system; the executive is drawn from the legislature thus not a separation. History also serves as a case in point that the admittance of the judiciary into our legislature did no damage to either institution, our concepts of justice, or the fairness and independence of our judiciary.

- If one really desires a representative element to the House of Lords, perhaps we should derive influence from the German system whereby the Lander are represented in the Upper House. In our case, perhaps we should give counties representation in the Lords; assuming we desperately want a representative element.

[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by Reformed2010)
You assume the Lords amendments are for the benefit and welfare of the country. On what basis are you judging this, how are you reaching such conclusions? I like to think the average citizen knows or should be allowed to decide what is best for themselves. As well as having a reasonable guess what is good for the country as a whole. Clearly you assume the Lords are great and wise, who should be allowed to amend laws and have no method of being punished when they make decisions we, the people, disagree with. Screw that. You can stick your paternalism and shove it. YES TO LORDS REFORM.

Most Parliamentary amendments and bills are not for the benefit of the country, and this is true not just for the Lords but also for the Commons. The House of Lords has, in recent years, been the last defence against the erosion of important civil liberties pushed through by elected diktats in the Commons. An unelected chamber consisting of knowledgeable, well-intentioned, non-political figures, filled with a sense of duty towards the public, can easily be tempered with an elected House of Commons. Clearly there are instances in the past when the Commons has acted against the public will. It obviously has not occurred to you that citizens do not decide for themselves. We have a representative democracy, not a direct one, and there is nothing stopping a majority of MPs voting against the will of the public (and, indeed, very little stopping the Lords from blocking it). Your definition of 'paternalism' is obviously wrong since the Commons, filled with MPs who have some sense that they have right to vote on every aspect of peoples' lives, have spent the last few decades passing paternalistic legislation giving more power to the state. I'd rather not have another chamber of career politicians who think they have my interests at heart when they vote to give bureaucrats more of a say in how I live my life.

[Reformed2010]

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
Most Parliamentary amendments and bills are not for the benefit of the country, and this is true not just for the Lords but also for the Commons. The House of Lords has, in recent years, been the last defence against the erosion of important civil liberties pushed through by elected diktats in the Commons. An unelected chamber consisting of knowledgeable, well-intentioned, non-political figures, filled with a sense of duty towards the public, can easily be tempered with an elected House of Commons. Clearly there are instances in the past when the Commons has acted against the public will. It obviously has not occurred to you that citizens do not decide for themselves. We have a representative democracy, not a direct one, and there is nothing stopping a majority of MPs voting against the will of the public (and, indeed, very little stopping the Lords from blocking it). Your definition of 'paternalism' is obviously wrong since the Commons, filled with MPs who have some sense that they have right to vote on every aspect of peoples' lives, have spent the last few decades passing paternalistic legislation giving more power to the state. I'd rather not have another chamber of career politicians who think they have my interests at heart when they vote to give bureaucrats more of a say in how I live my life.

Well excuse me, I've been studying Politics for three years (A level and First year at Undergraduate). I think I am fully aware of the form democracy the United Kingdom has. We have a Liberal representative democracy with a constitutional monarchy. Although there are some who question how Liberal and representative this country really is, but that's another debate. My comment on the citizens knowing best was because I believe our lawmakers to be held to account by the people. We should have as much influence over the lawmaking of our country. Hence why I am in favour of more forms of direct democracy, such as the use of petition to recall MP's and more use referenda. Our lawmakers decisions and opinions should be scrutinised through the election process and thereafter. Do not underestimate the Politicians desire to please their constituency, you have those who risk their jobs over it. Again this is not to suggest this is the norm. Anyway, Instead of having lawmakers appointed, we should respect and trust the wants and needs of the citizens. But of course Politicians do not always respect the wishes of the electorate, hence the call for more uses of Direct Democracy needs to be used in British Politics.

No, my definition of paternalism is not wrong. You just fabricated what I stated in order to build your case against me. I never said MP's are not guilty of acting paternalistic. I simply claimed the institution and the process of selection is. The idea that Lords knows what is best for the whole country, that they have great wisdom the commons or the citizens have not, and that we should not be allowed to select the member is paternalistic by definition. Swap the Lords with Monarchy and you'd be straight out of 17th century era, defending the Monarchy on it's great paternalistic wisdom, inherit superiority and so on against the will of the people. You still have not provided me any evidence to suggest the Lords acts with greater wisdom, is intellectually and morally superior to the Commons. There are times when either House votes in a way that can be argued as to having more wisdom, intellect and moral superiority than the other. Largely depends on your Politics.

But MP's have experience of the world, many are/were lawyers, doctors, servicemen and woman, involved in business, finance and public affairs.

Did you know, some 12% of MP's come from the Teaching profession? 15% of MP's come from the Finance profession? 10% from Media, 19% from finance and 4% from Armed forces? (Smith Institute, Who Governs Britain) So no, these politicians do have knowledge and experience from the outside world.

People on here like to make big claims, massive generalisations and throw around neg rep when people disagree with them. Was hoping a little better in the UK Politics section.

(Original post by Cheese_Monster)
An elected House of Lords is not necessarily the way to go, but Blair or the Coalition now should reform it as to remove all Bishops from its composition.

Tony Blair isn't in government let alone Prime Minister. The last three PM's in order since 1997 is Blair, Brown and now Cameron...

[Cheese_Monster]

An elected House of Lords is not necessarily the way to go, but Blair or the Coalition now should reform it as to remove all Bishops from its composition.

[Xæthon]

(Original post by Cheese_Monster)
An elected House of Lords is not necessarily the way to go, but Blair or the Coalition now should reform it as to remove all Bishops from its composition.

Why should bishops be removed?

(Original post by Polka Dot)
I am in favour of Re-forming the the house of lords. By that I mean I would like to reestablish hereditary peers. This would restore independentl minded, free thinking individuals to parliament. They would be able to vote with their conscience rather than the party whip. Hereditary peers owe their position to an accident of birth rather than party patronage.

The current system has left the house of lords filled with party cronies and wealthy party donors. How is this better than Hereditary peerage? No one chooses the family they are born into it is left up to God and I think that is a better system of ensuring our second house is filled with free thinking individuals who owe nothing to outside people. A hereditary house of lords is exactly the upper house we need to keep our elected politicians in check, who feel because they have been elected they somehow have a mandate to change our constitution willy nilly to benefit themselves.

We all know whose fault that is (Blair's)...

[@Sam]

Because the Liberal-Democrats just love the idea of people like this reviewing legislation as it passes through government. Instead of experienced people who have worked in business, the military, the civil service or government they would rather twenty-five year olds whose life experience is their University degree and a short term job as a bank teller as we have seen in Australia with Ms Hanson-Young (of the Greens) who has repeatedly attempted to bring her child into the Senate just to demonstrate her credentials at representing single mothers oblivious to the fact that representation of the Australian people occurs in the lower house aptly named the House of Representatives.

Then when any serious issue happens and a real decision has to be made, as we have seen with the asylum seekers debacle she breaks down in tears, oblivious to the fact that the Greens are responsible, saying all how sad it is that refugees are crying instead of actually sorting the problem out. Then having wasted her speaking time she, along with all the other Senators exactly like her, vote down a last ditch piece of legislation drafted by a senior independent MP collaborating aspects of both Liberal and Labor policy to get it though so that the situation could be addressed. After this she then has the audacity to say that the Senate deserves its six week recess for winter, despite the on-going situations on the northern border and in the economy thus rendering the nation without a government.

http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2010/12/17/1225972/792679-christmas-island-boat-tragedy.gif]The fact that real people are dying because there is an elected upper house full of people who have no qualifications to make decisions about reviewing legislation[/url] and no commitment to their country. The moment you open the doors to anyone to enter an Upper House the moment the experience begins to drain and within two terms you will have an upper chamber with absolutely no experience.

I also fail to see how fifteen year terms would work as by the end any experience they had would be worthless, imagine if there were Senators serving now their experience of business would be from the early years of the widespread internet a completely different age, unless you expect them to work part time to keep up with things then it would be hard to justify their arguments in such debates.

[Reformed2010]

(Original post by @Sam)
Because the Liberal-Democrats just love the idea of people like this reviewing legislation as it passes through government. Instead of experienced people who have worked in business, the military, the civil service or government they would rather twenty-five year olds whose life experience is their University degree and a short term job as a bank teller as we have seen in Australia with Ms Hanson-Young (of the Greens) who has repeatedly attempted to bring her child into the Senate just to demonstrate her credentials at representing single mothers oblivious to the fact that representation of the Australian people occurs in the lower house aptly named the House of Representatives.

Then when any serious issue happens and a real decision has to be made, as we have seen with the asylum seekers debacle she breaks down in tears, oblivious to the fact that the Greens are responsible, saying all how sad it is that refugees are crying instead of actually sorting the problem out. Then having wasted her speaking time she, along with all the other Senators exactly like her, vote down a last ditch piece of legislation drafted by a senior independent MP collaborating aspects of both Liberal and Labor policy to get it though so that the situation could be addressed. After this she then has the audacity to say that the Senate deserves its six week recess for winter, despite the on-going situations on the northern border and in the economy thus rendering the nation without a government.

http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2010/12/17/1225972/792679-christmas-island-boat-tragedy.gif]The fact that real people are dying because there is an elected upper house full of people who have no qualifications to make decisions about reviewing legislation[/url] and no commitment to their country. The moment you open the doors to anyone to enter an Upper House the moment the experience begins to drain and within two terms you will have an upper chamber with absolutely no experience.

I also fail to see how fifteen year terms would work as by the end any experience they had would be worthless, imagine if there were Senators serving now their experience of business would be from the early years of the widespread internet a completely different age, unless you expect them to work part time to keep up with things then it would be hard to justify their arguments in such debates.

I am determined to dispel this myth and awful generalisation.

Some 12% of MP's come from the Teaching profession, 15% from the Finance profession, 10% from Media, 19% from finance and 4% from Armed forces. (Smith Institute, Who Governs Britain). So no, these politicians do have knowledge and experience from the outside world.