It's because of things like this that I'm wary of a wholly elected upper house. I'd quite like something like 70-80% elected, with an independent appointments panel that aimed to replicate something like the cross-benchers. A remit of something like, in politicospeak, "to appoint outstanding individuals from outside the sphere of elected politics" - so University professor, yes, doctor, yes, successful businessman, yes, childcare expert, yes, journalist, yes. Former MEP, no, political researcher, no, party fundraiser, no, unless they've been out of it for years and years.
There might be a grey area for a local councillor (but probably not an elected mayor). The only place I'd bend my own rule is that I'd like to see a place in the upper house for all former speakers (of either house).
It's not perfect, but I think it would be better than allowing the possibility of another tier of solely career politicians.
I still like the idea of election by lot, for about 30% of both houses. The downside is that you'd get people like Palin in power, the upside is that everyone would suddenly care what parliament was doing and we'd be much nearer to democracy that simply having the choice of who rules us.
Comments 2
There might be a grey area for a local councillor (but probably not an elected mayor). The only place I'd bend my own rule is that I'd like to see a place in the upper house for all former speakers (of either house).
It's not perfect, but I think it would be better than allowing the possibility of another tier of solely career politicians.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment