Back

@krans

We have a representative body – The Commons. We have achieved representation; we have achieved Democracy.

Democracy has one major fault: Party Politics. This (plus any twit can get elected) is why we need a true Senate.

You can't revise a house full of people allied to party dogma with a house full of people dis-informed by The Daily Mail!

When forming any solution, it's important to regularly refer back to the problem: what ultimately are we trying to achieve?

@krans I agree with this and have been suggesting the same for years. It'd be much more representative of our society. As long as the resignation/refusal part isn't gamed/weaponised to "encourage" resignations from some groups more than others e.g. from historically disadvantaged groups.

@krans

I was with you up to half way through this point :)

> Appointing members from chartered professional bodies and learned societies enshrines existing systematic inequalities.

How so?

We have a House of Representatives (Commons) to represent the will of the people. To revise we need a true Senate–a house of non-partisan 'elders'–to represent logical reasoning.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater: remove hereditary and ex-PMs cronies. Keep what's left. A Senate. Job done.