This principle excuses people from thinking, which leads to bad government, bad decisions, and ruined lives. Unsupported opinions and beliefs are accepted by the majority when they are won-over by a good orator, or by someone who has previously gained their respect. Every time a politician (professional or amateur) expresses a view, someone should say “What is your reasoning?” and, if none is forthcoming or the reasoning is logically flawed, we should listen to someone else.
Recession [1]
Who should apologise for the economic mess?
Democracy is not just a right, it is also a responsibility; your right to vote entails your responsibility to understand what you are voting for. The voters who have elected profligate governments owe an apology to this generation’s children and grandchildren for the debt and diminished opportunity that they will inherit. No other apology should be demanded of anyone by anyone.
House of Lords reform [1]
Politics is perhaps the only profession for which no preparation is thought necessary.
Robert Louis Stevenson
Democracy is necessary for a well-functioning society, but it is not sufficient. Would you elect your surgeon or a structural engineer from a bunch of untrained, inexperienced candidates?
The second chamber could (and often does) provide what the first chamber does not, that is people with years of relevant experience, knowledge and understanding. Indeed, if the second chamber was exclusively meritocratic, it might make sense for some debates to begin there.
During the Thatcher years the Lords provided much needed, and effective, opposition.
One chamber is not enough: when it goes wrong there’s nothing to stop it. With a first-past-the-post commons, a meritocratic second chamber provides opposition to a landslide ruling party; with proportional representation, the second chamber could rescue parliament from the occasional deadlock.
An elected second chamber of independent Senators might provide these benefits IF a mechanism could be found for meritocratic shortlisting. The last thing we need is more party politics and the barriers that brings to sensible decision making.
The case against is very well argued by David Steel:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/feb/05/comment.lords
[Originally posted here: http://www.nickclegg.com/2009/02/elected-parliament-campaign/#comment-3990]
Important decisions [1]
The fundamental principle of both science and engineering is logical reasoning. These disciplines advance faster and more reliably than other areas of human endeavour. Indeed, when errors are made it is always because the reasoning was flawed. Consequently all important decision making, including politics, should employ this principle above all.
See Why is logic relevant to everyday life?
