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 — this whole page supporting an elected second chamber (not just the comments) has since been deleted — perhaps good reasoning is winning?]
rq4c 