Believe it or not Britain, we have the best legislative setup!

A word of caution to those who think having two elected houses is democratic and will be better for our politics. On the face of it, it is democratic but scratch below the surface and it is neither practical nor sensible. Just look at the US, for the best part of four years the poor souls hardly passed anything. Not because they are incapable but because of politics, and make no mistake that will be us if we turn our upper house into an elected house. It will become a filibustering chamber, our law making mechanism will stall and nothing will get passed.

Now, we do have our share of ping ponging between the two houses, but still lots get done and many bills become law, they get amended and passed with the cooperation of the majority. However, if our Lords become elected, it will lose not only the ability to be pragmatic and cooperative but also the specialist expertise of learned men and women from all walks of life who are loyal to queen and country, not a political party.

As it stands, we have elected local councilors, elected regional assemblies, elected members of parliament and elected members of the European parliament. We most defiantly don’t need another elected body when many of our laws come ready made from Europe anyway!

There is defiantly no need for an elected Upper House!

However the Lords can do with becoming less of a chamber for those who failed electorally and those rewarded for political niceties and revert to being primarily a body of specialist knowledge that scrutinizes in greater detail bills that have been approved by the Commons. That expertise lent itself to knowledge but not political alliances and thus it should stay.

It will be wise to keep the Lords unelected, just reform how and why peers are appointed.