I didn't agree with almost anything in Lord Steel's contribution in The Guardian yesterday about why he opposes the current proposals to reform The House of Lords.
But one sentiment in particular shone out at me. He wrote:
"The suggestion that 20% of a future senate might be nominated will lead to a hybrid house and is an unwilling recognition that an elected chamber will lack the specialist expertise provided by those non-politicians in the Lords appointed precisely because of that expertise they bring from different walks of life."
I presume that he must feel the same applies to the 100% elected House of Commons.
Now I think there is an argument about the role of appointed experts in their field to lead policy - this is after all how it works in the US. But was Lord Steel really embarking on an attack on the qualifications of members of The Commons yesterday? I don't think he meant to, but...