It sounds great the way you put it.
But it will still be more of the same: here’s a bunch of party hacks, which would you like?
For many of us the answer is ‘neither’, we recognize that the second chamber must be different to be effective.
Delightfully put. But you are misunderstanding.
The petition is demanding that the people get to consider a range of options including, but not limited to, popular elections.
Some people (who are neither MPs nor peers) think that the status quo is better than another elected house. Others favour a ‘house of experts’.
Both groups are being denied a say.
See this comment from a member of the public to a BBC article on the subject:
Pre-legislative scrutiny by politicians of a proposal that is in the vested interests of politicians.
They’ve done more than usual so we should be happy. How gracious of them.
Don’t forget that this isn’t just some ordinary piece of proposed legislation.
How we make decisions is the most important decision we make.
We, and our children and grand-children, will have to live with the consequences, potentially for ever.
So we should ask for more. Indeed, we should demand the opportunity to vote for our ideas for the make-up of our parliament.
You are happy that parliament decides what happens to the second chamber because you like the way it’s going.
How can a house of whipped, party politicians scrutinize the bills of a house of whipped, party politicians?