Not necessarily a bad thing, TBH. Think of it like our Senate in the US. The Senate is a longer view, while the House is the shorter populous public-opinion. Not sure of the Parliamentary influences, but someone who was as respected and revered in an status where one COULD get the longest view on staff (so to say) - why not?

The Senate doesn't pretend they're powerless figureheads who exist for tourism while exercising power in secret.

>Think of it like our Senate in the US. The Senate is a longer view, while the House is the shorter populous public-opinion.

Huh? Is a six year term rather than a four year term rally that much longer a horizon. Maybe this view made since when the senate seats were an appointed position. but ever since it became an elected position its ceased to have any appreciable difference from a seat in the house.

House terms are two years, not four.

The existence of the US senate is a disaster, making the country practically ungovernable (it’s extremely difficult to pass any law without both parties agreeing). It’s really not a great comparison.

Well, originally it wasn't designed to just having two parties. There used to be more ... and there should be more. A two party system just doesn't work.

We already have an upper chamber in the UK, the House of Lords.