IN the current presidential play-off in the United States, the British media has missed a crucial point. The fact is that, despite arguments over the service files of Kerry and Bush, they are both men who have served in their country's defence forces in some way.
In fact, many members of the Senate and Congress have also served their country in one way or another. How does this compare with Britain? The biographies of our MPs and Lords show that very few have undergone this most patriotic act of service.
How can we entrust nation and defences to people whose desire to serve for anything other than monetary gain has yet to be proven?
I suggest a pre-requisite for 50 per cent of those on candidate lists to have spent at least four years in the services. Once elected to Parliament, we would then see more mature levels of debate than the current junior school slanging matches.
People would be represented better, and there would be far fewer pursuers of barmy "new age" ideologies.
ANDREW HALL,
Worcester.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article