We're finally going to move towards an elected House of Lords, or a Senate as it might be called. The current life peers will be replaced in tranches, or so I understand it, by elected members.
Oh, goody-goody gum-drops—another House stuffed with corrupt, self-serving party apparatchiks and venal, mindless lobby-fodder.
I can hardly contain my joy.
It seems that, far from realising that they have utterly fucked up the country and buggering off both quickly and quietly, NuLabour are intending to entrench themselves in at least one House for as long as possible—because you can bet that it'll be bloody socialists stuffing the red benches.
UPDATE: I left a comment similar to the above over at Kerry's place. Her response was as follows:
DK—your alternative to democratic elections is what, precisely?
To which I have replied thusly...
As The Bloke's Cookbook said [in that he maintained that I objected to "the travesty of democracy that sits in the House of Commons", rather than democracy per se].
But I do not value democracy, in that I don't think that it is a good system (and certainly not the "representative" democracy that we have)—to cite the old canard, it's just the least worst.
Democracy delivers the tyranny of the majority, and not even a very big majority at that. What this means is that democracy delivers a system whereby a majority can vote, for instance, to steal as much of my money—or the money of the minority—as they like, and I cannot object. Nor can I opt out.
That is morally wrong. But at least, some will say, democracy allows the majority to vote out a bad government.
Except that it doesn't—or not in our "democracy".
This government, Kerry, was elected by 21.6% of the electorate: that is tyranny of the minority.
For me, the virtue of the Lords was that they were not elected, and they did not have to curry favour with either the political parties or the electorate.
As such, they have tended to uphold the basic rights and freedoms—as defined by our constitution—of the minority: they have been the only defenders of those who are effectively disenfranchised by our "democracy".
I have written a number of times about my dislike of democracy—especially the version that we practise—and I don't intend to rehearse my arguments right now (although I have another post on democracy and the lack of choice in the political parties in the offing).
I am always surprised at the fact that so many on the Left are fans of democracy: they seem constantly to back laws against the oppression of, say, homosexuals or ethnic communities, whilst being more than happy to oppress libertarians, etc. in order to achieve their aims. But then I am well aware that the Left has no moral consistency—it's just thoroughly annoying when they paint themselves as the moral arbiters of society.
Anyway, if you'd like a similar, but better-argued, perspective on democracy, may I recommend Doctor Vee's rather good post on the subject.