A check is a good idea, and a bicameral legislature is common in
many democracies. The problem with an unelected body is that it is
not accountable to anyone, and in the case of the House of Lords simply
represents a privileged class.
But the house of lords has people in it from places other than the
"privileged class". It's not just "Lord Haw Haw of Poshville".
I am quite aware of the crude system in use in Westminster elections,
and I accept your point. As a matter of interest, do you favor the
use of PR (either the List System as used in mainland Europe or the Single
Transferable Vote used here and in Northern Ireland) rather than first
past the post ?
I reluctantly prefer first part the post. For these reasons:
1) It makes for real goverment - ie "someone is in charge".
2) It stops the horsetrading involved in pallying up with greens, fascists
etc in order to get things done.
3) Its allowed for centuries of a consistantly well running legislature (I'm
not talking of government).
4) It makes election night exciting!! ;-)
I reluctantly prefer it because I want Blair out - and currently boundaries
make that a very difficult thing to do in the FPTP system.
>>As the Noble Member said "move with the times".
>
>Crime is higher than ever.
>Maybe I should become a criminal so as to "move with the times"
A facile analogy.
I was being flippant.
;-)
