I thought that my atrocious typing last night was so bad, I’m just going to leave the last entry as it is for your amusement! In my defense, I do have a cut on the tip of my middle finger...
I’m absolutely exhausted, but at least the week is more than halfway through and I can start looking forward to the weekend.
I see that the House of Commons has managed to reject every single proposal for completing their half-arsed attempt at making it “democratic”. I think the telling moment was when I heard a politician (unfortunately, I can’t remember who it was) being interviewed on the radio and saying that it was “simplistic” to say that democracy required an elected second chamber. Well, it depends what kind of democracy you’re talking about. I would argue that a representative democracy demands election. On the other hand, if you are referring to the type of “democracy” espoused by such institutions as the former German Democratic Republic or the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, then you can take democracy to mean more or less anything you like.
It’s a pity. I really would have liked to see an upper house that is not composed of one part aristocracy (the hereditary peers), one part nepotism (the appointed peers) and one part religion (the bishops). Of course, the primacy of the Commons means that the House of Lords has very limited power, but it doesn’t fill you with faith about being represented, does it? However, if you are going to fill it with appointees, then you might as well not bother. Who needs another quango?
What we get, in the end, is yet more procrastination. But why bother to make our country democratic? Well, the lack of democracy in Iraq is being used as one of the justifications for “regime change”. Mr Kettle, may I introduce you to Mr Pot?