Britain needs less and better democracy, not more.

One of the more interesting developments of the past few years is that of a vulgarised political-media class in Britain which loudly proclaims its lack of religious belief and then fetishises elections as sacred. They even support bombing people and starting wars to spread their creed.

I've been thinking about this in the past week since a predictable chorus of outrage emerged about the decision by Britain's unelected, insulated House of Lords to throw out a messy proposal by the government to keep those arrested under terrorist legislation in jail without charge for at least 42 days.

This country retains a sensitivity to liberty, for all the administrative depredations on freedom, which is very great. I note, for instance, that the development of a European Arrest Warrant is now exposing the practices of many of the continental states. Greece, for instance, seems able to keep ordinary suspects in prison for at least eighteen months without charge. That is not to comment on the tragic details of the Hiles case, nor the case against Mr Symeou that is ongoing. You can read a report of it from the summer here.

Justice is available in European countries--often more than here, though I am conscious that there is no way my words can read as not pompous. I just think that Britain retains a degree of feeling for liberty or due process that its politicians lack, when cases are presented in the right way.

If the Madeleine McCann affair proved anything it was the capacity of the Portugese police to run riot and behave incredibly badly. Yet, when the British police are assaulted by a crowd in London for asking a young woman to pick up litter, the metropolitan police move to shut down any discussion and to ease the situation--not to wade in with telescopic truncheons out and arrest everyone. This was partly due to racial tensions in the area--but that in itself just proves that our police, regularly traduced as a bunch of racists, for some reason or other care about being accused as such. The reason is that they are not.

This country still jails fewer people per crime than many European states. It is tolerant and fair probably to a fault, and often because its legal professionals deeply distrust the public and have a very real sense of distrust of the state.

So there is still a culture of liberty. The Lords seem to get this. Normal people hate crime, but they also deeply resent being told what to do by the sillier members of the middle classes. The commons, and the European parliament and councils, which are made up of such people, seem to represent a culture of regulation. The Lords do not.

Not for the first time, the Lords are more representative, as they are in gender, professional and sex terms too. A happy balance might be found between Lords and Commons; but instead, all we get is literally stupid outrage that the Lords are not elected.

Power is a nasty, corrupting thing. Those who seek it, unless deeply grounded, are apt to have its prospect play upon their human vices and flaws from a very early age. Anyone who seeks it should be under suspicion. That there is a House of parliament with large numbers of people in it who didn't seek power, who love their own careers, and who are distinguished in them, is a good thing.

That they cannot claim some spurious mandate other than that of common sense, unlike the ludicrous European Parliament which is stuffed with third rate hacks elected off a list by other political obsessives who were better off as lobbyists, is a good thing. That they aren't under party control is a good thing. That they can be over-ridden by an elected house is a good thing. This country should keep the House of Lords or have some replacement elected from professions for life or appointed by a transparent process.

'Look', people write or say--'what about the hereditary Lords? They're still in there. They're a disgrace.' To what, precisely, other than the foolish consistencies of tidy minds? If you have a small group of the whole drawn from families that have been running this state, with its unwritten constitution, for hundreds of years, functioning as a sort of genetically randomised jury, alongside union leaders, professors, senior barristers, former members of the cabinet and establishment, and people who did well in business--what is the problem?

This is a country bigger than Switzerland. People can't be forced to serve who deserve to, but they can be flattered into it.

I frankly want less falsely representative democracy in this country. If the number of local councillors were halved, or reduced by two thirds, who would notice, apart from those whose bins then got collected, whose services improved, and whose council tax bills fell?

I would like the heads of power, water, local constabularies, the BBC, the Arts bodies and transport companies, which are all natural monopolies with social externalities, to be elected trusts or elected commissioners. I would like each candidate to be banned from being a member of a political party. I'd like more referenda. I can even see the point in electing magistrates.

I cannot, however, see the point in imposing some hack-list system on the Lords, pretending the appointees are elected, and waiting for the same rotten type of local government secular sectarianism to grow.

So leave the Lords alone. They are, to coin a phrase, a fine bunch of lads, even if the place does include Peter Mandelson, Jeffrey Archer, and a contingent of stooges and crooks who aren't busy working for the media or the government. But think of your local council, or the commons, or the European parliament; it won't be long before Guy Fawkes is on the fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square, will it?.

I mean that. We are not that far away from Mani Pulite style problems in this country, and its the 'elected' representatives who will be responsible.

Here is one of the few good scenes from V for Vendetta. The book was better, as is true of most of Alan Moore's works.