which is better ?

if these things are just a change in name only I'd rather stay with tradition.

Interesting one, this.

The point of an upper house is to provide a check and balance to the activities of the lower house. What we have in the UK at the moment is undemocratic, but the alternative of an elected upper house would reduce the impartiality of the organisation by introducing party politics.

What we really need is some kind of trusted expert oversight to kill or modify badly conceived legislation. But good government isn't always popular government, so democracy and technocracy can often be at odds.

Singapore is a good example of an effective technocracy where the voters don't get any real choice - but they have had a very competent government for the past 45 years. Examples where people can vote for all types of crap government are legion.

of course the House of Lords is undemocratic but it seems to work.

The problem is that it entrenches a 2 party system.

Oz has a Senate that currently has 9 Green's senators with the rest about evenly divided between the 2 main parties but it also means neither party gets to impose repressive policies as they would love to.

I think Singapore's success is more due to an industrious Chinese character rather than being the personal fiefdom of one family.