Unreasonable?

I've just been idly perusing old posts, when I realised I hadn't responded to a really rather reasonable response from Nebuchadnezzar, asking, if I was critical of Blair, who would I rather have? A very good question, and one I don't have a very good answer to. I would suggest that I don't have to have answers, I can criticise faults without proposing anything better, and I see nothing wrong with that. Ideally, I would like to see a government which rules on behalf of the people of the country, and not a few rich individuals who can afford its services. I'm sure that things approaching to this have happened before - the 1945 government, for example. And, around the world, the Sandanistas in Nicaragua, Salvadore Allende's government in Chile. And so on. Is it really so unreasonable to want something vaguely approximating democracy?
In practical terms, given what's likely to be on offer at the next election, and who is likely to win, possibly the best outcome would be a hung-parliament, with a Liberal-Labour majority, which might shame the Labour Party's back-benchers into being a bit more radical. Although, given the hundred-thousand or so they trouser in expense claims, on top of their salaries, possibly this lot are shameless...