Not so much daft as wistful.
As I see it, the big problem with trying to improve parliament is that you have to get parliament to approve it unless you have a revolution.
The problem with revolutions is that whilst they tend to start as a fightback against things like oppression and unfairness, you need some very, very strong leadership to succeed and I find it difficult to see how someone could have both the characteristics needed to lead a successful revolution and the inclination to make parliament fairer.
I don't say it's impossible, just that I struggle to think of an example.
I suppose if you're lucky, whoever leads the revolution gets some nice people in power with them, then drops dead leaving them to devise a better parliamentary system.
Or maybe you get so many parties arguing that they settle on a compromise that each of them thinks will stop the others getting too much power. I think that's how a lot of FPTP systems arise, and I'm guessing that would also be a situation in which decent rules for behaviour in parliament would arise.
I say all that as someone who, if you ask me which party I vote for in elections, will say, honestly, that I'm a 'least worst' voter. Mostly, the candidate I'd like to vote for doesn't stand a chance anyway, so it's between worst and less worse.
I think it still says a lot about Westminster that the Commons is two mobs, er, rows of elected members, facing each other in a room designed to keep them more than two sword lengths apart during debate.
Oh no, I've flipped now. I'm mentally visualising MPs with pea-shooters, water pistols and children's catapults. Well, Dennis the Menace and the like have nothing on them.