Mr Warner on good form this evening

Jack Straw’s vacuous plan to abolish the House of Lords and replace it with a 300-member “Senate” demonstrates that, to the bitter end, Labour is obsessed with the kind of constitutionally illiterate vandalism that has characterised its 13 disastrous years in office. We already have a completely superfluous Supreme Court, on the American model; now Straw wants to add a Senate. American institutions are first-rate – for Americans. They are totally alien to Britain.

The reason for this persistent constitutional tinkering is that Labour (and now its Vichy Tory clones) thinks that such synthetic constructs are more “modern”. A favourite claim is “No other developed nation has a House of Lords”. That reflects the cultural masochism that leads “progressives” to imagine that every other society is superior to Britain. Most “developed” nations have contrived paper constitutions, cobbled together after the overthrow of their monarchies and other evolved institutions provoked periods of revolution, civil war, totalitarianism, general unrest and instability.

We have the inestimable advantage of an organic, evolved constitution that was traditionally the envy of the world. Yet, because it is enveloped in the trappings of past eras, despite its enduring efficiency and adaptability Labour and Tory modernisers want to smash it. It is a characteristic of modern Lab-Con Britain that everything that is unbroken is gratuitously mended, while the many things that are indeed broken are left unrepaired.

It is also significant that Straw’s plan is expected to include mechanisms for gerrymandering the Senate in favour of the usual suspects – women, “faith groups”, etc – as has already been done in the Commons via all-women and other forms of rigged candidate selection lists. The voter is being deprived of choice and is increasingly an extraneous cipher in the process of engineering an appointed parliament in both chambers.

It is widely assumed that Straw’s plan will not progress: but do not underestimate the potential for the Tory traitors to pick it up and run with it. What could “detoxify” a gang of Etonians more impressively (in their own demented imagination) than abolishing the House of Lords? It typifies the decadence of our times that the only section of the membership in the whole of Parliament that has not been mired in expenses and corruption scandals – the hereditary peers – is the one element that is designated for expulsion.

The implications of all these incoherent attempts to ape less mature and successful constitutional models is ultimately republican. The monarchy is the eventual target of the so-called modernisers. Pomp and pageantry are anathema to them. The grey-suited, serially corrupt apparatchiks of the European Union are their role models – and don’t forget what a plum the office of President would offer to a succession of retiring expenses junkies.

It is not the House of Lords that the public would prefer to abolish, but the House of Commons. The loathsome canaille on the slime-green benches – despite the sycophantic vocabulary of journalists such as “dedicated public servant”, “devoted constituency MP” and suchlike crony-guff – are detested by the electorate. They have banned country sports, driven smokers out of pubs, irresponsibly flooded the country with immigrants, handed us over trussed and gagged to Brussels, harassed the nation with “green” tyranny and political correctness, persecuted Christians and remorselessly robbed every taxpayer in the country.
The public knows, however, that there is no means available to it of abolishing this chamber of horrors. So, cleverly, it has opted to neuter it. An opinion poll recently showed that 34 per cent of voters actively want a hung parliament. That provoked spluttering outrage among the political class. Did these clowns of voters not understand that a hung parliament would destroy confidence in Britain’s ability to fix its economy? How stupid could they get?

The voters are not stupid at all. They know what they are doing: reducing the political class to impotence. And not before time. The transparent lie that the markets will trash Britain because of a hung parliament – when most of the countries whose bonds they purchase are in a state of permanent coalition government – impresses the British public as much as global warming scares. The difficulty about securing a hung parliament is the mechanism for engineering it. The only secure method is to deny votes to the three major parties. It is time to put them – not the peers – out of business.

Wordplay!

What do these people, dead and alive, have in common?

Judas Iscariot

Benedict Arnold

John Major

Edward Heath

Vidkun Quisling

David Cameron

Gordon Brown

Brutus

Wang Jingwei

(the tag sort of gives it away)

La La Land

Good on Calling England, this wont be a literary comprehensible post - far too late for that and far too much wine for that. A list is in order:

• Protection from Harassment Act (1997),
• the Crime and Disorder Act (1998),
• the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000),
• the Terrorism Act (2000),
• the Criminal Justice and Police Act (2001),
• the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act (2001),
• the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Extension Act (2002),
• the Criminal Justice Act (2003), the Extradition Act (2003),
• the Anti-Social Behaviour Act (2003),
• the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act (2004),
• the Civil Contingencies Act (2004),
• the Prevention of Terrorism Act (2005),
• the Inquiries Act (2005),
• the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (2005),
• Identity Cards Bill,
• the Coroners and Justice Bill,
• the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill

And to return respect and character to our parliament we need to turn these pieces of paper into fags to be lit, once again, in our pubs and make people responsible for their own decisions.

• Constitutional Reform Act 2005
• House of Lords Act 1999 (Can you tell me with a straight face that hereditary peers could be any worse than the current?)

What a supreme fucking cock-up this country has become. Fret not though I will stay on fighting to the bitter end for in my own, very intoxicated, mind I am the saviour of Britain. I want to go out strong so here is a quote from Wuthering Heights spoken by Heathcliff

"The tyrant grinds down his slaves - and they don't turn against him , they crush those beneath them."

Chilling that this was written well before Orwell and Huxley by a little lady by the name of Emily Brontë in 1847.

(Also note that few people read what I write. I reckon this is because the logic of what I write is too intricate for anyone to understand except for, well, myself).

In a time of Honour

You cannot help sometimes to feel that you belong in another time, a time that seemingly shared your own values and motifs, paradigms and horizons. A time when ostensibly dreams were possible and smaller miracles could triumph as a direct consequence of the century whence it took place.

Time change of course. During the reign of Queen Victoria Britain was speeding towards the height of its Empire. With the grand victories by Lord Nelson in Trafalgar, 1805 followed by the victory at Waterloo in 1815 thanks to Wellington - little seemed to stand in her way, Britain that is. Considering Victoria she was happily married, very happily so for two decades. Proof of her and Albert's good fortune can be found in and close to Hyde Park, London. There we find not only the Royal Albert Hall but also the Albert Memorial - a tribute to her husband. Sadly Albert only lived till the age of 42 and ever sadder for Victoria she had to spend the remaining part of her life, all those 39 years, without the husband whom she loved so dearly.

During the reign of Victoria a sense of honour permeated not only the isles of Britain but also Europe. Honour was something precious, something which you could loose your life over, something which could not be taken away from a man lest at the pain of death. Honourable causes were championed not only in battle but also in Parliament. This was the time of Wilburfore, Sir Robert Peel and many others who saw it as their duty to make Britain a better place. This was a time of honour. What could be more honourable than creating work for the poor, helping the sick and freeing the shackled? By those days standards; little.

How times have changed. Today our Prime minister is clinging on to his job like a sickly infected tumour. A disease, a cancer, that regardless of what fancy new drugs and proceedures we throw at it, just wont go away. Honour is a hollow concept for Mr. Brown a non-issue, a subject so tiresome that were he to put his spin doctors on it he would appear the next day as Richard the Lionheart - in his own mind. The times have passed when people cared for what kind of legacy their death would bring, of how they would be remembered once their soul has left these dark shores and passed into a glorious place in heaven, reserved, seemingly, only for those who lived a good life. A life of meaning, duty and justice.

Parliament is infested, few would disagree on this issue. The majority of MPs have broken the trust we bestowed upon them. There is a small minorty who nonetheless must not be counted in the greater mass who deserve nothing less than life imprisonment in the Tower of London. Murder is a heinous crime but slaying of trust and democracy is worse. Mr. Brown appears to think that he will be remembered as the Prime Minister who made the hard choices in the hard times. Little does he know that his memory will only be a little less disastrous than his predeecesor Tony Blair. Mr. Brown will be remembered as the the Prime Minister who brought down Parliament, shamed its entire function as a legislative body, shackled the Britain to the monstrous leviathan that is the EU who only now is beginning to show its true face. He will be remembered as the unelected debauchee who resisted the nation's wish for change, their cries and their screams, who instigated a war on freedom and justice. A man who thought it appropriate to undo the constitutional Magnus Opus that is the British Parliament along with its traditions, quirks, ceremonies and not the least the last defence against the onslaught of the state.

Tony Blair... books have been written about his legacy, Cherrie Blair seems to think her husband will rank alongside Churchill and Disraeli. Not one book, several, but simply put Tony Blair will be remembered as the Prime minesterial traitor. When in the sadly, very distant future, when we again have the moral power to rule ourselves with a sliver of descency, then the ghosts of Blair and Brown will return to haunt the schools and they will learn how these two men, single handedly brought down Britain.

Who is funding the Taliban? We are

Everyone should link to this. Preferably read the damn thing as well.

"It works something like this. There's a construction project funded by the British aid budget - say building a school in some godforsaken patch of dirt, mainly so that a minister can point to it when he wants to claim - falsely, most of the time - that girls are being educated. But the government doesn't build the school, a private firm gets the contract to build it. And a very generous contract, too, which I suppose is fair enough given how dangerous it is to get anything done in that part of the world. In order to get the school built, the contractor then has to bribe local "community leaders" - that goes without saying. But it also has to negotiate with the local Taliban leadership - who insist on a cut of the aid money as their price for not blowing the place (or the workers) to smithereens. So British taxpayer's money goes to the Taliban, who spend it, among other things, on the IEDs which blow up British soldiers instead. 20% is the typical figure, although it's estimated that in some cases the Taliban are raking in as much as 40% of the international aid money."