I was recently informed by the English Royalist and seen the comments of blog member Law Wells that the Traitor Party in the UK has brought up the abolition of the House of Lords. Most of the stories seem to agree that this is nothing more than an act of desperation on the part of the socialists who are sure to lose big in the next election. They may not really expect anything to come of it, but they want the Tories to take the bait, bite and then use the issue to label the Tories as reactionaries who favor hereditary perks over egalitarian democracy (if only that were true!). However, there is no doubt that this IS a goal of the Labour/Socialist/Traitor Party as they have consistently weakened the House of Lords during their years in power. Whether they expect to be successful now is beside the point: they DO want this to happen sooner or later as their history in reducing the House of Lords to a powerless talking shop proves.Their aim, of course, to replace the peers in government with an elected senate such as is currently setting new standards in idiocy in the United States. Nice to see the UK is 'catching down' to the colonies on this one (sarcasm intended). Of course, it was not always so. At the outset the U.S. Senate was meant to be much more like the House of Lords than it has become, though perhaps a better analogy would be with the only Imperial German Bundesrat. The Senate was supposed to represent the states and senators were appointed by their state governments to do that. It was not until the presidency of that liberal blockhead and thoroughly evil man (I repeat myself) Woodrow Wilson (Democrat) that senators became elected by popular vote in 1913. Since that time things have only become worse as everyone can see even if not everyone would admit it.
The loss of the House of Lords would be a disaster of epic proportions for the UK even if it might not be obviously so. That is because, as stated, the House of Lords has already been mutilated almost beyond all recognition by the Traitor Party. Gone are the good old days of hereditary peers who could act as an impartial and dispassionate brake on the lunacy and tyranny of the House of Commons. In many ways, as Mr Wells pointed out, simply doing away with the charade and having a senate would be simply a more honest admission of the way things already are. However, the reason why keeping the House of Lords is important is revealed in the liberals very tactic of raising the issue now. If the House of Lords is kept in place, it may be possible one day to restore more of its powers and perhaps, in some future time when the people can be brought to their senses, to restore the hereditary peers. If, on the other hand, it is done away with entirely it will be nearly impossible to ever get back again because no politician will want to take a stand for a return to hereditary power for the aristocracy. It is the same reason why I hate to see royal protocol and ceremony diminished in any way -because it is almost impossible to restore it without the person in question being made to appear arrogant and vainglorious.
It is also important to stop this because all of the same arguments that are made against the House of Lords can be made against the monarchy itself and every step forward at the expense of the lords is another blow against the British monarchy. All of that being said, I do hope that the Tories do not go overboard in leaping to the defense of the House of Lords simply because that is exactly what the traitors want them to do. They should play it cool for now, let Labour lose the next election and then work to shore up the damage that has already been done. Any look at the dismal approval ratings of the U.S. Senate and Congress should prove to the British that they should not be following the American example when it comes to elected representatives and any time one is thinking of looking to how Americans do things there are certainly few worse examples to be followed than the policies of President Wilson. So, the Tories should not freak out -leave that job to others. I for one will be glad to argue for what they cannot. I am for the House of Lords, I am for hereditary peers, I am for traditional authority in all its forms and I am ... The Mad Monarchist.
In all my talks with Modernists, Real World examples do nothing to sway them. Its all about the Theory. People who insist that its woronmg to let peopel be in Power who were not elected, and dredge up claism of how those who are not elected are tyrannical feinds who want to Oppress the Masses, cling to that Myth no matter how many examples to couner it you bring, for they can shore it uo wth examples of their own and its their myth. Meanwhile, you can show them the Failure of all Elected ystems and they still dont care.
ReplyDeleteIts about the Idal, and thats all they see.
The Abolition of the Lords is about insalling an Ideal, a Dream, and o on cares about the Reality, for the Dream has Secured their hearts, and thus theu no longer use their heads.
Indeed it is so. Such is why you can point to every marxist/socialist/whathaveyou state in the world and their utter failures and yet still they press it as *the* answer because it just looks so good on paper. Yet it is the monarchists who are dismissed as the hopeless romantics.
ReplyDeleteSink me! At this rate we may need to resurrect Sir Percy to fly to the rescue of the British aristocracy...
This Reminds me of Kipling.
ReplyDeleteUlster, 1912.
(“Their webs shall not become garments, neither shall they cover themselves with their works: their works are works of iniquity and the act of violence is in their hands.”
—Isaiah lix. 6.)
The dark eleventh hour
Draws on and sees us sold
To every evil power
We fought against of old -
Rebellion, rapine, hate,
Oppression, wrong and greed
Are loosed to rule our fate
By England's art and deed.
The faith in which we stand,
The laws we made and guard,
Our honour, lives, and land
Are given for reward
To murder done by night
To treason taught by day,
To folly, sloth, and spite,
And we are thrust away.
The blood our fathers spilt,
Our love, our toils, our pains
Are counted us for guilt
And only bind our chains -
Before an Empire's eyes
The traitor claims his price.
What need of further lies?
We are the sacrifice.
We know the war prepared
On ever peaceful home
We know the hells prepared
For such as serve not Rome
The terror, threats, and bread
In market, hearth, and field -
We know, when all is said,
We perish if we yield.
Believe we dare not boast,
Believe we dare not fear:
We stand to pay the cost
In all that men hold dear.
What answer from the North?
One Law, One Land, One Throne!
If England drives us forth
We shall not fall alone.
One of my favorite authors, (the shots in this piece aside) worthy of all the praise he has been given for Gunga-Din alone -in my opinion anyway.
ReplyDeleteIt is a wedge tactic (much like republicanism here in Australia split the Liberals. The Nationals gave Labor the finger, naturally). And undoubtedly it will be approved by the intelligentsia.
ReplyDeleteHowever, you are wrong on the matter of restorations. If a Prime Minister chooses to restore the Lords, then he restores power to others, and not himself. Thus, he himself is not benefiting, and thus the issues of him being vainglorious does not exist (overly reactionary is what he'd be called, and in that case, they'd do well to give the hecklers the two-fingered salute!).
The entire think is pathetic though. The Commons is the House in desperate need of reform, not the Lords. And yet, the replacement house would have recall elections for incompetence and a quota system to satisfy the PC crowd (even if it means someone with 5 votes gets in ahead of someone with 500,000! This isn't a joke - at the Sydney Uni SRC elections two years ago, the there were only three female candidates, and three positions reserved for women. They didn't even get voted, and only the Liberals said "This ain't right". Everyone else said "More women need to run!" It's anti-democratic to have such a system). Basically, everything the Left would want, only not in the Commons.
The expenses scandal has shown that the Commons needs a kick up the arse, but no one can do it. There is no check against its power. The Lords can't stop them, the Queen can't (or won't - too afraid of controversy), and the courts are hamstrung by all the treaties that the government signs and ratifies in spite of them being treason (Lisbon Treaty, anyone?).
Combined with demographic trends and cultural decay, the English especially (but also the Scottish and Welsh) will detest the Commons so much that it loses its legitimacy, and once it loses legitimacy, it will devolve into tyranny in order to preserve its grip on power.
A slow Cromwellian revolution seems to be going on here. One wonders when the Puritans will finish outlawing Englishness (since they've already started).
As a quick addendum, Gerald Warner writes a very harsh review of the plan (and agrees with me that the Tories won't shred the plan in pursuit of "modernity").
ReplyDeletehttp://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100030024/forget-the-lords-its-the-commons-the-public-intends-to-neuter-by-electing-a-hung-parliament/
It is telling that he says the hereditary peers were unmired by the expenses scandal, and yet they are the ones slated for abolition. Truly, Britain will have an exemplary and transparent Parliament once this reform is past.
/End sarcasm protocol test.
Good luck to the British to vote in a hung Commons. It's about time that chamber got its arse kicked.
In regards to the vanity accusations I was referring to things like the PoW simplifying the coronation or other such things -a future King William could hardly go back to the full pomp and ceremony without attracting criticism. As far as the Commons restoring the Lords, as you say, they would be accused of all sorts of stuff which the libs are counting on by bringing this up but it today's climate it would be hard for me to imagine the Commons under any party actually wanting to limit their own power by a restoration of the lords.
ReplyDeleteLets not forge that this really is all about granting more power to the Politicians, which is what modern "Democracy" means. And hey do want more power. It is pretext that gives them absolute control.
ReplyDeleteNot only does the upper house should have the right of veto (they don't now) tge most important thing is that HM has the right of veto and can dismiss and appoint peers at her will
ReplyDelete