Is time on our side?

Royal Coat of Arms

Royal Coat of Arms

The case for hereditary Peers, should be made just by thinking how much time we spend these days electing, selecting, de-selecting, re-electing, more seats in the lower house, the upper house, Europe, councils.

We spend more time on the actual selection process than on the work those elected persons have to do. Each time an administration changes, administrative processes also change. New laws, new regulations.

Scandals of those in office and why they have to go and further elections.

Whilst we have much more pressing things to think about, like economy, jobs, prices, standard of living, earth warming, international conflicts and peace, and I could go on to a very long list indeed.

These constant changes are very exciting to us all, we stand glued to our computer screens, TV, newspapers to digest the latest changes, read about company directors that go into retirement with too much pay.

Most of those problems are caused by short term office terms, being elected in other words.

Had we still hereditary Peers that would be one less thing to worry about, one less thing that constantly changes and something we could rely on to work regardless. Hereditary Peers, do not run off, they have their estates often since centuries and they inherited not only land and money and titles but also knowledge and attitude and responsibility.

I’ve had enough of the constant chopping and changing and new labour made more changes than are probably good for us and they keep on changing, posts, ministers, Lords, laws.

I can’t see what is wrong with inheritance as that is the most natural occurrence, we all have parents and inherit what they left us. Why does Labour constantly try to dismantle family values. Children grow up better in families and they need them.

Hereditary Peers have a lifelong obligation to keep their subjects content and cuold not afford to be reckless as they cannot run away with a pension and some retirement pay. They stay were they are, their children then have the same responsibilities and therefore Hereditary Peers are under more pressure to make sensible decisions than any of the short term politicians are.

If we would not have to spend so much time constatnly electing new people we could spend more time on the things that really matter. Our lifestyle currently is more stressful. Set traditions that do not constantly change help community cohesion and are the best method to prevent crime.

The areas of the world that at one time were part of the British Empire. Current British overseas territories are underlined in red.

I do not understand how the Queen or a King is supposed to function properly when their social circle the Peers, Barons, Marques etc.

When Britain was run by the Royals Britain was bigger and happier, the economy functioned better too.


Picture shows an medieval baker and apprentice, traditionally people were trained over long periods of time

Picture shows an medieval baker and apprentice, traditionally people were trained over long periods of time

Now we know why labour made all those changes to the House of Lords constitution, its because they want to use it for themselves to circumvent the democratic process. Their own elected representatives stand down and don’t want to participate in this charade any longer.

It began with Lord Mandelson, then Alan Sugar now Glenys Kinnock. The once ousted Peter Hain returns as Welsh Secretary.

The double standards are amazing, when on one side opposition MPs are persecuted to the point of arrest, I myself, not even an MP, am constantly criticised, so I cannot even stand as Councillor because of ongoing libel claims against Labour Party members.

On the other side we now know why Labour needed to go around the hereditary Peer system, it’s to jump the queue of entitlement to govern. And do we wish they never had the chance.

The whole party structure is such that those elected do no longer want to participate in the shambles called Labour. Would we still have the House of Lords, full of hereditary Peers, we would not have to put up with an extension of this Labour misery.

Alan Sugar is the personification of circumvention of traditional craftsmanship. His methods of chasing untrained persons to carry out tasks on a whim, without knowledge of either the product or the market is the most alarming example how people these days are forced to work without proper training. His apprentices are do not get any training beforehand. What Alan Sugar does is using the word apprentice to engage temporary staff to carry out tasks without any training. He does not train them but tells them to gain knowledge in treble speed to make money. 

I am not making a case for the minimum wage but for quality and workmanship. There is one big difference between the X Factor and the Apprentice, the X factor requires thoroughly talented singers who learned their craft over a long period of time whilst Alan Sugar just requires spot talent. The difference is obvious. Apprenticeships usually run over 3 years or so and result in high quality personnel or craftsmen.

The word apprentice means person being trained by being employed for an agreed period and low wages.  I would like to see the contract those “apprentices” have to sign.

I am frankly surprised the Labour Party allows this to happen by one of their supporters when they are traditionally for more worker’s rights and better training and working conditions in general. But Alan Sugar’s concept is anything but worker friendly but exploiting unacknowledged individuals to make money quickly. A bad example for industry.

I have stopped watching the Apprentice long ago. Alan Sugar has not been elected ever, yet becomes in fact a member of a current government. Populist measures for an unpopular government. Especially also that Alan Sugar does not pay his apprentices a minimum wage but asks them to perform for food and lodgings.  It could be slave labour had those unfortunate enough to be chosen not volunteered.  As I say the contract they have, I have not seen but it is alarming that such contracts should even be allowed to exist.

And what becomes increasingly clear is that the properly elected Labour ministers fall by the way side because they do not feel that their party acts according to what is believed to be Labour party philosophy and it is shown in the quick, quick do everything methods of Alan Sugar what  quality of workmanship Labour requires to be a Labour government member.  Compare this to the well trained and knowledgeable Conservatives who are thoroughly educated, well-trained and don’t waver by the wayside, littering the corridors of parliament with the cast offs of dissatisfaction.

This Labour government is a government of discountenance and discontent. And we all know that sugar is bad for you if consumed in excess.

PS: On that note I welcome that the Conservative Party has made a complaint to the BBC, 19/6/09

The blame culture

Labour still isnt working, we now have the blame culture

Labour still isn't working, we now have the blame culture

I am now even more convinced that the currently ongoing witch hunt against some MPs is unjustified, having just perused over this BBC article about the MPs expenses scandal.

It says in plain reporting code, in the above linked to article that “The government is considering introducing a legally-binding code of conduct for MPs that would cover minimum standards of service to constituents”.

Why then pick out some unfortunate individuals who acted in the way they did because there was no set standard ? Is it just a matter of wanting to get rid of some particular people or is it just the trivial game of whose MP is the worst, carried out in the media today?

How can we devalue ourselves by denouncing our own, democratically elected members of parliament by blaming them for something they did because there are no proper standards. It becomes very much a matter of what is common perception but that can be exaggerated for some individuals but not for others.

The matter of the MP who put a church donation on his claim for expenses highlights the fact that for some MPs all actions they carry out in the course of their duty is part of the work they are doing. Yet in common perception church is something one believes in, something that does good and something that one, as parish member supports as a good cause or because one believes in God. The question of what is work and what is personal conviction is an interesting one.

In today’s News of the World is a biting article on the diverse effect this matter has on party members against each other on opposing sides and in-party squabbling.  David Cameron is quoted in the News of the World as saying: “Some MPs have done things that were wrong. I don’t care if it was within the rules. I want them to claim what is reasonable to do their job, not the maximum they can get away with”.

I welcome the setting of proper standards because without them it is very much left to the individual to set their own and I still think it is unfair to posthumously blame some individuals who had no objections to their claims, for those objections having not been raised at the time by the fee paying officers who dealt with those claims.

Indeed in the same newspaper Jane Griffin is quoted as saying she was told to claim thousands for taxis she did not use by whips.  Going by that it seems that there is a culture that is being used but all blame each other for using it. How ridiculous.

Of course David Cameron is entirely correct to support calls for democratic disposition of MPs who fail to adhere to standards, providing that the standards have been set, and as we see they have not been set yet. I would only support a democratic process of reversing a MP nomination who has been democratically elected by Democratic means but find the current witch hunt protruded by the press abhorrent.

But now the penny pinching goes as far as to critisize him for not being suave enough to handle his mortgage deals, things now get well out of hand. Evidence that this situation is used to try and dispose of favourite enemies anyone might have, not democratic at all.

Of course Labour in the shape of David Miliband cannot resist to call for a “new approach to politics” again something new like New Labour. I am very concerned about Labour’s calls for reforming something yet again, when all those old new reforms didn’t work.

Seems that this expenses scandal just reeks of exploiting yet another loophole in parliamentary procedure that New Labour wants to use to steer politics into their proposed new directions most likely for the detriment of parliamentary democracy.

There is me thinking why change something that worked well. Where we really need change is in the education system and there Labour fights tooth and nail for much needed change, but encourages change to get rid of hereditary Peers in the House of Lords. Hereditary meaning things that can be passed on from parents to offspring, something normal to humanity.

New Labour constantly seeks change and new ways of doing things but the only new thing that has happened during their long reign is a new bitterness in British politics.

The Blame culture has replaced qualitative political argument. Though Gordon Brown resists all calls to step down and allow a new election, he just promotes discontent and the freedom MPs need to actually carry out their business of making politics as they are constantly in the press for one scandal after another and by the time they get to work, they forgotten all about those pressing needs like better education or resolving constituents queries.

Labour’s education policy has been criticised, new measures have been suggested and there Labour’s argument is, why bring in new and untested things, on the knowledge that their old methods didn’t work but they wanted to keep the old methods of educating children despite an obvious failure.

The shambles of Labour’s government is getting too much for anyone to bare. People should not fall for this spectacle of clearing out the cupboards of bad MPs, because its just another publicity stunt to avert away from the issues that really matter.

U-turn about Europe

Even Armenia used to have a Monarch once.  Tigranes the Great 95 BC - 55 BC

Even Armenia used to have a Monarch once. Tigranes the Great 95 BC - 55 BC

Just had the latest Conservative election promo through my door, delivered by the Post man. In the past we had to deliver the local leaflets ourselves.  Quite a good idea to let the postman do it, as with the ever increasing numbers of flats one has severe difficulty reaching them all, especially when they have entry door systems.

The Conservative leaflet is of course very impressive just by looking at graphical layout and clarity of information.

All statements are clearly referenced too.

I love the Conservative idea about keeping out of Europe, but need to rely on European legislation in my own cases because unfortunately I am not given any legal aid, and the other side in one case is actually a German company, who spread all the rumours in the first place.

It is always hard going back a step once things have gotten into motion and I bet that is the only reason why Gordon Brown doesn’t call a general election, so his dealings about the EU cannot be undone.

I am experiencing on a very personal basis how Labour Party members are trumpeting out the story lines the German company Der Spiegel invented and so the European flair on publication is firmly cemented into the proceedings.

I sometimes think the court refused jurisdiction so that they don’t get embroiled in the European aspect of this case but unfortunately Labour has ensured it is the case.

I quite agree British independence is important because the Britishness of the past has always ensured fairness and interventions necessary to prevent foreign atrocities.  I don’t think Britain’s identity will remain quite the same if it has to undergo a personality change and even surrender its army to the EU.

I thought Britain as an island of intellectual and economic prosperity and taking away the British independence will tear on British self-affirmation.

Europe will have a negative effect on any monarchy and is therefore not open to constitutional self-regulation, as this would be necessary for the UK to continue. Gordon Brown made every effort to strip the UK of as many hereditary privileges as he could during his reign, of course assisted by Tony Blair who started it all off.

I would like to see more energy of the Royals to defend their positions and think that the UK’s residents would give support alongside.

Especially the matter of hereditary peers, it is a crying shame that history and personal determination of land should be neglected to make way for even more elected peers who have no direct connection to the land and not to the extend as hereditary ones have. I most adamant that this direct connection to the land and its social fibre to other peerage made Britain what is was today. It is often only the House of Lords that deliver decisions that defend the most vulnerable in our society.

As Margaret Thatcher so rightly determined it is the conscious and continuous personal responsibility that gives political decisions a long-term validity and provides strength and coordination. Were we merely reliant on 5 year long elected politicians we would get ourselves into even more trouble than the recent banking crises put us in.

The banking crises is reminder of what short term business and political planning will achieve.

That Gordon Brown is a tw0-faced man is quite obvious in his changing of the mind in more than a pictorial manner. His British jobs for British workers promise is in direct conflict with his political strategy and decisions, which are broadly based on complete internationalisation of political governance, and as little local power over jobs and business as possible. The man doesn’t know what he is talking about.

I have never felt so bad about politics than I did when Labour was in power for all this time. Even though having been a Social Democrateand Labour Party member for most of my life,  I now oppose the political system that restricts itself to a part-time responsibility for decision making. That is the worst by-productive of today’s democracy.

There are still 12 monarchies in Europe including the Pope.  Has anyone ever looked at Europe from this perspective of Royal connections? In the past the independence of Kingdoms was always very important to the reigning monarchs.

Crown and sceptre, symbol of power for a reigning Monarch

Crown and sceptre, symbol of power for a reigning Monarch

I can already see King Charles! Bring it on. A monarch can hardly run away from his responsibilities and the life-long responsibility ensures decisions that are made to last and not only for a term, with short-term gains for those making them. Too much short-term decision making is the downfall of our society and only individuals will benefit. This leads to corruption. Sorry to spread doom and gloom again but lets just hope for the best and Long live the Queen.

Next Newer Entries

Blog Stats

  • 53,390 hits