The Golden Strawberry

The British constitution is a mess, and it always has been. Unlike the clearly laid out articles, clauses and amendments of the Constitution of the United States, Britain has blundered its way forward (not always unsuccessfully) with a partly written, partly unwritten statute for centuries. Various governments have tried to untangle the knotted threads of our system over the years, but they have always been foiled by the sheer complexity of our overlapping, intertwining and faintly archaic charter.

At the centre of this logjam lies the House of Lords. The Lords has a long and colorful history of opposing the will of the democratically elected Commons. Time and again, they have essentially spat in the face of the public by rejecting legislation put forward by our elected representatives. Understandably furious MP’s have, over time, castrated the Lords and forced it into compliance with the Lower Chamber. They have never abolished it, however, accepting that a Second chamber is necessary to act as some sort of constitutional check on the government and Parliament.

When Labour came into power in 1997 a key part of its manifesto was House of Lords reform. Its wish for a democratic and accountable Upper house was stymied, however, and instead of a democratic house we got a hodgepodge of hereditary and appointed peers. In effect, a bunch of Aristocrats and unelected Party political cronies had a major say in how we were governed. Distracted by more pressing concerns (Iraq, Tuition Fees), the government decided to postpone meaningful reform until the next parliament.

Constitutional reform is not the most trendy or eye-catching issue in modern politics; most voters couldn’t give a damn about the make-up of the Lords or the division of powers between Commons and Lords. Governing is never a trendy occupation, however, and for every eye-catching initiative there are ten nuts-and-bolts issues politicians have to slog through.

Last week, there was a major vote on Lords reform, one of the most significant in history. A 113 strong majority of MP’s voted for a fully elected Upper Chamber. Bear in mind, however, that this was only a recommendation; the government could choose to ignore the express wishes of the Commons and make the Lords entirely appointed, if it so wished.

The Lords, of course, ignored the Commons vote and instead plumped for an entirely appointed body. They did this out of more than the old aristocratic contempt for the elected branch of the legislature, however; there are several arguments in favor of an appointed house which deserve a fair hearing. Firstly, appointed Lords are not beholden to their Party in the same way elected representatives are. They need not fear the lash of the Whips and so have a lot more intellectual independence. Secondly, appointed peers can be chosen to deliberately represent a plethora of professions, population groups and minorities – a far cry from the predominantly white, male, upper middle class Commons. Thirdly, there is no risk of an appointed Lords challenging the Commons in any serious way. Appointees have no democratic legitimacy and it is absurd to imagine them taking on the democratically elected Commons. Finally, given the contempt in which politicians are held in Britain, why would the public want to elect another bunch of politicians, who are so widely perceived as careerist and selfish?

One problem remains however, and it is a fundamental and intractable one. The Lords plays a not insignificant role in governing over us, so it should be democratically accountable. We should have the right to chuck out the people who make our laws if we think they are doing a bad job. There is no getting around this fact; democracies elect their legislatures.

Do we really want two equally powerful legislative bodies, though? This would lead to ineffective government which cannot get anything done – like in the US. The Senate and House of Representatives are each so powerful that it is hard for government to effect changes. Part of the reason why an obscene 40 million Americans have no health insurance is that, even if a government is elected with a mandate to give the people healthcare, its legislation gets lost in the traffic jam of the Houses. Consensus is very difficult to reach and the people without healthcare suffer as a result.

Along with democratizing the Lords then, reform must make clear that the Upper House is to have a different role to the Lower; revising rather than initiating legislation, cross-examining rather than containing ministers in its membership, postponing but never vetoing the passage of bills. It is possible to have both a fairly elected Lords which does not clash with the Commons, leading to legislative gridlock; and a Lords which has teeth sharp enough to let the government know when it is making a mistake.

-posted by Adam

George W Bush: Villain of the year. Easy judgment to make, you might think. After all, his has been one of the most calamitous American Presidencies in history. His particular brand of incompetent, reckless messianism combined with a particularly vicious brand of Rumsfeldian realpolitik came together to form a foreign policy perfect storm – the result was the tragedy of post-Saddam Iraq. At home and abroad, Bush will be judged in the tribunal of history as one of the most incompetent men who has ever set foot in the Oval office.

Bush bashing is easy; anyone can take a crack at the Texan oil-man safe in the knowledge that every right-thinking person will agree with them. NME magazine recently saw fit to award Bush for his idiocy, granting him the title of ‘Villain of the Year’.

Fair enough, you might think. A quick look at the BBC News website, and I began to have my doubts. At the time of writing, 40 people had just been killed in Baghdad by Sunni suicide murderers probably linked with Al Qaeda. They are trying to restart the sectarian civil war in Iraq, which has recently abated slightly as Shia militias stood down in deference to the new security strategy being implemented by the Iraq government and its American allies.

These Sunni fanatics are most directly responsible for wrecking Iraq’s chance at Constitutional democracy. In February last year they demolished the al-Askari mosque in Samarra, one of the holiest sites in Shia Islam. This was the centerpiece of a concerted strategy by Abu Musab Zaqawi, the leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, to ferment a sectarian civil war and turn the country into a hellish inter-communal war-zone. He succeeded beyond even his most macabre fantasies. The Shia, who previously had shown admirable restraint and had refrained from serious reprisals, took revenge against their Sunni neighbors. Civil war began in earnest, and it is very unlikely that it will end in anything but large scale population transfer as terrified people flee bloodthirsty gangs of both major branches of Islam, seeking refuge in the arms of their co-sectarianists.

Perhaps, then, a case could be made for indicting the latest Sunni suicide bomber as ‘Villain of the year’. George Bush, despite his criminal negligence and unforgivable hubris (he has completely ignored the Iraq study Group report, for example), is a democratically mandated politician. If one were to draw up a moral scale, a member of the euphemistically titled ‘Insurgency’ would undoubtedly rank below Bush. These people were responsible for murdering, amongst countless others, Sergio Viera de Mello, one of the United Nations bravest officials, as he was busy trying to rebuild Iraq.

Let is be said: the Iraqi ‘resistance’ is a grouping of fascist militias, each determined to impose their brand of totalitarianism on that benighted country. Why is NME not indicting these disgusting fascists and helping expose their crimes to the world? Why is the ‘Anti-War’ movement not demonstrating in solidarity with those Iraqis who are fighting the good fight; the trade unions, the feminist and secular groups who have their backs to the wall against a group of reactionary clerical and Ba’athist fascists who have no respect for human rights?

The reason they are not doing so is because ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’. The overarching enemy in this case is, of course, America and the globalizing modernity it seeks to export. If the most active opponents of the Great Enemy happen to be fascists, then so be it. Ideological differences disappear when confronted by a common foe – in this case liberal democracy.

To quote the journalist Nick Cohen from his new book What’s Left? ‘The anti-war movement in Britain has disgraced itself not because it was against the war in Iraq, but because it failed to oppose the Counter-Revolution once the war was over’. It was possible to be ferociously critical of the British and American governments while backing the Iraqis who wanted to enjoy the benefits of Constitutional Democracy, but this was not the position of Stop the War and the rest.

Cohen brutally exposes Stop the War for what they are; a rag-tag bunch of over-the-hill Trots who, so desperate after the death of the USSR (and with it the old certainties) for allies, formed an unholy alliance with reactionary Muslim organizations such as the Muslim Association of Britain, who counted amongst their favorite clerics a man called Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Qaradawi’s pronouncements on apostates, gays and women’s rights belong in the 11^th century, not the 21^st. Yet, by joining forces with him and his ilk and refusing to back Middle Eastern progressives, the Stop the War movement sold its soul and repudiated all right it had to be considered the inheritor of the great Radical tradition of the decent Left.

Oppose Bush? Yes. But make sure that you are not so blinded by your rage you forget (or refuse?) to support those who are fighting for their right to live in peace and modernity. Caught between Bush’s incompetent pride and the murderous sectarian murderers of the ‘Insurgency’, they are desperate. Let’s have a million strong demonstration in support of them for a change.

http://www.iraqitradeunions.org/

-posted by Adam

It appears our blog is banned in China. Surely this means we must be doing something right....?

To see if your website is blocked, click here.

Cory

Charles Windsor has once again seen fit to indulge us with a nugget of his boundless wisdom. On a visit to a diabetes centre in the United Arab Emirates Charles asked a nutritionist if they had ‘got anywhere with McDonald's, have you tried getting it banned? That's the key.’

Let us put aside the issue of whether or not McDonalds should be banned (of course, it shouldn’t, and Charles is a fool for suggesting so) and concentrate on another, more disturbing issue raised by his latest foray into the public debate. Who does this man think he is?

Charles has never stood in an election, never achieved anything due to merit and never given us any reason to want him as our next Head of State. His high public profile is due entirely to the names of his parents. Having led a completely unreal and detached life, he is incapable of empathizing with ordinary peoples problems. Has the heir to the throne ever been inside a McDonalds? I doubt if he could tell a Big Mac from a McChicken sandwich.

Yet he persists in letting his ill informed and often reactionary musings be known to the rest of us and, because of his absurd position as heir, he is given attention out of all proportion to the validity of his views. Charles is not a man blessed with any degree of high intelligence. Let me regale you with one of his more hilarious sound-bites: ‘It is high time we once again respected flights of the spirit; high time we concentrated our collective efforts on unleashing the vast transforming and regenerative potential which lies within the individual as a member of the community.’ What does this claptrap mean? Does Charles himself even know?

Soon after he made his latest remarks, a spokeswoman from Clarence House said that Charles was merely promoting healthy eating and "importance of a balanced diet, especially for children". Hello? It seems to me that this was a typical moronic remark from an especially dim-witted person, something which anyone can see. But remember, this man may be our future head of State! So his stupid remarks were quickly ‘explained’ and ‘contextualized’ by the gears of the Monarchical machine. A courtier had to gloss over the fact that her poor boss is an idiot.

The man cuts a tragic figure. Abused and deformed by the cruel gilded cage of Monarchy which he was forced into because of his lineage, he has never had a chance to lead a normal life. He has spent his entire existence waiting for his mother to die so he can take up her dull and thankless job as Head of State. Indeed, he cannot even be sure he will live long enough to become King, as Elizabeth Windsor looks set to carry on as long as her mother. However you look at it, Charles’ fate has been horrific.

So what is Charles to do? How does he get away from the massive and unbearable burden which hangs over him every second of every day? He occupies himself with kooky projects, spends tax payer money on lavish holidays and rubs shoulders with sycophants and courtiers. He reads third rate philosophy written by his ‘guru’, the dead charlatan and self-titled ‘modern sage’ Laurens van der Post.

Of course, there is a reason why Charles has grown into such a warped individual. That reason is the archaic institution of Monarchy, Britain’s favorite and most perverse public fetish. The combination of a Monarchy with 24/7 celebrity culture, where private life is almost impossible in the spotlight of the obsessive modern media, means misery and degradation for the Royal family. They are a broken group whose lives have been ruined by their supposed ‘duty’. Indeed, in the tragic case of Diana, this poisonous combination of crown and long lens camera led her to death in a speeding car being chased by paparazzi.

The answer is for us to join our American friends in rejecting completely the institution of Monarchy. Let us throw it onto the scrapheap of history to join other antiquated nonsense’s (like capital punishment and slavery) we have ditched over the years. This is 2007! How absurd we still have to practice such deference and bow to certain ‘Majesties’ based on their ancestry.

Republicans are often accused of hating the Royals whilst Monarchists always insist they ‘love’ Elizabeth Windsor and her absurd clan. The reverse is true. Monarchists do not care about the well-being of the Windsor family – they want to continue this gross public freak-show indefinitely. Republicans want to set this poor family free to sink or swim in the real world like the rest of us before another generation of Windsor children is sacrificed on the alter of ‘duty’.

Besides, William is smart enough to not want to end up like his father. When the time comes for him to step up and rule, no doubt he will tell his family where to shove their scepter.

-posted by Adam

Once again we've both failed our posting duties. Apologies. So if you posted comments and wondered why it took days/weeks to appear, that's because we haven't logged in to approve them. Sorry about that.

Anyway, to get back, two stories of varying degrees of hilarity.

Firstly, Swiss troops have invaded Lichtenstein. By accident. That will keep me smiling for a good few weeks.

And, via Dr Feelgood, the advent of Conservapedia. It seems spoofers have set in, but not, for now, on the unicorn. This is apparently a genuine entry:

The existence of unicorns is controversial. Secular opinion is that they are mythical. However, they are referred to in the Bible nine times,which provides an unimpeachable de facto argument for their once having been in existence. Christian apologists have advanced various arguments that the biblical unicorn was not a fantasy animal.

...One recognized theory is that the unicorn was actually the rhinoceros...[!!!!! -ed]

Post-Noachian references to unicorns have led some researchers to argue that unicorns are still alive today. At the very least, it is likely that they were taken aboard the Ark prior to the Great Flood.

Fantastic, isn't it? Also pretty amazing is this entry cataloguing bias on Wikipedia, including the following:

Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words, even though most English-speaking users are American.

This means they use "favour" instead of "favor"; and Wikipedia even uses the German spelling of "Habsburg", 'even though the American spelling has always been "Hapsburg".' How DARE they use German spellings for German dynasties. It's political correctness gone mad.

I would spend hours browsing Conservapedia, if it were not for the fact that the swines boast about how many page views they get on their home page. Still, happy browsing!

Cory