Most of the Tory Landlord's writing is the usual run-of-the-mill Tory fayre, i.e. not an awful lot to say and what is said is fairly arrogantly mundane. However, this post on electoral reform—praising Tom Harris's vicious and sinister bollocks about the BNP being elected to the House of Lords**—contained this stunningly naive paragraph.
Tom favours a 100% appointed upper house – the landlord agrees entirely.
That is because the landlord is a fucking moron.
Hereditary peers should, of course, be no more – they have no part to play in a modern political system.
Um... Why? Tell you what, o landlord, how about you back up your assertions with some reasoning rather than taking it for granted that everyone agrees with your views? Still, let us take your stupid opinion as read and move on, shall we...?
But appointed lords (the landlord assumes they will still be called Lords. ‘Senators’ is very American.) are the best of both worlds – they are there by merit (as opposed to fortune at birth) but also need not fear an electoral backlash if they make decisions that are ‘right for society’ but perhaps unpopular in the short-term.
Aaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaahaha! Hahahaha! Haha! Ha! Fuck me, but that's hilarious!
That's right, ladies and gentlemen, the Tory Landlord reckons that appointed lords are "there by merit"! That's brilliant—tell me another!
You haven't got one? Oh...
Well, in that case, let me spell it out for you: the appointed lords are not there on merit—they are appointed on the basis of fat wads of cash—and other favours—given to the ruling politicians.
An appointed House of Lords would be filled with the dregs of humanity—people so disgusting, duplicitous and self-loathing that they lowered themselves to fawn over politicians.
Further, since it is the ruling parties who get to choose the Lords, that would forever shut out the smaller parties and entrench the Big Three's as the permanent arbiters of our future.
Now, the Tory Landlord might like the idea of that, since his pointless, feckless, corrupt, authoritarian, economically-illiterate, piece-of-shit party would be one of those doing the choosing but it most certainly would not be good for democracy, for the "modern political system" that the Landlord professes such keenness for, or for the roughly 70% of people in this country who did not vote for the Big Three at the last general election.
But then—like the politicos that he worships—the Tory Landlord has no actual interest in what the people of this country might want: no, they are simply sheep to be herded and milked so that fuckwits like the landlord and his lickspittle masters can continue to keep themselves in subsidised beer.
* Your humble Devil rarely refers to himself in the third person, and I almost never do it consistently throughout a post.
** Harris's argument is that an elected House of Lords would mean that, in one way or another, the BNP would have some representation in government. My immediate reaction is "yeah. And. So. What?" Harris's reaction is that even the possibility of the BNP getting a representative in the Lords is so repugnant that such a change should never be contemplated.
This is because Tom Harris is a hysterical old woman who is simultaneously too pig-ignorant to realise that his party's policies are pretty close to those of the BNP—and, in many cases, actually rather worse.