Saturday, December 05, 2009

Breath-taking naiveté...

Via Iain Dale's round-up of "new" blogs, I stumbled across Tory Tavern. This is yet another blog written in the third person—presumably attempting to emulate the success of Tory Bear or Guido*.

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 reformpraising 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.

21 comments:

andy janes said...

If we decide an upper house is needed, I've always thought a lottery was the best way to pick members. It couldn't be much worse than the current lot could it?

Jiks said...

Fiddling the system so parties "we" don't like can't represent the people who vote for them is disgrace no matter who those parties are or how it is done.

It is done already of course and the nonsense from Harris follows on from other recent garbage such as proposals to remove polling stations from rural areas so those nasty country folk are less likely to vote and shorter opening hours of same so those simply ghastly people with jobs might not vote either.

Nice bit of verbal savaging btw DK.

Devil's Kitchen said...

andy,

"If we decide an upper house is needed, I've always thought a lottery was the best way to pick members."

Yup. Now, what we really want is a lottery, so that members' views span all beliefs and none, right?

But, preferably, we'd like them to have some inkling of their responsibilities and the duties that they will have to undertake too, yes?

And, of course, we'd like their appointment to be for life so that they neither owe anyone their position, nor have to worry about pandering to the electorate or party Whips.

Hmmm...

It's almost like the lottery could be one of birth, but descended down the line so that father could teach son and the place automatically passed down so that no one can unduly influence them.

Where would one find such a system, I wonder...?

DK

Kay Tie said...

Appointing Lords from MPs, automatically based on some kind of algorithm (I dunno, three terms in the Commons and then automatically to the Lords?), does have some advantages.

1. These people were elected by real people. The Lords would be legitimate and able to assert true rights of veto over the Commons. No Parliament Act.

2. The Lords will have old hands, bringing some kind of perspective of the ages. So when hip young things have long forgotten that we could once have a sing-song in a pub without a licence, the Lords will be there to remember how things used to be, what mistakes were made (dangerous dogs, handgun bans etc.), and have a bit more wisdom.

Curmudgeon said...

I wonder if "Tory Tavern" opposes the smoking ban? ;-)

Nick said...

1,800 quid a day. That's what a Lord costs you.

It's the same as the tax take from the average British peasant for a year. (Min wage is 5.80 an hour)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6945978.ece

The ST doesn't mince its words in this case.

Anonymous said...

Bring back the Old Lords where they were apointed by the monarch only.
To be apointed they must have run their own business or have assets to cover their living costs as they should not recieve anything for this honour, they have the choice to accept it and help the people or turn it down as they could not afford it.

Paying people to be a political sycophants has brought so much corruption to both houses that maybe the old old ways were the best.
Paying a party place man a wage that is 5-6 times that of the majority wage is frankly sickening.
If it means only the wealthy and succesfull could partake in this then so be it, they ran the country better and taxed the people far far less (they were still corrupt but at least didn't fleece the people any were near as much!)

And don't get me started on paid special advisors and media reps, goverments are openly saying they are fuckwits who need telling how to do the jop they applied for!

better stop now or i won't stop at all.

Anonymous said...

just realized i didn't mention that i was laying into the commons as well.
It's a shame a few good apples are getting a bad rep from a rotten barrel.

torytavern said...

Always a pleasure to have a review, particularly one filled with a number of idiotic comments.

The third-person style isn't intended to copy anyone. Nor does the landlord (oops) have any interest in emulating Tory Bear or Guido - the landlord has no wish to be a "dork/geek", as Charlotte Gore describes you. The landlord wanted for the blog to be anonymous, so he thought he'd write it in the style of reports on a landlord's views. It's a chosen style of writing, as is your decision to include a bunch of swear words every other sentence. It goes without saying that the author isn't a landlord in a tavern anymore than anyone associated with this blog is a devil in a kitchen.

Secondly, the irony of you finding the blog "arrogantly mundane", yet spending time to read back through a number of posts is not lost on the landlord.

As for "how about you back up your assertions with some reasoning rather than taking it for granted that everyone agrees with your views?" - erm, how about the landlord writes what the hell he wants on his own blog? Don't like it? Don't read it. Simples.

The landlord understands that DK favours hereditary peers - which only makes his comments even less coherent. The landlord concedes that not every appointed lord is there by merit, but he believes that many of them are. By contrast, there isn't a single hereditary peer selected on personal merit. The landlord understands that your Guido-lite, anti-politics message would prevent you from admitting that.

As for pointing out that roughly 70% of people didn't vote for one of the Big Three at the last election, that's a bending of the statistics, based on apathy. In actual fact, 90% of people who voted decided to back one of the Big Three. Those 70% had the opportunity to vote for an alternative party - the fact that they didn't is no-one's fault but their own. No doubt that'll change at the next election when everyone floods to vote for the Libertarian Party.

Roue le Jour said...

For someone with 'tory' in their name, torytavern sounds awfully like the communists currently wrecking the beautiful country of my birth.

I remember well the televised debates in the Lords prior to the insults of Anthony Charles Lynton Blair, in any sensible country they would have been shown to school children as an example of how civilised adults debate an issue. If one is going have a second chamber, the one we had could not be improved upon.

Lord Taylor of Warwick, Baroness Scotland of Asthal and Baroness Uddin inspire children to, what, exactly? Lie, cheat and steal? Snoop Dogg is a better role model.

Socialism can be visualised as wolves convincing sheep they don't need shepherds. Torytavern is a wolf.

Jiks said...

Wow, that third person thing really does make one appear to have some kind of personality disorder if used that often.

Mitch said...

Pick the fuckers like a jury.
One term,draconian penalties for fraud/corruption and off back into the the real world.
No ex MPs no Bank execs just "ordinary people" who have done useful stuff like have jobs and families.

Apathetic, moi? said...

Oh the usual story, you didn't vote, you must be apathetic.

NO, you mong, I'm apoplectic, but I don't have anyone to vote for.

This time around I can't vote for cameroid as he has betrayed the uk over europe. I won't vote for him, because he'll take that as a vote for however he decides to rule - count me OUT.

UKIP...maybe, but I can't say that I see the as representing my views very well, either. I'm self-employed working in france. I like europe, I just don't want their corrupt bureaucracy on top of our own corrupt politicians.

So, fuck off calling me apathetic

Autoroute de domage said...

Roue le Jour,

before zanulaba I would have abolished all of their lordships immediately.

I saw the judges as remote irrelevances.

12 glorious years of zanulabia and who are our greatest protectors?

The lords that stop 90 / 42 days of arbitrary incarceration.

Coroners that speak out about MOD funding.

AMAZING! They're what's left of our protection from the state. (Clearly not all of them)

I am now in favour of kicking out every lord who has been dipping into expenses - yes, I think I'm looking at you, zanulaba appointees.

However the hereditary peers came to be in place they appear to be vastly superior to the absolutely useless lefties appointed for their views and controlability. The EU appointee ashtray being a stunning example of getting to the top via who you know and who you take orders from - 'cos it wasn't merit, was it?

Longrider said...

Oh the usual story, you didn't vote, you must be apathetic.

Indeed. There is something deeply arrogant about the politicos who presume a withheld vote is an indication of apathy. I see Torytavern uses the same epithet as pualie - those of us who abhor and rail against the current status quo are "anti-politics". No, no, no, we are anti-politicans.

Roger Thornhill said...

VERY busy right now but one point amongst so many to make:


@ToryTavern: "Secondly, the irony of you finding the blog "arrogantly mundane", yet spending time to read back through a number of posts is not lost on the landlord."


No, TT, that is called fact-checking, as in "your arse".

Tomrat said...

2 points:

1. The only thing that should stop a Lord once they become a Lord from entering the upper house is a jail cell -if they've broken the law they don't lose their peerage but they do lose their freedom; the detachment from reality that most of these Lords experience is palpable considering few ever face the consequences- Look at Lord Ahmed or the 4 labour peers who offered law making powers to the highest bidder.

2. I'll say we should have appointed peers but by appointment from Parliament and not on the basis of government fiat; the US senate is capable of blocking appointees to government on a similar fashion, and aside from a few exceptions (eg that horse trader who ran FEMA during the New Orleans disaster) it works pretty well.

I'm of th opinion that we need fewer leaders and when there is a need for an authority with powers over our innte freedoms an opinion on who wields it needs to be devolved as practically low as possible, and the means by which ordinary people get to champion/rubbish their appointment is clear, eg Sheriffs, locally elected justices' etc.

Devil's Kitchen said...

Tory Tavern,

"... erm, how about the landlord writes what the hell he wants on his own blog? Don't like it? Don't read it. Simples."

Sure, and I won't. But that answer really is the lamest fucking answer in the book.

"The landlord understands that DK favours hereditary peers - which only makes his comments even less coherent."

As a matter of fact, my mind is far from made up on the matter.

I have, for instance, very little interest in seeing an elected second chamber, subject to all of the party political partisanship and corruption of the lower House.

"The landlord concedes that not every appointed lord is there by merit, but he believes that many of them are."

And so I refer you to the title of this post: "Breath-taking naivete."

"By contrast, there isn't a single hereditary peer selected on personal merit."

No: but for many, having been selected, they become meritorious because they understand the responsibility.

I have met a number of the hereditaries still remaining and they have always taken their duties very seriously (although, given the events at which I have met them, this may be an element of self-selection).

"The landlord understands that your Guido-lite, anti-politics message would prevent you from admitting that."

If I thought it were true, I'd admit it, TT. The selected Lords are there because they have done favours for the ruling elite—or because they serve some other agenda, e.g. the talentless nonentity that is Baroness Warsi is there only because she is a) a woman, and b) Asian.

DK

steward said...

Appoint Lords for evey Parliment in reverse proportion to their elected MPs eg 200 labour MPs, 350 Tory 200 Tory Lords 350 Labour. This would need tweeking for the minority parties but could be done.

torytavern said...

The landlord DOES understand that not everyone who didn't vote is apathetic. He didn't mean to suggest that. But he'd prefer it if people still bothered to go to the polling station and spoil their ballot papers - the numbers of which get officially recorded at each election.

It would be a far better message of anger to the political class - if that is indeed the message you want to send - if there were, say, 10 million spoiled ballot papers rather than just a very large number of people who couldn't even be bothered to turn out.

Anonymous said...

TT - apathetic ol' me again

I wouldn't cross the street to piss out the flames if one of the zanulabia top-cunts was on fire...(I suppose I'd be willing to try to kick the flames out though - poorly).

I don't wish to justify the whole fucking system by going along with the charade.

Spoilt ballot papers - they wouldn't give a SHIT. Whoever 'wins' runs for the trough claiming the mandate - see you in five yearse suckers