Friday, May 29, 2009

52 Labour MPs beg Gordon Brown for a Peerage

Like rats scurrying to abandon a sinking ship, it appears that the political crisis of confidence at the heart of New Labour has persuaded a record 52 members of the Parliamentary Party that they wish to continue claiming their expenses from the House of Lords.

It is a safer option, you see, not being subject to the wrath of the peasants or the disturbing inconveniences of democracy – like elections. It is also a clear indication that at least 15 per cent of Labour MPs expect to lose their seats in a Conservative landslide at the next general election, and the atmosphere of doom and gloom is causing them to reassess their traditional doctrinal antipathy towards the upper house, like hypocritical Socialists tend to. It has never ceased to amaze Cranmer that those who spend their political careers as commoners lambasting the Lords invariably end up becoming one.

But back to the rats.

The disclosure that 52 Labour MPs are praying for a political afterlife in the Lords is precisely the sort of abhorrent spectacle which sickens an already-vomiting electorate. After Tony Blair’s dog’s breakfast of reform to purge the House of Lords of its hereditary peers, Labour presently has 214 peers to the Conservative Party’s 196. Of these, 210 are Labour life peers to the Conservatives’ 148. If all 52 deserting Labour MPs are granted seats in the Lords, it will provide them with a massive 266 peers – 70 more than the Conservatives – with which they can frustrate the will of David Cameron’s government for years to come (or at least until the upper house reform is completed to some sort of logical conclusion).

Like Gordon Brown’s present scorched-earth economic policy, he might find this sabotage irresistible.

One cannot really blame Labour MPs for throwing themselves a lifeline: it is, after all, perfectly natural to want to save oneself from catastrophe. But Cranmer wishes to apologise to rats. He meant no offence when he ascribed rodent-like characteristics to the blood-sucking parasites which make up the Parliamentary Labour Party. He has nothing but respect for those of you who bravely dwell aboard nautical vessels, for you would probably help to rescue the ship’s passengers and crew before jumping overboard yourselves. Labour’s vermin, however, have ceased to be concerned for the unemployed, the homeless, the suffering or the deprived. They simply need to ensure a method by which they can continue to claim their expenses. And if they can simultaneously scupper David Cameron’s first period in government, so much the better.


Anonymous M said...

I cannot understand why the media does not pick up on this and expose it to the general public, but instead they concern themselves with £5,000 donations to the BNP trying to create scandals in order to create news.

We will get what we deserve I suppose. It would be wrong to suggest that blind people get what they deserve if they fall down holes or walk into the middle of speeding traffic, but people who have the ability to see but walk around with their eyes shut will get what they deserve.

Similarly, if you lie down with dogs then you get up with fleas. Similarly, if you breed rats in your living room, you will soon be overrun by rats, and as small a creature as they are, they will take over the control of your life very quickly. You will be up to your ears in rat shit, and you will be eaten out of house and home. The agenda of a rat is very basic but all consuming.

We have been breeding rats in our living rooms, consequently, we are up to our ears in it.

29 May 2009 at 10:00  
Anonymous Stop Common Purpose said...

M, the media is controlled by Common Purpose:

29 May 2009 at 10:16  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Your Grace

If Brown acceeds to this, my contempt for NuLabour with be replaced with fury.

Now that NuLabour has trashed the House of Lords, the only thing to do is to replace it by a fully elected body.

It should be one of the first things that Cameron should do on entering office.

A second chamber with the power to force the HofC to think again can be a very good check on an overweening executive. And if say a proportion of the Upper Chamber Members were elected each year, the upper chamber would have a better chance of reflecting the public mood.

Will Cameron have the integrity to change a system to one which would not favour any particular party but would be for the good of the country?

Remember Aneurin Bevan describing the tories as vermin? He should be living at this hour to observe rattus novi laboris which has far more parasites than the famed black rat which fostered the bubonic plague.

29 May 2009 at 10:47  
Blogger Demetrius said...

Well, so much for the "Upper House", more like the Main Sewer, if this lot get sent there.

29 May 2009 at 11:59  
Blogger Timothy Belmont said...

Your Grace,

I'm beginning to think that it may be best to abolish the House of Lords. It has already been transformed beyond redemption. Hereditary Peers no longer sit there as of Right.
We are left with practically co aristocrats; in deed, quite the opposite! Most Life Peers are from the lower classes these days and many are demi-literate at that. Why should these plebs hold titles? It is preposterous. Of course there are exceptions; though the Lords is no longer a Noble House.
As reactionary, I'd wish the nobility to be restored to the House of Lords and the working-classes thrown out.


29 May 2009 at 12:00  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


29 May 2009 at 12:35  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

The source (The Guardian) is hyperlinked (clue: purple font) in the third line of the article.

29 May 2009 at 12:52  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

Your Grace,
I second Mr Belmont's suggestion of a return to an hereditary House of Lords. I would ban all Members of Parliament from ennoblement, and life peerages would still be offered to those with years of proven knowledge and wisdom.

Your Grace will recall that, under John Major, we had cash for questions. Under Dave Cameron, it is questions for Cash.

29 May 2009 at 13:01  
Anonymous John Malcolmson said...

Grumpy: Shouldn't that be ratt(i) novi laboris?

As His Grace pointed out, there are 52 of them - and that doesn't include the (as yet) non-jumping variety.

29 May 2009 at 14:36  
Anonymous John Malcolmson said...

Sorry Grumpy - I should read posts more thoroughly.

I've just realised that your rattus is a genus rather than an individual rat. Apologies!

29 May 2009 at 14:38  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

MEPs allowances:

29 May 2009 at 14:44  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

That's OK John M; it was the genitive bit that I felt shaky about (rat of the new labour kind), but I think his Grace would have corrected me by now if it was wrong

29 May 2009 at 15:36  
Anonymous len said...

So the public will not be rid of these blood sucking parasites( M Ps) they will merely move on to find a new host!
Parliament needs radical reform.

29 May 2009 at 18:20  
Anonymous jim w said...

Hasn't the present behaviour of elected representatives taught us anything? We don't need another elected chamber. I agree that the Lords should revert to an hereditary basis, perhaps with a sprinkling of non-party life peers. This would give a far greater cross-section of opinion than another house of party hacks. After all in recent times a communist representative sat in the Lords by way of an hereditary title, as did a Benedictine monk.

29 May 2009 at 19:51  
Blogger JamesD'Troy said...

I hope that that if this venal group of Nu-Labour scum attempts to ensure their station, that the Queen intervenes and at the very least threatens to dissolve Parliament. The scenario suggested is beyond disgust.

I agree that if the House of Lords is allowed to continue, it should return to hereditary peers. However, the qualifications to become a Peer should be changed. In my opinion the people most qualified to run Britain are the people who have done the most to to defend it. Military or police service should be a manditory qualification for entrance into the House of Lords. I can think of no better group of people to serve Britain than the people who fought, bleed, and faced death to defend it.

The title 'Sir', 'Lady', and other titles should actually mean something instead of being a series of letters one collects towards the end of ones life. No more aging pop stars and aspirant pseudo-aristocrats. Award them on merit not on popularity or price.

29 May 2009 at 19:55  
Blogger UKViewer said...

I believe that politicians who have sat in Parliament should not be given the option of being in the Lords.

The Lords should consist of the ancient lines of peers, the bishops (and selected leaders of other faith communities) and individuals selected for their service and contribution to the health, wealth and welfare of the nation or their community or for charitable good works. The selection process being run via a Referendum, yearly.

I do not include Politicians or any party in this category.

You would then have a representative house of the whole country to counterbalance the excesses and zeal of the lower house.


29 May 2009 at 19:59  
Blogger Dave J said...

"The Lords should consist of the ancient lines of peers..."

As someone who defended the old pre-"reform" HoL against Blair's constitutional vandalism, I would nonetheless point out that this statement borders on a sort of romantic and precious Golden Age nostalgia with slight basis in reality. The overwhelming majority of hereditary peerages are not "ancient": they date from the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries.

30 May 2009 at 01:12  
Blogger Willie said...

Any MPs elevated after this parliament could only be vermin in ermine...

30 May 2009 at 10:24  
Anonymous philip walling said...

The people who are clamouring for an election and the destruction of the Labour party (with which I entirely agree) are the same people who voted Labour in THREE general elections and gave them the overwhelming power to destroy much of what was valuable about Britain.
It's worth considering the fickleness of the electorate when we are facing so-called public outrage over MP's expenses.

1 June 2009 at 10:15  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older