Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Nothing is certain in this world...

Cranmer was accused of being partisan (as if) in his reporting of the 'cash for access' Labour MPs.

The truth is that none of the early reporting referenced Sir John Butterfill at all. His Grace only learned of it when he watched Dispatches.

There is a certain irony, as Sir John boasts of the likelihood of his going to the Lords, that he observes 'nothing is certain in this world'.

Indeed it is not.

But David Cameron has since made it rather more certain that Sir John will not be taking ermine.

Give it time...


Blogger Botogol said...

you have to have that heart of stone not to laugh.

gosh, I bet Lady Butterfill was cross when he got home :-)

23 March 2010 at 17:02  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Botogol,

She probably wasn't that cross - her title remains 'Lady' whether married to a knight or a peer.

Perhaps someone should look into that injustice: it must breach some equality legislation somewhere.

23 March 2010 at 17:06  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

What a sickening bunch they are. Presumably as with ennoblement, a knighthood be rescinded?

23 March 2010 at 17:14  
Anonymous len said...

Two things are certain in this world,there are two appointments everyone must keep,death and judgment.

23 March 2010 at 18:03  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Len,

Now then...

Judgment is not 'in this world'.

And death has been conquered. And if that appears a pedantic point, at least the disappearance in the clouds of Elijah gives doubt to the absolute inevitability.

23 March 2010 at 18:13  
Anonymous len said...

2 Corinthians 5:10 NIV For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.

This verse makes it clear that everyone will appear before Christ to be judged for the things done in the body. Jesus makes it plain that every word we have spoken will be judged:

( This seems to be in retrospect Y G )

23 March 2010 at 18:26  
Blogger OldSouth said...

He seems like a character out of 'Rumpole of the Bailey'.

Like Rumpole, it would be funny, were the undertone of dark tragedy not so apparent.

People like him end up making crucial decisions about the lives of people throughout his country and the world, and there is no accountability in the process save conscience.

Or absence thereof.

23 March 2010 at 18:33  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Your Grace, the sight of this utter mediocrity and placeman bragging about his forthcoming 'promotion' is in itself an eloquent argument for an elected upper house.

23 March 2010 at 19:56  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Surely you have been duped. Sir John Butterfill is only a Private Eye invention to replace the late Sir Bufton Tufton

23 March 2010 at 20:22  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ bluedog (19:56)—…an eloquent argument for an elected upper house.

Or, an eloquent argument for ditching the life peers and reverting to an hereditary House of Lords.

Give power to those who seek power and you can expect that power to be abused; the House of Commons is proof of that. It’s like giving drugs to a drug addict. Filling the Lords by accident of birth would mean a house almost wholly free of power addicts (they’d form the same percentage as in the general population) and a house that might even shame the Commons into better behaviour.

Choosing the membership of the two Houses of Parliament by entirely different methods would be a safeguard for the liberty of the people, a protection against over-powerful government.

23 March 2010 at 21:02  
Anonymous len said...

I sometimes think the desire to be a politician should be enough to disqualify them!

23 March 2010 at 22:31  
Anonymous philip walling said...

Dear Mr Rottenborough and Mr Len,

Yes, yes, yes, why will nobody say that the hereditary House was the best thing about Britain and it is still what people really want?

The Restoration spirit is all around and nobody is prepared to admit it.
Away with the modern-day Cromwell and his hideous heresy, and in with life as it really is!

People crave decency and honour and that's what the hereditary peerage had in spades; that's why they went with barely a whimper when it appeared that the scum that did for them no longer wanted them - but the people still want them and until they are restored this country will languish in ignominy.

Remember the disgusting traitors who stabbed them: 'Lady' Jay (aka Callaghan), Jack Straw, Tony Blair, Brown, Hoon, Hewitt and Byers, and a host of names I have temporarily forgotten, but known to God.

23 March 2010 at 23:20  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

Perhaps if people reminded themselves why and by who knighthoods are awarded they might understand why they often go to the most unsuitable people.

They are given for services to the CROWN by the Queen of England, not for services to the people or given by the people.

This could be changed, but it is unlikely to be, unless we MAKE it change.

There is no logical reason why knighthoods should not be decided by national or regional ballots.

These could be lifetime peers.

Whereas the rest should and could be elected every 5-8 years from a list of independent candidates selected by a system of primary elections.

In other words something like TRUE democracy accountable to the people, for the people, and far more by the people.

Instead of what we have now, which is as good as the complete opposite, or indeed far worse then even that.

What we have is a system of government wholly and completely controlled by 3 wholly corporatist parties, wholly controlled by corporatists, wholly working for the interests of corporatists and their national and multi-national corporations. One of the most influential ones being the British Royal Family, the Pope in Rome, and their most favoured bank manager and his perfectly vast world sized banking Empire.

What about the EU and the Lisburn Treaty I can sense some of you thinking?

Don't be stupid, if these people believed that the EU was a threat to their power and almost infinite wealth, there would not even be an EU, for the UK to be a member of.

23 March 2010 at 23:36  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Second House:-
(a) Should not be selected on a PR system that enables a Political Party to impose 'Place-men/women'-[ie. candidates proposed by a cabal of party insiders].
(b)The population should be able to directly select a defined proportion of the Members of the Second House as individuals.
(c)The Second House should continue to include 'The Great and The Good' from important areas of our national life [Science, Arts, Law, Military, Religion, etc. - we must have such expertise retained within the system] -N.B.Such members would probably be excluded in a 100% elected Second Chamber or a PR party type voting system.-Thus an appointments system possibly cross-party would be required here.
(d)BUT I say NO to a 100% PR system that elects members of a Second House - this would lead to 'placemen/women', 'journeymen/women' waiting for orders from above.

24 March 2010 at 02:03  
Anonymous not a machine said...

There was a time recall when caught in any form of cheating whilst holding public office would trigger a resignation, my my how things have changed , one can bragg about cheating for money in public office .
It is interesting an insider trading deal is being pressed , a money laundering racket in football .I despair , we have laughed at being clever only for the facade and gains to get ever more boastfull and bigger until finally we are bust and it seems few honest/content people hold office .

I now know how farmers despair when they see a swarm of locusts only these eat money and destroy commonwealth ecnomics and they have been at it for some time.

24 March 2010 at 02:10  
Anonymous no nonny said...

Your Grace, thank you yet again for the videos! What a feast. The modern 'atheist' was a trip: they're so full of themselves, they don't need the likes of me to respond to their croaks for froglike 'rationalism'!!

I didn't manage to see all I wanted of the Laughton, but it seemed a delightful parallel to the case in point here. The Mills and the Betjeman were also great treats.

Then, after all, you cannot know what you wrought with Tavener, Mozart, the Lamb, and the cathedral settings. Suffice it to say I have a 2-hour Viva - Defence- in the morning: and everything you showed was apt. God Bless you, and thank you.


As to the Lords - surely the butter person shows that the destroyers have meddled enough? So far as I can see, none of these 'improvers' has even been struck by lightning, let alone by the insight to understand what they have dismantled and trampled upon. Why ever do these flat-footed oafs, Philistines indeed, think they have something better to offer? Just because somebody else has a different way, it's better than what we developed for ourselves, after centuries of struggle, trial, and error? Are they really fools? Or do they already know how to milk the systems and the corrupt individuals they intend to fill them with?

24 March 2010 at 02:40  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Your Grace, Mr Walling and Mr Rottenborough, some points on which we may be able to agree;
1) The charlatan Blair's changes to the British constitution were poorly thought out, extremely damaging and urgently need to be reviewd.
2) If any further changes are made to the constitution they need to be permanenent so that the next incarnation of Blair cannot reverse them at whim.
3) It follows that the foundations of the constitution need to be laid anew so that the edifice is properly codified on the basis of agreed principles. A number of suitable models exist, in Germany, certain Dominions and to some extent the United States.
4) If the British people ever again elect an honest and competent government, anongst its first duties should be to draw up the terms of reference of a Constitutional Convention.

Holding such a Convention would be a lengthy process as all interested parties need to have their say. This would require sessions in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions. The Convention may include representatives of the Irish Republic by way of observer status. Once an agreed position is reached the proposals could be put to the British electorate for ratification by referendum.

If these proposals were to include a return to the hereditaries on a pre-1963 basis, Mr Walling, so be it. If mandated by referendum, I and others could say that the upper house had been subject to a popular vote for the first time in 944 years, and you would be happy too. His Grace may cheer the retention of the Lords Spiritual, without whom it is possible that the established position of the Church of England may implicitly unravel.

However, as things stand the Sans Culottes are not rattling the gates of Buckingham Palace, waving placards and shouting for the return of Les Aristos. There are no hungerstrikers outside suburban supermarkets demanding the ministry of the Peerage, and no deranged woman has yet thrown herself under the Queen's horse at Epsom in protest at the demise of the hereditaries.

So what do the Peers themselves want? Perhaps the more capable amongst them, the ones you want to retain at Westminster, have shrugged their shoulders and are getting on with life. It would be embarrassing if they voted not to return.

24 March 2010 at 10:47  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Johnny Rottenborough - an excellent post Sir!

24 March 2010 at 16:02  
Anonymous Tony B said...

>"Yes, yes, yes, why will nobody say that the hereditary House was the best thing about Britain and it is still what people really want?"

Because it wasn't and it isn't, perhaps?

How many people have you actually asked?

25 March 2010 at 08:55  
Anonymous Alice said...

Ha! In one prayer we pray to be guarded against false utopias and in another for 'unity and co-operation throughout the world'. How will God sort that out, I wonder?

25 March 2010 at 15:40  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older