I have never accepted the argument that a second chamber could somehow act as a voice of reason that does not have to bow to the hurly-burly of politics. Whether it's hereditary, elected or just packed full of cronies, that argument seems like an argument against democracy itself. The same kind of reasoning that suggests the monarchy is somehow 'above' the vested interests of elected politicians.
But I will applaud the House of Lords select committee on drugs policy of decriminalisation.
I haven't seen the proposals in detail, nor do I claim any expertise on the subject. But whatever the ins and outs of their reforms, they at least have had the balls to treat drugs as a health issue and not a law and order issue - or a public morals issue.
I haven't seen the proposals in detail, nor do I claim any expertise on the subject. But whatever the ins and outs of their reforms, they at least have had the balls to treat drugs as a health issue and not a law and order issue - or a public morals issue.
Of course the cynical could say that they can afford to think outside the box because in our current political climate there is bugger all possibility of their ideas being implemented. Cameron has certainly pissed ice on it from the start and Miliband has unsurprisingly said something dull and non-committal about on-going reviews ... blah-blah-blah. Both are far too nervous looking over their shoulders at the pitch-fork wielding self appointed guardians of middle England's virtue to actually yield to common sense about the ludicrous notion of a 'war on drugs'.
Clegg alone has picked up the issue. But then again as with everything else the LibDems do - it's easy to pose as libertarian when you're hiding behind the skirts of reactionary neo-Thatcherites...
1 comment:
I enjoyed this article which is why I will risk upset in adding to your bit about the House of Lords and Queen. Sometimes the Lords get it right. Can we agree that the Lords and Queen represent the upper classes, toffs etc? I assume that after the worker's revolution they will be abolished. But one useful function they perform might be worth keeping, as it will go with a second chamber full of party hacks and a party nominated President or Dear Leader. First, my working class credential: dad, a lorry driver, mum worked as a maid when young and emptied piss pots and saw the butler as a class enemy who sexually harassed and sometimes raped young girls. Me: a fitters mate, building worker, shop steward and many other things.
A big problem today is the politicisation of science. I am banned from discussing it on anarchist blogs but here goes. Scientists are ruled by Big Government, Big Green and Big Oil (plus multinationals). Research results are controlled by these, whether left-wing or right wing. Finance for science is based on whoever pays the piper. And you won't believe me if I give details, so I won't. For many years I used to spend weekends at consultations on science, theology, philosophy at Windsor Castle - the only place where scientists and others like me could discuss issues like the political and social implications of science without external pressure. Being a monarch with prestige attracted the world's best scientists, medical researchers and ethicists, so I spent many a day working with people like Stephen Hawkings and a former Archbishop on politics science etc. That freedom of inquiry is vital whatever regime replaces the monarchy.
The Lords too gives me freedom - I am not in a party - to investigate major issues, health care, animal welfare, and much more without political or corporate influence. What the stupid MPs do with my reports is their business, but the left are not interested in these issues, as sadly, the truth was discovered by dead Russians and disseminated today by anarchist and green messiahs who represent the working classes. Fair enough. But these two arenas still provide a kind of freedom I don't see anywhere else, and it will be sad is a left revolution completely replaces free inquiry with the revealed truths which are repeated in every anarchist blog.
Can I tell a Queen story? In Windsor Castle was a painting of the Crucifiction. Jesus looked pretty rough, unlike the usual Jesus who was made to look like restoration monarchs. He had muscular arms, but badly injured. The church men wanted it removed, and said it had been painted by a communist. Queen overruled and said: If Jesus was a carpenter, a worker, this is how he would look, the painting stays'. Interesting message on how much the toffs are aware of.
Post a Comment