UBUNTU I am because of who we all are.
Supporting the 2012 Olympic Legacy—I WILL be positive and endeavour to maintain the Olympians' love of life and its challenges
MALALA—a statement of the failure of religion:
religion that fails to pro-actively promote the absolute equality of male and female is fundamentally immoral and unfit for decent society.
There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:26-28)
Diversity within unity and change over time is the reality of Creation. Peter Such, poet and writer (1943–)
Neither praise nor shoot the messenger: the message is all.


 

Peter Such

Peter Such

A view of Great Berkhamsted from Cooper's fields.

Peter Such lives in Great Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire, England
Formerly working in printing and publishing Peter Such is currently an occasional writer on diverse issues, as the mood takes him.
He has regularly put his views to the test of public opinion, which is how he twice ended up as mayor of his home town.
 He also stood for The Referendum Party in the UK General Election of 1997.

www.petersuch.org www.petersuch.com
Also on Twitter as Peewit2 (he doesn't take it seriously) and on Facebook as himself (peter.such.5)

FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS CURRENT BLOG ANNOTATIONS/OTHER REFERENCES

Last published: Sunday, August 30, 2015 09:23

AUGUST 2015
GENERAL AND COMMENTARY INDEX
NEVER FORGET
It was Labour and the Lib/Dems that denied us the political vote that turned commercial agreements on trade into political authoritarian diktat. As Churchill said "Trust the British people". Labour refused to do so and with the LibDems Labour STILL refuses to do so, hence our present mess.

We would have had a perfectly harmonious relationship with the EU had they done so, for the British people would have demanded the basic common sense that is our inherent nature before agreeing anything. Clearly neither Labour nor the Lib/Dems possess the necessary courage... or is that simply arrogance, or fear of contrary opinion due to their own uncertainties?

Sunday 30th August 2015 [morning post]
TODAY’S LABOUR PARTY: “HELLO ALL, I’M TONY BLAIR, REMEMBER ME?
“I’m the guy who said we needed to go into Iraq and when we got there found there was no need to have gone after all.

“I’m the guy who said the British people were too stupid to be trusted to be asked whether or not we should allow the EU to run our country for us as we Labour people really didn’t have much idea what to do.

“I recommended that chap Brown should follow me, he thought it a good idea to sell off our gold so we are even more penurious than we might have been, good idea, don’t you think? Good old Brown, he also agrees with me, don’t vote for Corbyn.

“By the way, those of my mind also recommended Corbyn should be heard but none of us thought you would all be so stupid as to listen, silly of us, what, so don’t vote for him, eh?! Remember, I’m Tony Blair, well worth your while to listen to me now.”

Saturday 29th August 2015 (after-noon post)
World Government?
In a recent issue of Scientific American [August 2015], the longest running American periodical, celebrating 175 years of publication this year, is an article “How We Conquered the Planet”. The article is summed up in one word ‘co-operation’. The article gives a history from Neanderthal to modern man, explaining why the primitive versions of man lost out to modern Homo sapiens. Quoting from that article, “One major goal of all organisms is to secure a food supply, so if food can be defended, then it follows that aggressive behaviour in its defence should be selected. If the food cannot be defended or is too costly to patrol, then aggressive behaviour is counter-productive.

Is it too devious an observation to swap ‘other’ needs for ‘food’? When we have Moslem people claiming to be hungry refusing food because the packaging has a Christian cross on it, has not religion become a more vital goal than basic sustenance? Physical force, factual or implied is what is keeping most of the Africa-orientated migrants at bay. Civilisation has not yet broken down where it matters, in Europe, primarily Christian orientated but should we not be more conscious of the potential danger?

As predominantly Christian, should not Europe be adopting a more practical Christian response? Yet, as I mentioned in yesterday’s post, territory borders are key to people management, which so many countries in Europe have chosen to abandon. Those remaining borders are overwhelmed and failing, while at the same time Europe is doing nothing about tackling the problem at either end: problem source or problem determination but then neither are the migrants tackling their home problems at home before migrating, effectively, simply running away from their domestic problems expecting someone else to fight them for them.  

I have just learned that a friend is in financial difficulties. These difficulties seem primarily to be of his making. Europe is facing major social and economic problems, not it’s making. Yet the world scale might rightly raise the question, provoked by the article in the Scientific American, is this not a turning point, when modern man challenges former modern man’s conception of society? Bearing in mind H. sapiens is aware of climate change; aware of his continual use of fossilised fuels, which are a finite resource; now has an extraordinary desire to satisfy the mind’s ego, rather than the stomach’s practical necessity; has entrenched sections determined to play havoc with the established status quo, without any rationale as to purpose, now or where ever it is heading, one might say "this is the excuse the species needs to seriously consider an organised world order".

Friday 28th August 2015 (after-noon post)
Where Are You Going To, My Pretty Maid?
So goes the song. So ask so many people, of so many people and where are Cameron and the Tories going? They seem to be saying that their intentions are knowingly questionable and that the validity of argument is not going to be in their favour. Generally speaking, the Lords are not irrational and were they to be so there are mechanisms to counteract their foolhardiness. Therefore, there is no need for additional members of the House of Lords but we do need to rationalise the Commons, which the Liberal Democrat party was determined to deny for political self-interest (irrelevant to sound governance). Then we need to rationalise and reduce the Lords: that is sound management.

So, it seems it is Tory arrogance that is going to pass laws, not rationality of argument? Where lies rationality in what is clearly an increasingly irrational world, where one presumes those who can should be doing but are wilfully thwarted by those whose only contribution is archaic damned fool asininities, resolutely determining that common sense will not prevail.

Let’s try some common sense. “When you're travelling, you are what you are right there and then. People don't have your past to hold against you. No yesterdays on the road.” William Least Heat-Moon, travel writer (b. 27 Aug 1939).

“We can pay our debt to the past by putting the future in debt to ourselves.” John Buchan, poet, novelist, and politician (26 Aug 1875-1940). Our concern, however, is managing the present. Where are the voices of rational Islam leading the knowledgeable condemnation of the Irrational States of Islam [ISIS]? They are surprisingly quiet. Why is Corbyn not likewise attacking them and the Roman Catholic Church’s wilfully irresponsible bias against women priests? It is these culturally created attitudes that are the cause of so much male presumptions in society.

In The Sunday Times ‘Comment’ [16.08.15], India Knight asks who she might find in that day’s “Songs of Praise” in a makeshift church outside Calais: Jesus of course. Where then are the rest of us? We need to remember that it was not Christ’s people who were handling the administration of people but the Romans. We, purportedly Christ’s people, are the ones doing the Roman’s job, as well as being Christians.

The Bible provides no lessons in the management of crowds, only on the philosophical considerations of those less well off: that the rich should aid those in need. In so far as I am aware, the Bible does not determine the homeless’ accountability for their state. In the wider field many have individually chosen to ignore the obvious ‘normal’ route away from home and deliberately put their families at risk.

We then turn to those who have deliberately made peoples’ home life unacceptable, through their failure to understand and implement an acceptable form of national governance, causing their supposed citizens to wish to flee. That other countries are disadvantaged by the sheer accumulated scale of humanity’s inhumanity to its own kind gives those countries the right to help the migrants sort out their own countries for them but western countries have already tried to do this and these peoples will not meet their obligations to themselves, by sorting themselves out.

There, in my view, lies the crunch, the failure to face up to the reality of their circumstances. Obviously mothers with young children and the sick and aged are victims either way but culture that determines these people are dependent upon men only, rather than the equality of men and women to forge a decent living together, lies at the causal root. That causal root is preoccupation with the archaic twaddle of Islam and Roman Catholicism that imbues this passivity of the female, discarding her role as potential proactive leader in the community.

Is western society missing the point? Is this major social upheaval an opportunity to re-evaluate the world… but the world is not involved, only a part. Because of the EU’s ridiculous presumptions, we are preoccupied with us, not the world, when the UK has always been world orientated. Labour told us our opinions were irrelevant and we were to accept the EU’s narrow-minded views on life. What about South America, India, Pakistan? There, the male dominance culture still gets in the way of social progress, aided by the wilful curb on social progress by Roman Catholicism and inherent ‘local’ philosophical views.

Monday 17th August 2015
TIME PRESENT AND TIME PAST… [Eliot: ‘Burnt Norton’, Four Quartets] [after-noon post]
Another mess up caused by my hard disk crash earlier in the year was that I overlooked Pendley’s Shakespeare Festival now re-orientated to the beginning of August rather than the end of August. I managed to grasp the last day, which was a newly arranged Sunday after-noon matinee, a new addition, which may well suit me fine for the future.
One problem, for those sitting in the first few rows of the main stand is the sun shining not exactly in their eyes but the equivalent of stage lights from the stage rather than on to the stage.  I remember Dorian commenting that in the first “scenes from Shakespeare”, the start of what has become an amazing festival over nearly seventy years, the audience and cast swapped places for that very reason!
           I shall write more on yesterday later, perhaps creating a special page for Pendley.

… ARE BOTH PERHAPS PRESENT IN TIME FUTURE…
Leaving the show, I was heading to the main road, up Cow Lane when there was a vehicle prang ahead of me. I understood immediately what had happened, although I had not actually witnessed the collision, merely observing the cars pulling off to examine the damage as the bang of the collision attracted my attention. The occupants of the vehicle I presumed to have been at fault may well have been in a happy, chatty, relaxed mode going home from a good, sunny summer after-noon’s entertainment when suddenly their happy world was abruptly ended by the shock of unexpected impact.
           It is a wide ‘T’ junction on an incline and if, as I believed, a vehicle turning left out of Cow Lane had been more centrally located and a car, or stream of cars had passed along the main road from the right, then a driver’s vision, turning right out of Cow Lane would be obscured, for a considerable distance to the left, long enough for a fast travelling car to turn the further corner, itself at the summit of a dipping hill and not be observed. That split second casualness and several people’s worlds are changed.
           On this occasion, presumably only in minor ways: names and addresses to be inter-changed; insurance companies to be contacted; garage bills to be estimated; cars booked-in for repair, additional to pre-planned maintenance schedules; assuming no added complication to pre-planned schedules as a result of any non roadworthiness before repairs. 
           Just one, seemingly minor incident: in such moments, more devastating consequences, affect others. We have the Glasgow refuse lorry crash killing six people. Ill health can affect any one of us at any time but that does not lessen our individual responsibility at all times to know we are fit for purpose and to take appropriate care. That leads to the current debate about diabetes. There was a woman on BBC TV this morning, she has had to make a greater effort than I have had to make, losing seven and a half stones; improving her health through running; thus taking herself further away from being a diabetic. On a much smaller scale I have done likewise.
           Why would one not make the effort for self-interest but also… do we not have the responsibility to make such efforts to reduce the demand on NHS resources for drugs and care? Personal accountability never leaves us, from that first moment when parental awareness leads to those first decisions when we are perceived as accountable for the consequences of our own actions, through to that close of life when we approach that bourn from which no traveller returns… or do they?

… AND TIME FUTURE CONTAINED IN TIME PAST
That brings me to Calais and back to Pendley’s Henry V. This was Sarah Branston’s production, which is why I thought of Eliot’s quotation. Past, present and future seemed to be contained throughout, in continual ‘modern dress’ juxtaposition. She concludes her programme note on the play as follows. “You will hear questions of national identity discussed in grave tones everywhere else this year, so we present you a sideways look at Henry V.” Until reading advance publicity, I had not realised this year was the six hundredth celebration of the original battle.
           As I write, news comes through the TV that a devastating bomb has been detonated in Bangkok, leaving 12 dead and many appallingly dismembered. We have the IS lot (Ignorant/Irresponsible States) responsible for the chaos in Calais. Their existence re-awakens the debate about that “bourn from which no traveller returns”, but to them there is no puzzlement, merely an absurd certainty… Can such ignorance, or irrationality really be blessed?
           So, I am brought back to personal accountability. Are we not all involved by the simple fact that we are who we are upon this world stage? Because we do not see each distant other in their realities, modern news facilities brings us the world stage, just as Shakespeare’s Globe theatre showed us an historical interpretation. We are not there… and yet, yes we are, just as at Pendley, where the open-air stage enables the actors to cross that bourn between stage and audience. There were times in that performance where I felt so involved I almost shouted out with the acting crowd on stage!
           In my small home world, I sit before a screen, surrounded by books and papyrus detritus. In a moment, a few keyboard clicks and all will be revealed to who ever chooses to enquire. Like the occupants of those two cars that collided yesterday on my way home someone’s destiny, unknown, may be changed because my words jolted a change of thought. That thought may embrace a change of circumstance and a movement of thought gains added momentum.
           How else did Labour’s Corbyn gain his ascendancy but because one or two people decided to give him the support he needed to “widen the debate”. The debate has indeed been widened. Why then are they seemingly panicking, they have achieved what they set out to achieve? The debate is en masse but there is a debate, which surely was the object of the exercise? We are talking of a party leader for the present time of management. Suitability of a leader for an election in five years time is not the purpose… although in many people’s minds they seem to be drawing conclusions before a proposition has even been made.
           Management for the present state of the party is the purpose of this election. There is ample time to prove him in preparation, or dismiss him and re-elect two or three years down the path. The current issue is not to manage the country, it is to manage the party, from which restructuring a fit body might be ready to confirm or newly appoint the leader for that task in five years’ time!

Friday 14th August 2015 [morning post]
WHO OWNS THE LABOUR PARTY?
The truth will out. It seems those anxious to have a wide debate are suddenly fearful they are not, as they believed, actually in control, or even representative of the mass opinion. So, how much of the cry, “Corbyn must be heard”, was the ego of self-interest and how much (seemingly in fact very little) a serious intent to render service to the collective whole?

Who may actually be dividing the party, the very people who opened the debate to the people they had already determined had little voice and were easily manageable? What purpose does the Labour party serve? Surely as a voice for the workers but who are the workers in today’s society? Perhaps the question is easier answered if differently phrased, who today does not work? Then one must define what one means by ‘work’, in today’s context.

The Labour party’s origins are in the days of inherited wealth, gradually enhanced by self-made entrepreneurs. Today wealth is interpretable in so many ways the term no longer bears the meaning of the Labour party’s origins. The present series of London tube train strikes are classic reminders of how well paid some workers are and how bestial they are prepared to be towards their own fellow workers, who rely on their particular expertise, are usually far more poorly paid, now locked out from working themselves because a segment of society has determined they will be bloody minded and prevent others from working, or make it despicably difficult for them to do so. We are trying to establish an equality of opportunity for the handicapped, they more than most are so wilfully disadvantaged by strikers clawing at their own self-interest, no less than the inherited and self-earned money-grubbers in the era of the Labour party’s foundations.

Let us look at the Liberal Democrats. They chose to render service by going into coalition with the Tories. They lost a reasonably expected reward, not through ingratitude but a changed political scape—the SNP. Only time will tells us if the SNP is a party rendering service to Scotland or but a vehicle for Scottish nationalists to thrust their egos. This last election was also a statement that those currently in charge of the Labour party in England and Wales had been too wrapped up in their own opinions and self-interest in importance and the wielding of power that they had lost touch with why they were in the party… or is the real reason they were in the party at last being uncovered; it was a vehicle through which they could express the ego of self-interest?

So, where today is the Labour party? Is Corbyn another person, using the party as a vehicle for self-promotion, or someone intent on rendering service but what service and to whom? We have had the corruption of landed plutocrats. We have had (and still have in the tube strikes) the corruption of mass muscle eager to promote self-interest against their own people: the handicapped; the lesser well paid; the sick; other disadvantaged; the collective whole as taxpayers. We have had the Thatcher era of “boot up the bum and rational common sense”. We have had and still “enjoy” the investment of private capital but we do not seem to be as cost-effective as we should be; appear to be too much in debt and do not appear to being taxed as seriously as perhaps we should be, quite apart from the fact the rates of taxation seem to be disproportionate and uneven… but then we are a world trader and have to take account of the way our competitors do things.

For the country, has Corbyn the foresight and strength of personality to do what Clegg did… render service to the collective whole? Will he bring the organised turmoil Labour needs to shake itself up and turn itself into a party ready for government in 2020 but under a different leader than him? That would indeed be rendering service to both the Labour party and the country.

 

Tuesday 11th August 2015 [morning post]
BULLSHIT MEETS THE BULL
Alistair Campbell has apparently advised against supporting Jeremy Corbyn, why? Campbell has posted in his personal blog: “Whilst I accept that I cannot survey the post-electoral scene and say with any certainty that a Labour party led by Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper or Liz Kendall will win the next election,” he says, “I think I can say with absolute certainty that a Corbyn-Tom Watson led Labour party will not.
“For that reason alone, I agree with Alan Johnson that what he called ‘the madness of flirting with the idea of Corbyn as leader’ has to stop. That means no first preferences, no second preferences, no any preferences. It frankly means ABC: Anyone But Corbyn.”

Interesting. Campbell’s history is as a spin doctor to Tony Blair when it was at the time difficult to know who was the doctor and what was the spin: sometimes one asked, which one is spinning? The very term ‘spin doctor’ tells you the uselessness of the man. In such a context the term ‘doctor’ can only be meant in a derogatory sense, as in children calling a boy with glasses ‘the prof’; while ‘to spin’ might indicate a centre of activity, such as in a washing machine, that anywhere else would serve little if any purpose.

Jeremy Corbyn is the down to earth man dealing with the realities, as he sees them. He represents the purpose of the Labour party as originally founded. Why does either exist? Do they believe in what they are saying? With Campbell you never knew, that was his job, it relied on you believing him regardless of what he said. With Corbyn, his history tells you who he is and that history shows his consistency: he is the man he appears to be.

The question, then, is he relevant to the present time and if so, in what way? He could serve no other purpose than to galvanise the entrenched presumptions of Labour’s establishment to be more relevant, get himself thrown out after two years, having done his job so that those now presuming to be Labour’s leadership would actually be capable of leading at the next election. Is Corbyn the necessary emetic the “doctor” is frightened of recommending to his patient? Is the artificial spinner opposing homeopathy?

 

Sunday 2nd August 2015 [morning post]
BE WARY OF STIGMAS: FAILURE TO STAND UP FOR RATIONALITY IS ALSO A STIGMA
Alan Travis in The Guardian rails against his fellow pressmen for stoking the flames of fear over mass immigration by doing precisely what he accuses others of doing, misrepresenting. He attributes the present crisis to labour disputes, creating perceived new opportunities to commit criminal offences of breaking through fences onto other peoples’ land. He fails to align such behaviours with the trade union background of the present Labour leadership debate, as one would expect of a competent journalist.

He blames Eurotunnel for failing to build long enough, strong enough fences: not the French police and the French government for failing to properly manage a purportedly civilised country. Intruders are not being arrested for criminal damage and are only be deported a few hundred yards down the road. That is managerial incompetence. Why are the criminally minded migrants there in the first place? Because the French do not properly manage their own borders and so let them in without accountability! I have just watched an interview with a migrant who is complaining that the French are not properly looking after her and decries, “who is giving me my rights?”

She is an illegal immigrant in France and is expecting France to giver her rights she has renounced or not forced her country of origin go give her. She now expects the British taxpayer to provide her with those rights, in defiance of those same taxpayers being denied money from their own government because the British Labour party denuded our resources!

He tries to make out that the news coverage of the Calais situation is grossly excessive by reminding us of the source of this influx but he makes no attempt to address that source, which surely is precisely where and what should be at the table of international discussion? He expects us (the UK) to take in more than we already have but makes no comment about the monetary effect upon: our attempt to reduce out debt brought about by trade union political aspirations through the Labour party, without asking the tax payer because its former leader, Blair, said the English taxpayer cannot be trusted on how their money should be spent.

Travis points out that the situation is aggravated by trade union action in France and that the Labour leadership contention implies a preference for precisely the same trade union influence in this country, which we, as a country, have been so keen to eliminate, hence Labour’s present defeat, although I myself have previously stated this was probably more due to the SNP influence.

The Bishop of Dover, the Rt Rev Trevor Willmott, who recently withdrew his nomination for the post of chair to the Church of England’s business committee, due to misquiet amongst his fellow prelates, has chosen to disagree with the Prime Minister’s command of the English language. It would be better if the bishop remembered that it is only recently that the church itself has woken up to present day realities and accepted that there never was a problem about women being bishops other than the CofE’s own stupidity.

If the bishop feels it is appropriate for the Church to pontificate on “everyday” matters (for that, essentially, is what they are) then he should do so with appropriate relevance. The situation arises through the inability of countries of origin to run themselves in a manner acceptable to their peoples. Their stance is aggravated, if not directly created, through purported religionists chanting religion instead of practical rationality. Universally recognised churches thereby have a duty of care to prod those churches with over excitable adherents to state their case, so we all know where we stand. That is where the Bishop of Dover should be directing his angst. Is he doing so in his own community where I am sure there must be at least one mosque and an imam with whom to take up the cudgels? He needs to remember his own church’s history and having to take up cudgels with Rome’s arrogance, so keen it was to burn CofE members: no different from IS (Ignorant State) attitudes today. Islam is arguably in a greater state of confusion over what it actually believes in than Christianity has ever been and it is down to the “official” versions of that religion to bring the recalcitrant to heel and show them leadership.

The bishop is right in leadership being needed but he is being irresponsible in decrying the only leadership so far given, Britain’s. Unlike the bishop, Cameron is wholly aware of our own poor being in need of sustenance; our own sick needing more money paid into the NHS; the appalling size of our national debt, wilfully aggravated by years of Labour government supposedly governing for those very interests, our own poor.  

As a churchman, despite Christianity’s own appalling history, is he really promoting war: that we should send in the troops to put things right at source and run these migrant people’s original countries for them?

 

 

Saturday 1st August 2015 [morning post]
INDOLENCE, INEPTITUDE AND GENERAL INCOMPETENCE
I am wishing to post this morning (Saturday 1st August 07:30) following a loll in bed, during which my page today has been formed, ready to type, only to find that BT is again inept and incompetent, telling me I have no internet connection when everything my end is saying “o.k.” Clearly someone on the line is making a right mess of things… again!

I have frequently heard many people complaining of BT but until recently I have had few problems and those problems were understandable in the particular circumstances and they were reasonably easily sorted. As I wrote on a recent survey, into which they invited my opinion, my only general complaint is that BT continues to be an over-priced product.

Three hours later someone has at last managed to pull a finger out. It was an interesting experience, the degree to which we automatically operate, arguably too dismissively. Perhaps we assume too much, or pay too little attention to the life around us, burying ourselves too self-interestedly in our own preoccupations.

There was a post the other day about elderly people feeling lonely. I recall, in my youth, seeing elderly people sitting out in deckchairs on their lawns, quietly watching the activity in the street, or through their windows when the weather was inclement. They seemed to be perfectly happy. There was not any television then, only the radio, which was not necessarily on. It seems a perverse world, where we seem preoccupied with our own interests to the disadvantage of other people, or even society as a general whole and yet have elderly people complaining they are left alone to do just that! I am still struggling to get six books written before I depart and realising time is against me. How on earth can anyone be remotely bored, let alone idle?

Preoccupied with the continually irritating news out of Calais and Dover I had forgotten Cameron was in South East Asia. Perhaps he should have flown home if government cannot operate while he’s abroad. Did Downing Street experience my BT problems?

His problem is rather like so many lesser mortals tasked with a job of work but having uninspired employees. How do you get people as indolent as the French government to do at all, let alone with a degree of relevant urgency if, like trade unionists, they are by their nature singularly disinclined to work and he has no choice but to work with them sohe can’t be too “I’ll show you what needs doing!” with the appropriate kick up the backside. There is also a strike on as well and tehy too are not only bone idle but criminally inclined to be wilfully obstructive. Clearly we are in a more affluent society than we believe, or some of us believe, as so many costs are being frittered away so carelessly.

If it isn’t the Americans it is always left to the Brits to do what is necessary. France let the criminals in in the first place and “yes” they are criminals for their intent is illegal migration into the UK. On top of which many of them are overloaded with cash, or credit worthiness. How else could they afford to pay illegal traffickers exorbitant sums for a ramshackle conveyance when airline prices are not unreasonable? Or else it is simply that they have criminal intent, why else try to travel without papers through organised routes? We need to start separating the honest of need and those purely with criminal intent and not lump them together as migrants.

It would appear the French have a duty of care to arrest illegal immigrants but appear not to do so. To re-camp them at least a hundred or so miles away or failing that set up camps in the countries from which they have departed and send them back there.

We cannot have people complaining we have cut back on social welfare when we spend the saved money on costs wilfully incurred by foreign criminals. The money should be spent on paying off our debt not on erecting fences because the French do not know how to behave and manage their own country.

 

INDEX

The general conclusion appears to be that we need to increase taxes on those who can afford to pay and NOT reduce the cost of aiding those in need.

That would seem to include a proper provision for our military needs and ensuring extra taxation to meet revenue costs derived from taxpayers' REVENUE income.

PARLIAMENTARY WORK AHEAD
Boundary clarification. How many seats and what preferred size of constituency population?

Proportional representation. Which system?

House of Lords? Should it be elected or appointed and upon what classification? Originally based on the realities of the day: Spiritual; Legal; Defence; land ownership; hereditary entitlement.

Today? Spiritual but across the faiths (define), including pure secularism/humanitarianism (all appointed/elected by their respective churches); Legal, as is; Political (variable by proven worth, such as past ministers or retired professional senior civil servants and limited party nominations); representatives of Capital, Financial Services, Labour (all either retired or active, appointed or elected by their respective accredited bodies); Education (ditto precedents stated); Health (ditto); Other?

The whole reviewable by a statutory committee reporting with recommendations to parliament on a ten yearly basis to cover relevance of classifications in the then current world. Modus operandi as at present.