<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
    xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">

    <channel>



    <title>The undignified part of the constitution Comments &#45; CarlGardner.co.uk</title>
    <link>http://carlgardner.co.uk/opinion/comments/the_undignified_part_of_the_constitution/</link>
    <description>{weblog_description}</description>
    <dc:language>{weblog_language}</dc:language>
    <dc:creator>carl@freelanceintellectual.com</dc:creator>
    <dc:rights>Copyright 2009</dc:rights>
    <dc:date>2009-01-28T06:44:01+00:00</dc:date>
    <admin:generatorAgent rdf:resource="http://www.pmachine.com/" />
  
  

<!--
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
         xmlns:trackback="http://madskills.com/public/xml/rss/module/trackback/"
         xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<rdf:Description
    rdf:about="http://carlgardner.co.uk/opinion/253/"
    trackback:ping="http://carlgardner.co.uk/trackback/253/"
    dc:title="The undignified part of the constitution"
    dc:identifier="http://carlgardner.co.uk/opinion/253/" 
    dc:subject="Responses"
    dc:description="&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;... back in the days when only viscounts and earls were allowed into the second chamber, when it truly was an upper house, there would have been no risk of such squalid scandal. Aristocrats, cushioned by their private income, would have waved aside the offer of a paltry &amp;pound;120,000 per annum as barely enough cash to polish the family silver.These days those ancient defences against corruption have, alas, been washed away.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt; &amp;lt;p&amp;gt;Bagehot is back in fashion, I notice. Chris&#8230;"
    dc:creator="Carl Gardner"
    dc:date="2009-01-28 06:44:01 AM GMT" />
</rdf:RDF>
-->
    
    </channel>
</rss>