Quiz time
It's House of Lords quiz time.
What is the difference between a "paid advocate" and a mere "consultant"? The answer is that it's not at all clear. Yet it's a distinction which is crucial to the question of whether Lords are available for hire to rewrite the laws of the land.
"Paid advocacy" is banned under the Lords' own rules which state that members of the house "must never accept any financial inducement as an incentive or reward for exercising parliamentary influence" and go on to say the members "must not vote on any bill or motion or ask any question on the house or a committee or promote any matter in return for payment or any other material benefit".
Consider the case of the Labour peer, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, whose private indiscretions to those he thought might be about to hire him were made public yesterday by the Sunday Times.
On the tape of his conversation with undercover reporters, he boasted that he received over £100k for his services and talked about the company Experian, which is advising the government on ID cards, and how he had helped them to amend and delay a particular piece of legislation. He is employed by them as a "a non-parliamentary consultant".
Consider too the case of Lord Hoyle, who was investigated after the Guardian alleged that he had introduced a lobbyist for the defence industry to a defence minister.
Lord Hoyle was, you've guessed it, employed as a "non-parliamentary consultant" by "Whitehall Advisers". His defence - which was successful when his case was investigated by the subcommittee on Lords Interests - was that the meeting had been for social not business purposes, that "Whitehall Advisers" were not lobbyists but advisers to the defence and aerospace industry and that it could not be proven that he had failed to declare his financial interest to the minister.
Consider finally the case of Lord Moonie who, according to today's Telegraph, has tabled 40 technical questions on defence issues since September, compared with six in the previous three years. He is, of course, an adviser to a number of firms with defence interests.
Now, the Lords is not the Commons. Peers do not receive a salary (they get a daily attendance allowance). The "real world" experience peers can bring to the job is valued by many. Many consultancies and advisory jobs stem from that experience rather than being closet lobbying contracts.
However, the distinction between acting as a consultant and as a "paid advocate" which is clear in the minds of many lords and ladies is far from clear to them all or to the public whose interests they are meant to represent.
I'm 
© MMX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~53~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Craig Murray seems to have some interesting insight into Lord Taylor's activities, in particular in relationship to the Secretary of State for Justice, whose activities in the Hampton affair I commented on earlier.
Complain about this comment
And what if they have been behaving improperly ? They would be named and shamed in the house! Well that should deter them!
How often do we hear about dubious behaviour excused by "no rules being broken"?
The whole episode, and your quite good article shows that this is really no way for the government of a modern democracy (even by Gordon Browns standards) to operate.
Complain about this comment
This is even worse than 'cash for questions', this is 'cash for laws'!.
We need full transparency of lobbying and those in the pay of such lobbyists.
Complain about this comment
The law needs to change then, because voting on something that you've acted as a paid consultant for should also be illegal.
I'm constantly amazed at how mind-blowingly stupid our law-makers are, and at how they manage to intentionally create laws phrased in such a way that they can then circumvent those laws for their own pockets.
It's not rocket science.
It'd be nice if someone in power had a bit of common sense once in a while.
This is along similar lines to when they exempted themselves from the FOI act; it's just plain wrong/stupid.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
listened to One o'clock news on Radio 4 and Lord Scholey was interviewed. He was saying that he gets £29,000 from consultancies. Now why should he get that money.
Apparently, he is in favour of expansion of Heathrow airport. Now, in future, I think when anybody is interviewed they must supply a complete schedule of all monies received, including how much, for how long and who from.
Surely, any elected MP, or member of the House of Lords, all councillors, City, County and District must also put onto a web site the amounts of money they receive, who from and for how long. Let's have proper detailed transparency. If you like I too will put all of my details on this site, I have nothing to fear. What do these people do for any money they may receive. This is no longer a representative democracy.
Complain about this comment
Is this Labour's "cash for questions" ?
Complain about this comment
I have no idea whether anyone has done anything wrong here. At the moment all we have are some unsubstantiated allegations based on a newspaper article. (As an aside, I've noticed that whenever a newspaper article begins with "Revealed: ", it usually turns out that the journalist just made it all up.) I await the results of the investigation with great interest.
However, there is a really serious question about what the sanctions should be for peers who do break the rules. There is talk of having the power to suspend them from the HoL or, in extreme cases, shock horror, strip them of their peerage.
That sounds to me just like tinkering around the edges. Now here's a radical idea: why don't we send them to prison if they've been proven to have done wrong. You know, in the same way that would happen to us lesser mortals if we did something we shouldn't. Or is it just too deeply ingrained a tradition in British politics that there's one law for them and one law for the rest of us?
Complain about this comment
Nick,
as the Beatles said so many many holes in Blackburn, Lancashire. What is going on Jack Straw, MP Blackburn, Lord Taylor, of Blackburn. I don't forget Jack Starw's son and the problem with cannabis. Also Straws comments and the veil, etc.. now we have this. I am beginning to have problems with the North of England, T Dan Smith, Poulson, Northern Rock, something is very fishy.
Complain about this comment
Sleaze.
Debt.
Dependency.
Incompetence.
Worse than the Major government that went down to a crushing defeat and the newlabour dawn.
Look where they brought us.
More of the same - multiplied by ten.
Call an election
Complain about this comment
Gosh, who held your hand when you wrote this one Nick?
Complain about this comment
"....the public whose interests they are meant to represent."
I think that meant is the appropriate word
Complain about this comment
"What is the difference between a "paid advocate" and a mere "consultant"?"
Answer: none.
Any parliamentary system that allows parliamentarians to make any money, other than salary/allowances, just for being a parliamentarian, is so open to abuse, that it simply cannot be allowed.
No exceptions.
Complain about this comment
Oh and "I haven't broken any rules that I know of defense" is pretty poor.
The rules need to be clearer and representatives of the people need to disclose sources of income.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
Is that it? Not exactly a "Labour Sleaze" expose by you, is it, with any real analysis?
More like Denis Healey's riposte to Geoffrey Howe:
"It's like being savaged by a dead sheep!"
Complain about this comment
Welcome back Nick
I think the distinctions that you make are made by lawyers to get themselves out of a sticky spot.
I do wonder if the same caveats have been applied to other laws on the statute books and whether other people, i.e. not Lords, can avail themselves of those protections?
I would guess the answer to be no but I welcome clarification.
If it looks like a fish, swims like a fish and smells like a fish...what is it?
Complain about this comment
I believe there will be enough public indignation at this latest scandal that irrespective of whether any law was broken, these chumped up Lords will have to bow out, through sheer public opinion.
Carte Blanche government endowed peerages needs to stop. Far too many vested interest shady characters have recieved the Ermine in the last decade.
Complain about this comment
Does anyone else think Lord Taylor of Blackburn sounded like Count Arthur Strong? Which could explain any cofusion he may be having about things.....
Complain about this comment
Recently the Tories were boasting about the money that members of the Shadow Cabinet were paid for being advisers to Banks and other Companies. for example William Hague listed his salaries for being an adviser were almost as much as his speaking fees.
Complain about this comment
@7, "(As an aside, I've noticed that whenever a newspaper article begins with "Revealed: ", it usually turns out that the journalist just made it all up.)"
Except in this case the actual tapes of what was said and offered for sale are in the public domain, so we know that these Lords were in effect, selling influence over the laws upon which they were deliberating.
This is corruption pure and simple. Yet this was a remarkably "neutral" account by Nick.
You can bet if this was four Conservative peers, that A) Cameron would have kicked them out of the conservative party, or failing that, made clear it was NOT conservative policy already, and B) Nick would have been pushing the tory sleaze angle for all he was worth.
This article only has the world labour in it once and totally omits this particular "S" word (sleaze) altogether. So Nick is STILL trying to protect labour.
Complain about this comment
What is the difference between a "paid advocate" and a mere "consultant"? The answer is that it's not at all clear.
Of course it is clear.
And if it is not clear to certain Lords then what are they doing there?
If they cannot make that distinction then what special talent do they bring to the oversight of new legislation?
Complain about this comment
There's just no way any politician or lord should be allowed to do any consultancy work outside of their public office
If MP's have enough time to spend on consultancy then they are not doing enough for their consituents. This would illustrate the fact that we have too many MP's no?
For lords it is a slightly differing case as they receive no salary for their work - but they do get paid an allowance. Does anyone know how much you get for turning up at the HoL and sitting about a bit?
The fact remains that they should either get no consultancy - or have to publicly declare their interests and salaries. This way they can irrefutably say that there hasn't been a conflict of interest
Transparency is all that's needed
Complain about this comment
Welcome back Nick,
I thought you had gone AWOL.
The curent rules and regulations are clearly a mess. For example, you note that Lord Taylor is employed by Experian on a "non-parliamentary consultancy basis". But how can the same Peer then boast of "help[ing] them to amend and delay a particular piece of legislation".
This is a contradiction. Surely, a non-parliamentary consultant means (if anything) advising or helping a company on non-parliamentary matters. Legislation clearly does not fall into this category. Or am I missing something from your post? Please explain...
One point is clear though. Reform is needed. For a start there should be a mechanism for the removal of a disgraced peers. This should be automatic in cases of criminal conviction; the outcome of the remainder should rest on a free vote taken by the house. As for outside interests - these need to be recorded, together with any monies paid. And for once, can we have a situation where Parliamentarians are not allowed to retrospectively add interests to the register after the media has found out - Aka Mr Hain and others. If you haven't got the brains to list your income, (and expenses with receipts) then you should not be allowed to hold high office.
Complain about this comment
This is a bit of a no brainer. So I can answer this one. If they have been found guilty of corruption they should be kicked out. If they can't be kicked out, why not? we need a second elected second house!
Don't want to get involved with who supports the best team arguments. Im not a big fan of this sport just someone with opinions.
Complain about this comment
@ 3 cash for laws.
What about the million quid that labour's leadership took to exempt Formula1 from the tobacco advertising ban? That was a HUGE amount of cash for policy.
Why was that not considered sleaze at the time?
Complain about this comment
No doubt all this will become a matter of torturous semantics once the legal profession get involved. Wheter or not a crimal offence has actually ocurred is in one sense neither here nor there ( even if it has dont expect prosecutions) What is important however, is what this tells us about these peoples characters . Why not ask the public what they think?
Call an election !
Complain about this comment
@16 "Carte Blanche government endowed peerages needs to stop."
I agree, but it seem that over the next 18 months more and more labour appointees are going to be ennobled in order to circumvent being dumped at the next election. I wonder when we will see a clear majority of labour peers in the Lords? Can't be that far off.
Complain about this comment
I wonder how many lobbyist were involved in the introduction of the new ContactPoint database launched by the government today which will give details of all children under 18 including address, doctor, school and parent's details to over 400 000 "professionals". Any one of these professionals can find out where your child lives, goes to school and where his or her medical records are kept. However, you dont have any rights to have your child's details removed from this database or to see who is snooping on you.
I understand one of these Labour Lords has been paid by a well known data provision company involved in the ID card project. Is there a link here, where has the investigative journalism gone in the BBC.
Complain about this comment
#16 I agree, if these accusations are found to have any Scintilla of truth then the peers should resign in disgrace. Lord Mandleson must wonder what sort of organisation he has joined. Hopefully it wont reflect too badly on him or his character.
Complain about this comment
"Don't want to get involved with who supports the best team arguments. Im not a big fan of this sport just someone with opinions."
Agreed dhwilkinson. All three major parties would seem to have members who have a talent for self-enrichment by bending (I'll be kind) the rules. But what I can't understand is why the Labour, Tory and Lib Dems leaderships be can't bothered to get together to try and sought this out.
If messers Brown, Cameron or Clegg are reading this - a cross-party approach with total transparency would do wonders for your image. It might even persuade a few of the Don't Knows to vote. So get to it.
And Nick - why don't you and the media press the party leaders on this issue at their next interview/press conference? Again you might find that your own personal stock would rise as a result.
Complain about this comment
Nick you ask what is the difference between a paid advocate and a consultant.
Maybe the same as between a thief and a fraudster, different words same difference.
Complain about this comment
Well, Nick, as blatantly partial as ever. The only thing that the BBC seems to claim to be impartial about is the DEC appeal for Gaza.
I do not believe that MP's and peers should be banned from having outside interests. I believe stronly that the reduction in these interests is responsible, at least in part, for the lowering of the average ability of many parliamentarians in recent years. It also means that MP's are much more dependent on following the party line, as their livelihoods depend on it. That does not preclude a proper disclosure of interests in the lords as in the commons, nor a rule that forbids members from voting on matters in which they have a financial interest. This would apply as much to those sponsored by unions as those having consultancies or directorships. I bet that would not go down well with Nick's teachers, sorry sources, in labour.
Complain about this comment
You are so right Elizibethjay, this ContactPoint children's database is a monstrosity that will surely become known as the paedophiles catalogue.
It should be scrapped!
Elrond @ 28, LMAO!!!
Complain about this comment
The one thing that I don't understand
It is said that we can't "dismiss" Lords from the House
Well how did Bliar manage to do it? Subterfuge, that means that really they are still there but can't get through the doors?
Complain about this comment
Nick
The rules are crystal clear - pretending otherwise is just a ruse to let the guilty off lightly.
Like so much in government today - the rules don't need changing, they need enforcing...
This government like backdating legislation - punishment for corrupt lords is as good a case for backdating a law as any other I have seen.
If they don't beleive they have done anything wrong, then the punishment would not have been a deterent, so backdating the law seems to be entirely fair.
So are the companies who paid these amounts being investigated for corruption?
Complain about this comment
@24
If I remember correctly, the F1 debacle was considered sleazy (small s) at the time but due to the huge amount of goodwill still attached to Tony 'I'm a pretty straight kind of guy' Blair, it wasn't considered by the media that big of a deal. The BBC and others probably didn't want to burst the bubble of the newly elected Labour Government. Still, it has recently caught up with him in October '08 with new insights. We should have seen back then what a sleazy lot Labour would turn out to be as well.
Complain about this comment
The difference, I think, is that an 'Advocate' is someone who argues a case for you - puts your point of view as if it were their own.
A 'consultant' is someone who looks at your watch and then tells you the time.
Welcome back Nick, and I look forward to your next entry in Mid-February....
Complain about this comment
As Alvis1250 says above I have no problem with members' of either House being paid for consultancy work as long as:
a) The payments received are fully declared
b) The register also includes details of the work undertaken for the payments
c) The receipant does not vote on matters relating to his consultancy
Any failure to comply with these criteria should be seriously dealt with.
2 other points...
What is really the difference between someone voting for an amendment beacause after they were paid by an outside body as opposed to simply being heavily lobbied by a voluntary organisation? If they believe in the cause regardless of the payment then does the inducement make a difference?
Secondly, what is the difference between an individual being on the payroll of a company and the Labour Party being so reliant on the funding of the Trade Unions with their vested interests?
Complain about this comment
@33 : "The one thing that I don't understand
It is said that we can't "dismiss" Lords from the House"
StrongholdBarricades, Their is no offence that "automatically" has a peer removed from the House, or "sacked" as a Lord.
The only way one can be dismissed from the House of Lords is by way of an Act of Parliament. I don't think the Government has time, nor the will, to organise an Act of Parliament to throw out four of their own.
It was an Act of Parliament that had most of the hereditary peers removed from the House of Lords.
Complain about this comment
The difference is in the price a service can get on the open market. To simplify matters, it is like the similarity and yet difference between a high class, expensive courtesan/mistress and the poor drab standing on the corner. Substitute Advocate and Consultant, and the result is the same.
Complain about this comment
@ 35, boabycat, I remember the goodwill, but by sheer scale of the corruption I could not believe that they could get away with it.
I mean the masses of trees slaughtered for newsprint and the endless headlines of cash for questions about a mere 2K in an envelope, given to a junior minister for asking a question, that had NO bearing on any law, or policy and was probably not even answered properly anyway.
Compared to over a million quid to the leadership of the labour party, that purchased an opt-out from a central plank the the new government's health policy regarding cigarette advertising.
The difference in scale is immense. it is 500 times greater and attached to the very top of the labour leadership.
Yet there was at the time, barely a peep from the supine new-labour serving media.
Complain about this comment
@37 "If they believe in the cause regardless of the payment then does the inducement make a difference?"
Well if they are paid, How are we, the voting public, supposed to know if they really DO believe in the cause, or IF they are really believing in the cause because of their financial renumeration?
Complain about this comment
Forgive my ignorance, but I saw Lady Royall on TV and thought they had brought back that funny programme the "Royall Family". Thought it was that jolly red-haired gal, Catherine, something or other.
Complain about this comment
#38
"I don't think the Government has time, nor the will, to organise an Act of Parliament."
The GVN certainly has got the time. The HoC curently has one of its lightest schedules in history. How long was the Christmas recess? Moreover, would any decent MP or Peer publicly vote for retaining a disgraced peer? Unlikely. So let's throw the time excuse out of the window.
This is all about 'will' - do Parliamentarians really want to clean up their act? If the answer is yes, they coulsd do it within days... trouble is I think too many of them, like things just as they are.
Complain about this comment
What is the difference between a "paid advocate" and a mere "consultant"? The answer is that it's not at all clear.
Not clear my arse, the position is crystal....
Nick youve been hanging around these people too long.
Lets approach this from the other side for a second; In what circumstance does a consultant not work or at least attempt to work all matters to his clients advantage?
Nu Labour promised us a reform of the house of Lords, removed the hereditary peers on the basis that they were an anachronism, and rather than give us a few elected peers they simply filled the slots with their cronies, usually ex-ministers, who now use these positions to feather their own nests.
So NuLabour....
Complain about this comment
#42
Royle is the correct spelling. In my joy at thinking I would once again be entertained, instead of appalled, I thought the comedy had returned. Apologies
Complain about this comment
I agree with middleenglandtim, I have no issue with a lord or even MP acting as a consultant or even adviser, consultants and advisers simply give their understanding and opinion to someone for a fee. An advocate or lobbyist takes the relationship the other way instead of giving opinions they receive them for a fee, and then pass these opinions on to the House of Lords/Commons.
A Law Lord for instance could give his/her opinion to a legal firm over a new piece of legislature, after all he/she has been a barrister and judge, but to be influenced by that legal firm over voting on a piece of legislature is unacceptable.
These lords appear to have been willing to take money to vote in some particular way, which is wrong and they should be punished for that.
Complain about this comment
@ 40
I whole heartedly agree.
Cash for questions was the straw the broke the electorates back with the old tories.
Cash for laws may well be the 1000lb weight that will keep labour out of power for a decade to come if Crash grows some and calls an election. Unlikely I know.
Interesting point to note though, is the hint that the tories may have learnt their lesson from 'cfq' to not get involved in this. Although the beeb is probably working overtime to find something similar on the other parties.
Complain about this comment
@43,
Apologies for not being clear. I accept that they do have the time, but in light of the current economic turmoil, they damn well shouldn't! They should be working 24/7 to get the country out of their mess!
Complain about this comment
Welcome back Nick.
A major problem is that these issues only seem to come out after exposure by some journalist. Despite the endless procrastination and debates over the HoL why was this not thought about when the government decided to (semi) reform the Lords? Surely someone must have thought about sanctions that could be applied if one of the members was a naughty boy.
It just makes it appear that at worst everything in Westminster is self-serving or at best amateur.
Complain about this comment
Oh dear!
It's not just the economy that's in a mess it's the whole political system. One goes hand in hand with the other.
Well this is certainly the right time to put this country back into some sort of order.
Sack the peers who behave improperly and take away their lordship's or ladyship's title.
Let's have a proper and accountable House of Commons who can hold to account a few Lords and Ladies who are not elected but are running the country with an unaccountable executive.
Make sure that the PM is elected by the people and if the present incumbent goes then there has to be a general election.
These are only a few simple things that need immediate attention.
Complain about this comment
Ex-Independent MP Martin Bell, on one of his roadshows, in response to a question from the audience, told us that 'the system was rotten to the core'.
It is up to us English people to take a far more active interest in politics or the sort of thing that Nick blogs here will simply continue ad infinitum.
Are we English people interested in having a meaningful democracy or what?
Complain about this comment
I am surprised that there is surprise in the media and and public.
The Lords has always been blurred from our vision and populated by figures most have never heard of.
I am sure many do do good and serious work with only the country in mind.
But it should have been reformed a long time ago. Labour bottled it because really you have to consider the whole package and then affect the MP's.
In my world a Republic is required and I would steal the US model - barring I would have a constitutional President and an executive Prime Minister. PR.
Perhaps from the ashes of the economic catastrophe renewal will take place at the political level.
Probably we will do the British thing and fudge it again.
Complain about this comment
It is a perfect example of them and us.
Them, my Lords, are not subject to the law.
The rules will be amended by the Lords
Us, taxpayers, will break any law at our peril and will be subject to appropriate sanctions. Any loopholes will be closed by the authorities.
Does this mean that the BBC myth of only Tory sleaze is worth reporting is now well and truly buried. Don't hold your breath.
Fair does, it was first item on the 9 o clock news.
When will the voters in this country wake up?
Complain about this comment
#41 purpleDogzzz
I agree that it comes down to perception - and that is why I think that it is necessary to ensure that MP's/Lords don't vote for issues which impact on their paymasters.
MP's/Lords can offer insight into the political world that business and other organisations can benefit from but with a full, transparent, register of interests an MP's constituents can take a view on whether his/her priorities are in the right place.
In the case of the House of Lords, new legislation is needed to give the House the power to evict members who seriously/consistently breach the rules.
Complain about this comment
boabycat @ 47...
You think this is the one piece of brass-necked, sneering scandal that will send Labour into political oblivion for the next generation?
What's wrong with all the other scandals?
It's not as if we're exactly short of them. This government (and I use that term with reservations) has been riddled with the stench of corruption ever since it first came into office. It's just that most people seemed to lose their sense of smell for far too long.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
These abominal freeloaders should be stripped of their Peerages and removed from public office. Any cash they receive should be the property of the taxpayer, since in effect the taxpayer supports their lifestyles. Whilst they are not paid for serving in the house of lords, they certainly have no right to make personal gain from a position endowed on them by the Monarch on behalf of the people. If as it appears, they are not breaking the law, then the law must be changed forthwith, God known this dreadful government is no stranger to making laws. Whether or not they have broken the law is irrelevant, they have broken trust with the people and if they have any remaining shred of integrity should resign. If this is beyond them, then they must be removed by public demand.
Complain about this comment
Interesting point you may wish to enquire about, even though it may upset Nu-Labor, is about why a certain recently appointed Lord (i.e. Mandy) had the responsibility for combating organised crime removed from his portfolio? Must be worth a left field punt if the BBC are democratic and unbiased especially as this matter has arisen about wrong influencing!! Maybe mention the EU tariffs also?
Complain about this comment
Nick: weak.
Complain about this comment
#38 and 43
Ok, I can see that suddenly there is a conflict of interest for a Labour Government to want to get rid of Labour Peers, even at the risk of ensuring that it would leave a legacy for the future
But there again, maybe many of the current Labour MP's think their future is in the Lords
Complain about this comment
Nick
I really am surprised at the surprise. Anyone who subscribes to Private Eye is fully aware that a fair number of Lords push the interests of certain companies.
I really am finding it harder to accept that there is any idea of politics being a public service. They all seem to be in it for themselves.
I really do despair.
Complain about this comment
@47, boabycat, "Although the beeb is probably working overtime to find something similar on the other parties. "
--------------------------------------------
I have heard a BBC commentator already suggest that Brown is probably very upset that this fishing trip by the Sunday newspaper that reported on this did not find any tories.
I am pretty sure that the BBC is trying to entrap tories as we speak, but only in the name of impartiality, of course.
In fact I am surprised that the BBC are reporting on this at all. Why are they NOT claiming that they cannot report on this as to show only labour peers guilty of corruption would be damaging to their reputation for impartiality?
As it is Nick hides labour sleaze behind a question of "What is the difference between a "paid advocate" and a mere "consultant"? The answer is that it's not at all clear." as a way to muddy the waters and give breathing space.
Sorry Nick, it is sleaze, pure and simple.
Complain about this comment
#26 purpleDogzzz
"I wonder when we will see a clear majority of labour peers in the Lords?"
If we do, be very afraid. The Lords are the only body in the UK who can allow Duff Gordon to extend the life of this parliament indefinitely without the frippery of a general election. It's the sole real sanction left to them under the Parliament Acts.
Does anyone think Duff Gordon wouldn't do just that if he could?
Complain about this comment
Surely the question should be, "What's the difference between a paid advocate or consultant and a pig with its snout in the trough?" - Not a lot.
Let's get some experts into the house of Lords on various subjects. Let them declare their interests past and present. If they wish to suggest or amend legislation in areas of their interest then they should divest themselves of their interests and pledge not to go back to them either for a long period after leaving the Lords (I appreciate they are in for life now).
Alternatively, they can keep their declared interests but they can only comment on those areas in the house. Other Lords can take or leave their comments in the context of their declared interests. They only get to vote on and suggest/amend legislation in other areas.
Voting should always be on conscience and in the best interests of the country as the Lord perceives them, never for reward, not even 'expenses'. Any breach of trust no matter how small should lead to expulsion.
Please your Majesty, dissolve this Government.
Complain about this comment
Quick Question
Today is Tuesday I think.
So why is it 'yesterday in the Sunday Times?'
Is that exactly what you were told yesterday to say by your political masters and then forgot that the article would not be published until Tuesday?
Something rotten in the state of BBC.
Complain about this comment
@63
"If we do, be very afraid. The Lords are the only body in the UK who can allow Duff Gordon to extend the life of this parliament indefinitely without the frippery of a general election."
Labour's Civil Contingencies act allows Gordon Brown to declare a state of emergency and end elections, disband the House of Commons, the House of Lords and declare a "temporary" dictatorship run by an emergency council. The "temporary" nature of this can be renewed by the Prime Minister as often as he likes as new information about the "emergency" comes forward.
Complain about this comment
No doubt these Labour peers were guided by Gordon's moral compass.
Why are Labour politicians corrupt? I think their thinking goes as follows:
a) the Labour Movement is good, and the Conservatives are evil
b) I am a Labour politician
c) Therefore I am good
d) Therefore everything I do is good
e) 100,000 anyone?
This may appear a flippant post, but I would argue it contains a kernel of truth. If you believe you are on the side of social justice then everything is permitted.
By the way, why has Gordon enthroned business ministers dealing with Labour's economic crisis in the Lords? (Myners, Vadera, Mandelson)
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"Peers do not receive a salary (they get a daily attendance allowance)."
...of up to £335 per day.
I wouldn't mind not receiving a salary for that kind of perk. Anyone know if there's any distinction, tax wise, between a 'salary' and a 'daily allowance'??
Complain about this comment
"Paid advocate" "non-parliamentary consultant" "Whitehall Advisers" "lobbyists" "within the rules"
Sickening sophistry.
The so called rules are as woolly as a flock of sheep. Being charitable, presumably designed a long time ago on the premise that all members of the House of Lords will act honourably. The effect, however - dishonourable behaviour can be accompanied by declarations like "I have done nothing wrong and "I have not broken any rules"
Shameful behaviour by shameless people and I would be amazed if it is confined to the Labour benches or indeed to the upper House.
Complain about this comment
Funny, isn't it, that when it was a Tory who was found wanting, it was "Tory sleaze" all over the papers...
whereas when it's a Labour peer who's found wanting, it's the system that's at fault.
...
...
Ummm, nope, don't need to add anything to that.
Complain about this comment
The problem is not their corruption or even their contempt for what is 'right', it's the fact that there is no accountability for them (this goes for members of the other House too).
In every other walk of life people caught stealing from their employers or in this case receiving 'payments' from an ouside source to influence decisions would not only be sacked, but their entire carrer would be ruined. Not in Politics.
I would tell everyone what the best solution to these corrupt politicians is, but we all know what happened to Guy Fawkes ;).
Complain about this comment
boating @55
Loads wrong with this current government. I meant to imply that as they have survived so far and through so many scandals and cover ups, that this might be THE ONE to finally nail the coffin shut good and proper.
My view is that the media have allowed Labour away with it for so long because there has been no alternative to speak of for years. Now that the tories are finally getting their act together slowly but surely over the last couple of years, the media may feel that they can go after the government knowing that there is a goverment in waiting to pick up the pieces. That hasn't been the case prior to 2005ish.
Complain about this comment
#65 weejonnie
Well spotted.
Complain about this comment
It probably matters not, now, whether any of them has actually committed a crime.
In my (not really very humble) opinion...
Whether they actually broke the law or not, it LOOKS dodgy, sleazy and slimy. They have each allowed themselves - by greed, stupidity or naiivety - to be put into a position that brings the House of Lords and Parliament into (yet further) disrepute. For that reason, if no other, they should surrender their peerages and disappear, never to darken the door of the HoL again.
And if any of them had any sense of decency and shame, they would do.
Complain about this comment
What about the bishops?
They are paid by the Church of England, yet represent its interests in the House of Lords.
Complain about this comment
For my own part, I am happy to see that a discussion on sleaze and corruption has (within one day) been turned by the BBC into a general discussion on policing the House of Lords.
I like it because it de-sensationalises (if that is a word) the story.
But I just can't help wondering in the back of my mind how quickly that change would have come about if, say, one or more of the Tory peers who were approached by the Sunday Times had indicated their willingness to sell their vote and not the Labour Lords.
Perhaps thats just me, though.
Complain about this comment
#66
I've no doubt that if that were to happen, the as yet apathetic British public would waste no time in tearing the head of this government... for all his many failings, I wouldn’t have put Brown down as being suicidal.
Complain about this comment
Welcome back from your bullet-dodging course Nick.
The bottom line is no-one in government, local or national should be taking money from anyone associated in any government business they are involved in.
All payments should be declared, so any conflicts of interest can be identified. Thats why we need more transparent government, not less.
But of course we get the opposite: MPs trying to protect details of expenses for example.
We have MPs and Lords accepting money for influencing legislation, we have MPs trying to opt out of FOI rules, we have Jack Straw advocating less privacy (for the masses fo course), we have deluded Gordon Brown, never recognising, nor apologising for past mistakes, we have the "haven't a clue" chancellor.
In fact I've never seen such an undeserving, self-centred, self-serving bunch of trough-snouting pigs in politics in my life.
I'd say that maybe the time has come to send in the bailiffs (aka the general public) and evict the lot by force if necessary.
Complain about this comment
69. Mister_E_Man
Please refer to my posting #39, which may help top explain the differences or similarities!
Seriously, the whole affair is disgusting, and that is why I am being so cynical.
Complain about this comment
How about some time spent pouring over the release of cabinet minutes for the Invasion Of Iraq?
Is this something else that might come back to bite?
Would it be possible to extradite Blair if there was reason to prosecute?
Complain about this comment
weejonnie -
"Quick Question
Today is Tuesday I think..."
You are showing yourself up to be an ignorant buffoon lacking in courtesy and civility.
It WAS published yesterday, Monday, by the Sunday Times, as an audio on the website they share with their sister paper, The Times.
Do try and keep up at the back - and remember the old adage - 'Better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you are in idiot, than open it and remove any trace of doubt..'
Toodle-pip, BG
Complain about this comment
The whole episode appears to be deeply suspect and very seedy.
There seems to be a clear conflict of interests involving the 'business' these Lords were conducting and surely with their "real world" experience they could identify this.
Dispicable, and oh what a surprise, arms companies are involved.
Complain about this comment
75. 9, boating-voter
It probably matters not, now, whether any of them has actually committed a crime.
In my (not really very humble) opinion...
Whether they actually broke the law or not, it LOOKS dodgy, sleazy and slimy.
==========================
If it looks like it, smells like it, tastes like it.........IT IS!!!!!
Complain about this comment
#66 purpleDogzzz
"Labour's Civil Contingencies act allows Gordon Brown to declare a state of emergency and end elections, disband the House of Commons, the House of Lords and declare a "temporary" dictatorship run by an emergency council. The "temporary" nature of this can be renewed by the Prime Minister as often as he likes as new information about the "emergency" comes forward."
True, but even a few at the BBC might rebel if that came to pass without demonstrable cause and the European courts which many here seem to despise might even come to the rescue of us proles.
A majority vote in both chambers at Westmidden might be enough of a veneer of legitimacy for it to be allowed through without such complications.
Complain about this comment
purpledogzzz - there is an obvious link here between the big government IT contracts underpinning these new databases like ContactPoint and the way legislation appears to be made to suit those who build them
Nobody in their right mind can really think that building a database with every childs personal details on it making it so widely available that it may as well have been published is really going to benefit child protection. This data will get into the wrong hands and will be abused.
Maybe the journalists at the BBC should have a look at who was paid for ContactPoint and who has given money to the labour party.
Everybody that looks at this blog should write to their local MP and ask them if their kids details are on ContactPoint. The answer will be no because it isnt safe.
Complain about this comment
Ref my comments at 56 and 68 which have been referred to the moderators.
Seems that someone doesn't want me pointing out that it is not just the peers who have been allegedly caught selling influence over government policy is it?!!
I have listed 5 well known examples in my previous posts - which cover every level of Labour from top to bottom - which make this a reasonable question:
"Is Labour institutionally corrupt?"
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#36 middleenglandtim
.....Welcome back Nick, and I look forward to your next entry in Mid-February....
Naturally you can be assured in the meantime numerous blog worthy political topics will have been overlooked in favour of stories far simpler to be less critical of El Gordo, Mandy and the lads on the spin factory shop floor.
What quite alarms me is the reference to Lord Moonie, if the numbers quoted by Robinson are true is that not a huge conflict of interest? If this lot are so unclear of the difference between advocacy and consultancy sequestrate their bl**dy bank accounts and let's help them out a little.
No doubt the recent Times expose is only the tip of the iceberg. How many more Lords and Ladies, (Of whichever political persuasion), have got off scot free to date.
Sickening
Complain about this comment
This has been going on for 20 years to my knowledge, and surely was scarcely new even then. Lords have always got money for putting their names on Company notepaper, and who then are they expected to favour? Difference is that previous 'Noble Lords' were much more subtle about how they did it. Trust Labour appointees to fall for a Press sting! I think proper Lords are a 'good thing', but keep-it-clean, your Lordships.
Complain about this comment
This is indefensible, why do you and the rest of the BBC crew defend it/
On the news we had great reference to Tory cash for questions, is it at all possible for the BBC to stay on topic ?
This is about the law of the land being influenced by money and has NOTHING to do with the Tory peers.
Complain about this comment
jonathan_cook #87, the simple answer is, YES.
Not only is Labour institutionally corrupt, but we can do nothing about it untill the next election and even then, we can do nothing about the Lords.
We all know the answer, but we also know the consequences of even suggesting it ;)
Complain about this comment
#19:
I wouldn't take these tapes too literally. These are the tapes that the journalist released, with their own context. That's far from proof of wrongdoing, which is for an enquiry to decide.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to defend the Noble(!!) Lords. I'm sure that there are plenty of Labour peers who would not only sell their own grandmothers but also try to hide the value of the transaction from the VAT man, given half a chance.
All I'm saying is that even New Labour peers deserve the same right to due process as everyone else.
If, at the end of that due process, it turns out that they have been as corrupt as the newspaper allegations say they have, then I would be absolutely in favour of stripping them of their peerages, doing community service in a high visibility jacket with "Sleazebag" written on it, putting them in the stocks, and a few other things as well. But just not on the basis of what a newspaper says.
As for your point about whether Nick would be equally as charitable if it were Tory peers accused of the same thing, well, it's hard to argue with you there.
Complain about this comment
Retraction:Retraction:Retraction
Actually Ive had a rethink on this issue.
These peerages cost a packet and 335 a day isnt even going to keep you in Bolly is it.
Poor chaps are just trying to recoup their his costs
Have a heart.
Complain about this comment
Also time to revisit the Hain case, which showed that you can wash your hands from any donations as long as you install a campaign committee that runs the bank accounts. Politicians should not be able to outsource the responsibility for spotting and declaring fishy donations to a campaign committee. Any favours wanted in return for cash will be communicated face to face, i.e. not over the phone or email. What a system, designed by this government, i.e. Labour.
Complain about this comment
Lord Taylor`s assertion on tele at the weekend, stage managed by Nu Labour, that he had done nothing wrong seems a bit of an unwise thing to have done. It would have probably been better for him to have kept quite.
I think publication of the tape recording rather pulled the rug out from under his feet.
I understand that his defence is - although he may have offered to do things in the Lords for cash; because he did not actually receive any money therefore he did not break any rules and consequently is in the clear. Merely offering to do something is not illegal according to the rules of the House.
This is all getting very murky and I think this will end up in a major embarassment for Labour.
Already Sky are highlighting the fact that Lord Taylor was paid £400k expenses in the last seven years. Jack Straw, because of his connections with Lord Taylor, is also being pulled into the quagmire.
I don`t think the media is going to let this one go and a great deal more will trickle out in the coming days and weeks.
Perhaps this is the transparency that Nu Labour always bang on about. Its so transparent we can all see for ourselves
what has been going on, ALLEDGEDLY. They all deserve to be sacked and we should have a totally elected second house, whose members cannot have outside directorships etc.
How many more peers have been living the high life while carrying out this pretence of a democracy? If this happened abroad in
a country run by a dictator we would all shrug our shoulders and not give it a second thought. But here? Seems par for the course nowadays. Why should we be so suprised.
No doubt we will have another long enquiry, organised by Nu Labour, that will come to nought. We have been there so often with Nu Labour its now a standing joke.
Complain about this comment
'I most umbly apologise to The House' doesn't do it for me after saying on tape that 100.000 pounds was cheap at half the price for providing these kind of services. Real 'snout in the trough' stuff!
Complain about this comment
@ 85, Brownedov; Yup, I agree in general terms with you there, but I guess it would depend on the type and scale of the "emergency", which is probably why Gordon Brown has not used it yet.
A large scale revolt by the public may be enough for Brown to declare an emergency and invoke the Civil Contingencies Act, and, in typical nulabour doublespeak, suspend elections in the name of protecting democracy from anarchists (bent on voting labour out of office).
Complain about this comment
'a Lord must not.........'
.. well then they cannot be considered Lords any more, and should be removed.
This has partly come about because the useless governments of the past 25 years or so proved incapable of sorting out their own wages.
When they came up with their eventual salaries they still couldn't come clean (well they maybe realised they were only actually worth a dustman's wages) about what civil service pay-scale they should be equal to, and so loaded their expenses as compensation.
When you play these kinds of games, people have short memories and start to see petty cash as an entitlement....... hence the current mischief in the Commons.
At the same time, when they 'modernised' the Lords, they forgot to make it a proper job and give a salary.........
What an embarrassing crew of useless incompetents we are told to vote in...........
Regime-change please.
Complain about this comment
Another point that comes out of this is why on earth such are boobies as the four peers concerned in the House of Lords? The answer, of course, is that they are Labour placemen. Far from reforming the second chamber Labour have made it worse by appointing such duffers.
Whilst I'm not sure I would go along with a wholly elected second chamber, the system of appointing people to it needs a radical overall. It should be totally independent of political parties and the scrutiny of nominees should, preferably, be done in public. Given his track record over such things as mortgage applications aren't we entitled to ask how Mandelson managed to get fast tracked into the peerage?
And another couple of important points. Shouldn't government ministers in senior roles be in the Commons so they are, ultimately, accountable to the electorate?
Also, isn't it time for a ruling that government announcements should be made to Parliament and not made elsewhere, leaked to [BBC!] journalists or trailed, like some second rate programme on TV, by the BBC news bulletins?
Of course, all these points are elements in the damage Labour has done to our democracy. Roll on the day when they are kicked out.
Complain about this comment
I see Derek Draper believes we should forgive the peers caught out in this scandal because, "these four men have served the Labour party well and that should be taken into account when we judge them".
Must remember that one if I'm ever done for speeding.
http://www.labourlist.org/derek_draper_lords_cash_for_laws#comments
Complain about this comment
You know what friends? It's getting to the point with this government that there is so much to utterly despise them for that this whole story has bored me rigid already. On its own, in a normal state of affairs this have the makings of a true scandal. As it is, compared to everything that preceded it, it has pailed into insignificance. In fact it has already been overtaken by;
1. 2.3bn package for the motor industry. Now we all know that the way this will be spun by every govt minister is that this is yet more money being put in to help 'hard-working british businesses' survive the 'downturn'. In fact this money is already tagged within the x-ty billions announced at the PBR.
2. The Govt have been told to publish the notes on the decisions re: the Iraq war. Now that is going to be fun - but how much do you wnat to bet that it can be censored in the cause of national security. i.e
Defence Secretary - 'So is it legal or what?'
Prime Minister - 'XXXXXXXXXX'
To quote Robin.....Call an Election
Complain about this comment
#94
And of course, they need to earn back the original cost of their peerage.
It sounds a bit like a franchise scheme, really.
Complain about this comment
Only one thing for it - a fully elected House of Lords. Now.
Complain about this comment
Hi Nick,
while not being a paid advocate can I advocate something really radical. That the HofC put forward a bill immediately that allows the removal of any member of the either house guilty of cash for law amendments, that anyone with a criminal record is barred from sitting in said houses and stripped of any honours and this be RETROSPECTIVE.
I doubt it will be done since those in the HofC will be hoping to fill their boots with consultancies once they get their bling and ermine.
Sad to say that the betterment of the people is the last thing on either houses minds.
Complain about this comment
As the newsflow is unremittingly bad for the government there seems no need to change this tide.
Can we please have some discussion of the demand to see the cabinet briefings befoe the Iraq war that will doubtless damn the entire government.
Perhaps Gordon Brown engineered to have popped out to the toilet when the matter was discussed?
Call an election
We want rid of this farce of a shower of a sham for a government.
Complain about this comment
#103 A sublimely wonderful analogy!
Complain about this comment
This is the most interesting and informative post I've read from Nick in months.
Well done, Nick - back on form.
Complain about this comment
6. At 1:40pm on 27 Jan 2009, zzkevinm wrote:
Is this Labour's "cash for questions" ?
Unfortunately, no. The BBC will take care of that, they already are.
The question you are being asked is, as usual, entirely erroneous. The question should be: Are the police going to investigate this scandal?
After all, 6 'peers of the realm' walked away from any contact with the journalists - only 4 decided they were greedy enough to take the bait. Therefore, the rules currently in question were strict enough for the 6 to ensure that the converstaions were not carried forward.
Once the real truth behind this scandal is uncovered, new laws and rules could be considered but not until AFTER a real investigation is carried out.
But, even then, I doubt whether any of these 'peers' will be charged. The police 'know their place' - if you know what I mean!
Complain about this comment
What the hell is this nonsense?
You're like the government, young Robinson, you're behind the curve. You should be blogging about Ken Clarke's superb demolition of the government's automotive rescue package.
I'll wager the coward Mandelson is grateful he's in the Lords and didn't have to face that barrage.
Complain about this comment
I hear Clegg is calling for the removal of Lords that are found guilty.
Sounds like someone in the HoC is willing to spend a little time putting in place some kind of accountability
Bravo Mr Clegg
Does the BBC blog line reflect this? Have the tories pronounced yet? What about Crash?
Complain about this comment
#27 #32
I'm afraid nobody's allowed to answer that question on a UK website.
Research a town 10km north of Stirling and you'll discover the reason why.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
103. obangobang
Exactly its a kinda franchise, look at it like that and all becomes clear.
Work hard for party
Get the chance to purchase peerage
Trough Trough Trough for life.
Tis the ultimate in public sector back scratching.
Love it.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
To those clamouring for an elected house of Lords, be very careful what you ask for.
How will these people pay for their elections if they aren't financed by political parties, big business or big bank accounts?
You may find a worse bunch of plutocrats installed instead of the bunch we have now.
A far better and more representative system is to have a sort of jury service, where someone gets selected at random from the population to serve for (say) 5 years.
That way they will hopefully stay independant and not be cap-in-hand with lobbyists.
Complain about this comment
#98 purpleDogzzz
We seem to be on the same wavelength over this. It certainly puts Duff Gordon's "I'm not thinking about an election" into context.
When you say which is probably why Gordon Brown has not used it yet, our main hope must be that when it comes it will be yet another Balrickesque cunning plan which does not even fool NR and the BBC.
Complain about this comment
#102:
As the two managers (one a motor company manager, the other a manager of a spare parts company) on The BBC News programme said today' What is the point of loaning 2.5 billion to the car makers? It is the consumers who need the loans because without purchases the car makers will still be at square one.
Complain about this comment
Welcome back Nick and not bad! You didn't even mention the Hamiltons. Did the training course include spine-and moral fibre-strengthening exercises?
The tape of Taylor which the BBC published for a few hours on the Politics page has disappeared so here we are :
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/video/sky-news-video/Video/200901415210732?lpos=video_First_Politics_Feature_Teaser_Region__0&lid=VIDEO_15210732_sky-news-video
Enjoy the sound of your democracy flushing down the toilet everyone.
I genuinely enjoyed Ken trouncing the ferrets on the opposite bench this afternoon, if only the weasel in chief had been there to bear the brunt of Ken's hearty, but informed ire.
Complain about this comment
Whatever happened to disclosure of interest? This is a situation which the members of the House of Lords know about before they vote so surely it's incumbent on them to say so and. logically should make them ineligible to vote.
After all, jurors have to say if they know anyone or anything relating to a case on which they are called to sit.
Complain about this comment
When I start to run this country I will bring into law that anyone in the Commons or the Lords who abuses their position corruptly will face a 5 year minimum jail term. And not one of these nice 5* jails either, something like Wandsworth.
This is corruption in the Lords and there is no other word for it. Even though they took no money they were willing to discuss it, so that is guilt in my opinion.
Complain about this comment
boating-voter 75 has it very right here.
The question is, why hasn't Brown withdrawn the party whip from these people? It seems the obvious thing to do, yet he hasn't done it.
I'm wondering if there may be another even murkier layer to this story.
Complain about this comment
An advocate speaks and / or acts on behalf of another person, for example somebody disabled who cannot speak for themselves or somebody who for whatever reason does not wish to speak for themselves.
Consultancy, I am not sure of but think it would be to give expert advice for which remuneration is usually required, for example a hospital consultant, financial consultant and so on.
Whatever the silly old fool did it is clear the country thinks he was absolutely wrong to receive such a large sum of money for doing a favour and it sounds pretty illegal to me.
Complain about this comment
As long as the heat's on the Lords, it's taken off the Commons. Deflection - yet again!
Complain about this comment
Taylor is a low-grade scumbag by all accounts so far and should be labelled a national disgrace. Moonie et al likewise.
Complain about this comment
118 sicilian29
Did you know that Corus is owned by Tata - who also own Jaguar? It was in an e-mail shown on Sky. I only just caught it myself.
Complain about this comment
There used to be a reason that members of the house of Lords referred to each other as honourable members, they were honourable (well mostly, but it was a nice principle).
It seems like so much else these days it is now just a form of words, a custom with no meaning to those spouting them other than being good form.
I heard (belatedly) the recordings and cannot believe that the Labour leaders have done nothing other than organise an enquiry.
There is no ambiguity in what these were discussing and requesting. You don;t have to say precisely "unless you pay me X I won't help" to be asking that - mind you it was about all they didn't say.
Taylor in particular (sorry but Lord is an honourific and the man clear has no honour so doesn't deserve the title so I will not use it) made my blood boil, a disgrace. If he has a shred of decency which seems debatable then he should leave the house and never return. "rules to be bent" - no, and thrice no, they are there to be followed and debated if a change is needed - that was his role - not to decide which ones to be followed and which ones bent to his own pockets benefit.
So the dishonourable gentlemen and his crooked cronies need despatching - if not to the Tower then certainly never to grace Westminster again.
Complain about this comment
Wouldn't it be nice if English people could recreate their constitutional structure to outlaw this kind of behaviour?
We'd be happy to advise, given that our Parliament has adopted transparency over its members behaviour.
Complain about this comment
@ 112. At 5:26pm on 27 Jan 2009, rahere wrote:
#27 #32
I'm afraid nobody's allowed to answer that question on a UK website.
Research a town 10km north of Stirling and you'll discover the reason why.
------------------------------------------------
I know the reason why. I have a source that wrote for the Herald. He was not allowed to publish what his independent investigative journalism uncovered.
He discoverd this information as a by-product of investigating celebrities that were uncovered paying for access to child porn websites using their credit cards.
What he discovered, in addition to the celebrity perversions, was what he was not allowed to publish, even with proof.
It was the reason for the 100 year rule being used in the cover up of what really happened in that town.
I have no independent proof of what he told me, so shall not divulge, for it would not be published anyway.
But it was truly horrific and the people responsible are still in power.
Complain about this comment
Hark at the Tories on their high horses about sleaze and corruption.
Brown envelopes, anyone?
"sword of truth and trusty shield of fair play".
Jeffrey Archer...
Short memories, eh?
Complain about this comment
Nick your question is pointless as its all just Sophistry.
Call an election !
Complain about this comment
Well, well - Lewis Moonie, Doug Hoyle and Lord Blackburn. Well thank goodness we have all these good honest Labour peer chaps to keep a lid on the skulldugery of the landed gentry types, eh?
Complain about this comment
# 126 shellingout
Yes. it was bought by Tony Blair's friend Mittal. If I remember correctly, it was sold at a price that provoked some discussion. Was this the company that was registered as based in Britain.and it was found that there were only a small number of employees here (something like 30).
Sold on to Tata in 2006.
Complain about this comment
#132 threnodio
I think my memory is going. Can you remind me from which member of the EU most of the complaints about corruption and lack of democracy are coming?
Complain about this comment
130. At 10:16pm on 27 Jan 2009, Laughatthetories wrote:
Hark at the Tories on their high horses about sleaze and corruption.
Brown envelopes, anyone?
"sword of truth and trusty shield of fair play".
Jeffrey Archer...
Short memories, eh?
===
No, long memories actually. People remember the fuss kicked up about Tory sleaze and how they weren't fit to govern. Now the chickens have come home to roost, and people are enjoying the discomfit of Labour hypocrites.
Complain about this comment
#112, 129
Google
Complain about this comment
#112, 129
D Notice
Complain about this comment
#112, 129
Dunblane
Complain about this comment
128 Old Nat
You're absolutely right, some of the research our Scottish brethren have done on constitutional matters would give us a head start on drafting something new to deal with this. And taking a leaf from our American cousins, let's make the truths it contains self evident and not 500 pages of legalese.
A new WRITTEN constitution in plain Scottish, Welsh, 'Irish' (and even English for the common man) so that the her majesty's subjects might know their rights; where right and wrong are as clear as the nose in the trough, I mean on the faces of our elected officials and public servants without recourse to a room full of lawyers and wordsmiths.
And OldNat, don't think I didn't notice you slipping a mention of the English Parliament in when you meant the British Parliament, under cover of being so sensible and reasonable. You know these Lords don't reserve their sleaze for just the English. No, they're happy to abuse the trust of all nations without grace or favour, allegedly.
Complain about this comment
#128 oldnat
Just a thought.... given that you are keen for full independence, would Scotland want a second chamber?
It's quite useful not only as a revising chamber, but also to put the brakes on when those in power get a bit carried away (as they often do).
Complain about this comment
I heard the sting on Sky, and although it was hard to hear precisely what was being said over the noise of the Cafe environment, two things struck me.
First was the completely brazen attitude of the Mark, sorry Lord. He'd done this before, knew how to work the system ... that big credit company ... Involved in lots of Gov stuff ..., that credit bill, I got that stalled ... Of course you don't do the dirty work yourself (suggesting no that would be stupid as it's against the rules -ed), no you have a word with the right people and they do it for you???!!! He claimed he knew exactly how to break the rules and get away with it. Guilty as sin, allegedly.
Secondly, you know how you can hear someone smile on the phone. The tone of the journalist's voice made me think he was struggling not to snigger. It was like he just couldn't believe how stupid and careless this bloke was being. Of course the Lord, completely lost in his own self importance just carried on, none the wiser. Priceless.
I presume the investigation will be about the Experian case that he was using as a reference. Done deal, all levers pulled, all requirements delivered, all fees paid up I presume. Taylor gave up the company and the legislation involved. Follow the amendments to find Taylor's associates. Busted. Sounds open and shut unless Taylor was a conman too and was just bragging to sound plausible. No less sleazy, just harder to prove.
Complain about this comment
#79
Not since Thatcher anyway.
Oh, bugger it - enough is enough. Let's see 'em off.
Complain about this comment
With the appointment of Stephenson as Chief Met Plod, that's the Westminster 'Hole in the Democracy' Gang of four off the hook.
Those jackboots sure can do the fancy footwork when required.
Complain about this comment
It's funny though. I haven't heard about the storm troopers raiding Taylor's offices and his various homes to seize the evidence. I guess the Labour Minister, or Cabinet Office lackey needs to allow time for the shredders to run and the rubbish to be removed.
There's no point being a Lord if you can't pull a few strings. No rules for Labour and misrule for the rest of us.
Of course the Tories can't say anything for fear of black pots and kettles. But it does appear that what was a hobby for a few misguided Tories has become a well oiled machine under Labour, allegedly.
Complain about this comment
#139 thomasak001
Actually I made no reference to an "English" Parliament, I suggested that the English people should have the opportunity to construct a modern system, free of the corruption that has developed (actually, it was always there) in the British Parliament.
I'd love to see England liberated from the corruption of the British elite.
Complain about this comment
#140 DistantTraveller
"Just a thought.... given that you are keen for full independence, would Scotland want a second chamber?"
The following is my personal view. I think the SNP want a unicameral legislature with the Court of Session acting as a Supreme Court to ensure that our constitution was followed (could be mistaken, I'm not a member of the SNP). I think they're wrong.
Scotland would be best served by a system which had more checks and balances. I'd reduce the overall number of our politicians by getting rid of the MPs, and then reallocate our existing number of MSPs to a legislative chamber (fixed 4 year term) and a revising chamber (1/3 elected every 2 years representing the regions of Scotland - as the US Senate is elected).
Complain about this comment
The lords should be renamed "The thickest link "
Then with Anne Robinson incharge the questioning can begin and we can discover how much money they banked after each round since they were "reformed "by that famouse populistwit ,the pied piper of Sedgefield who seems to have banked quite a lot after a decade of "things can only get better"
Complain about this comment
# 146 oldnat
Thanks for your thoughts.
A second chamber is very useful for checks and balances, particularly when the Government has a large but tired majority that no longer reflects the will of the people.
But I was very disappointed when the House of Lords did not back the referendum on EU Treaty, particularly as it had been in Labour's election manifesto.
I know, I know, you think the EU is wonderful, so let's not go there!!
Complain about this comment
101. At 4:41pm on 27 Jan 2009, obangobang wrote:
http://www.labourlist.org/derek_draper_lords_cash_for_laws#comments
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
This tells you everything you need to know about Labour
Talking about Labour sleaze in the Lords.
"we need to remember that these four men have served the Labour party well and that should be taken into account when we judge them"
Sod that. I don't care what party they served, they are there to serve the people. FULL STOP.
Outrageous comment Derek.
Drapers answer
"you don't actually get the idea of politics do you? "
Derek obviously doesn't think corruption matters and this from a man with previous himself.
Do not vote for any Labour candidate they need to be taught a very hard lesson.
Complain about this comment
145 Old Nat
There should be no such thing as the British Elite. The British Ideal should be a-political serving all nation sates equally and fairly.
The British Parliament has been run by the elite of all nations (excluding Ireland maybe), from time to time. The problem comes when those leaders are self serving rather than public serving. Sadly for Scotland there have been more self serving English Leaders than Scottish so things have got a bit out of whack. I hasten to add that a self serving politician doesn't favour his own nation by design it's just that as he/she chooses familiar or comfortable paths, they often favour his/her own people by accident. When they completely lose grip on reality, they might end up serving very few but themselves. Tony Blair was reviled by many English and I haven't heard many Scots speak favourably of our current leader.
In the 21st century, you'd like to think that Britain could produce at least one leader that could serve all of its people. The lack of an English parliament does make this more difficult as national English issues get muddled up with federal British issues. A new constitution would help here too.
Complain about this comment
#148 DistantTraveller
"I know, I know, you think the EU is wonderful, so let's not go there!!"
Let's go there!
I think the principle of European Union is wonderful! (but the practice does need to be reformed).
Even though I'm sure "my side" would have lost in Scotland, were the referendum to have been held on a UK question (and overwhelmingly in the UK), I still think we should have had a referendum on significant constitutional change.
Democracy is still worth pursuing - even if a majority of "the people" have been given a distorted version of the Lisbon Treaty by Rupert Murdoch's press.
Given a choice (which I won't get!), I'd like Scotland to have a referendum on our constitutional position, which allowed us to select our preferences in rank order. No one position would gain 50%, so we have to look for the position that would gain the greatest consensus.
Possible positions (my own views in brackets) to rank order would include -
1. Scotland as a separatist nation outwith all European associations (total insanity)
2. Scotland as a semi-separatist nation in EFTA (probably would have been worthwhile if our oil hadn't been used by the UK in their revenue account for the last 30 years - but probably a non-starter now)
3. Scotland as an independent member of a Confederal EU with clearly defined separation of powers between the EU and the nations (Preference 1)
4. Scotland as an independent member of the current EU process (Preference 2)
5. Scotland as part of a Confederal UK committed to EU integration (might work - certainly a useful concept in the transition to direct Scots representation)
6..... etc Various structures of Scotland as a component part of a UK, uncommitted to Europe (unacceptable, and against everything I've believed in since 1960).
Life isn't as simple as "Europhile" and "Eurosceptic"!
Complain about this comment
#150 thomasak001
Every political system has its "elite". The current structure is Britain so it's a British elite.
The English are so numerically dominant in the UK that, of course, they dominate the agenda (somewhat undemocratic otherwise, wouldn't you agree?)
"Democratic" refers to the "demos" (the political entity). It was open to the UK to create that after 1707, but it never happened.
Both Scotland and England are mongrel nations - both consist of an amalgamation of "nations", who decided to merge their differences into new "nations". There's nothing ethnic about our difference. There is a difference in history, myth, law, demos, and (to a limited extent) language and culture.
The coalition of England (the Welsh had no choice), Scotland and the Protestant Irish made economic (if not moral) sense in Imperial times. However, those times are gone, and the coalition needs to be reformed and expanded to cover all of Europe.
Complain about this comment
When reading this, can't you just feel Robinson's pain that he had to cover it. If it had been tory peers, we would have had half the BBC website dedicated to it with Marr and Peston wading in to stick the boot in. Laughable.
Complain about this comment
This is just another example of how Labour have let standards of public service become eroded under Blair and now Brown. Labour created the perfect climate in which corruption can thrive.
Labour's reputation for sleaze is well documented from the Ecclestone affair to cash for honours.
David Cameron's excellent decision last week not to support sleazy Government forced Brown to change tact on his three-line whip to protect MPs' expenses from scrutiny under the Freedom of Information Act.
These Labour Peers are in a very serious position. If they have apparently accepted vast sums of money to influence or make amendments leading to changes to Laws, then this is corruption.
Labour remember exploited tawdry behaviour (cash for questions)by a handful of Tory MPs and were handed an election landslide, being elected on a promise to eradicate sleaze.
This is exceedingly far more serious because money has apparently been accepted to actually change Laws. This is the most serious of charges (corruption)and must be investigated quickly. It exposes Labour as a truely ROTTEN Party operating a hypocritical dysfunctional Government.
Complain about this comment
#130:
I think you've struck home with this story Nick! The Labour defence is ragged to say the least.
Complain about this comment
I would be extremely surprised if any of these peers were brought to justice. They helped make the laws which allow them to get as much out of the system as they can.
With the appointment of Sir Paul Stephenson, the government now has a new ally which will give our honourable friends even more leeway.
Complain about this comment
#130 Laughatthetories wrote:
"Hark at the Tories on their high horses about sleaze and corruption.
Brown envelopes, anyone?
"sword of truth and trusty shield of fair play".
Jeffrey Archer...
Short memories, eh?"
============================
Are you saying Labour are as bad as the Conservatives were in th 90's and need kicking out of office because they are so sleazy?
I'd say you were spot on.
Call an election!
Complain about this comment
The tories failed to back the last reform of the house of lords maybe now! the tories will support a fully elected second chamber?
It would seem that their is no real constitution, just a broken frame-work.
Carrots burn that "MAGNA CARTA" 1215 indeed..........Oiii you owe me an apology'
Complain about this comment
Is this a case of, do as I do don't do as I do
by labour.
They talk a good game but could they all want the pound in their pocket, lots of them.
Complain about this comment
#159
Maggywasasod.
What a rascal lord toff was.
Complain about this comment
160 Derekbarkingmad
Rascal means naughty young person.
Lord Taylor 79 should know better.
(If found to be guilty)
Complain about this comment
I'm afraid this is what you will get when taking an ancient institution based on honour and replacing men of honour, the hereditary peers, with political place-men.
'Reform' again with elected rather than appointed members will unfortunatly fail to prevent this.
Yet again we see the results of a governement meddling in things it does not understand.
Complain about this comment
Delph, yellow
"Are you saying Labour are as bad as the Conservatives were in th 90's and need kicking out of office because they are so sleazy?"
Not quite - I don't yet see evidence of corruption and folk put in prison - maybe in due course..
"Call an election"
And are we confident that if the Tories or Lib dems won things would be any better? Please.
Tories generally look after themselves first and foremost, irrespective of the public good - that's Conservatism.
Of course there are those who purport to be socialists who do the same (Hatton et al) but that approach isn't ingrained in the political philosophy as it is with the Right. Admittedly, it's heading in the same direction...
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#162 AnnoyedofHythe
"The idea of hereditary legislators is as inconsistent as that of hereditary judges, as hereditary juries; and as absurd as an hereditary mathematician, or an hereditary wise man; as absurd as an hereditary Poet Laureate." - Tom Paine : The Rights of Man.
"men of honour"
So the Tories were quite wrong in 1958 to introduce women to the HoL?
Complain about this comment
163 Laughatthetories
And are we confident that if the Tories or Lib dems won things be any better?
Look at the news, it can't get any worse. James Brown had his chance and he has blew it.
And dont come back with Cameron would screw it up and give me figures from 1979 up to 1997.
Its today what is wrong and if you could just take your Labour specs off for two minute like in 97 we need a change and James Brown out.
Call an election
Complain about this comment
#163.
All those corn fields and ballet in the evening.
Complain about this comment
# 151 oldnat
You say: Life isn't as simple as "Europhile" and "Eurosceptic"!
Very true, which is why all people who oppose the EU constitutional treaty (and object to Labour's broken promise of a referendum) are not automatically Euroseptic. (deliberate typo)
Leaving aside your comment about how the UK has used "our oil", I agree that democracy is still worth pursuing!
Unfortunately, the way the EU machine is currently set up, it is not only undemocratic, I believe it is actually anti-democratic.
Complain about this comment
#168 DistantTraveller
"Unfortunately, the way the EU machine is currently set up, it is not only undemocratic, I believe it is actually anti-democratic."
Sadly largely true but unlike unreformed Westmidden it has proved it is capable of change from within. On current form it seems that the NuLab unionists have completely abandoned all of their '97 promises for electoral and constitutional reform while the "official" unionist Tories would seemingly prefer to break up the UK than to look at what's wrong with iys polity.
In such a climate, many feel that democratising the EU is the only hope.
Complain about this comment
#163:
Did you hear the tape of Lord Turner? Sounded pretty damning to me and yes The Labour Party aren't the only ones with their snouts in the trough. You have to admit though that these were fairly disgraceful goings on at a time when people are struggling to hold down jobs and keep up with mortgage payments.
Complain about this comment
#168 Distant
I'm with you on this one. I'm all for Europe as a vehicle for trade and common values/laws. More of a common market approach than a superstate
Most people are open to the basis of Europe: A common market with no trade barriers, ease of movement for the populace and a common currency (leave that one for now though!)
What most people are dead against (me being one of them) is the European superstate. I don't want to have a one rule/law fits all approach, it doesn't work
I see no reason why we can't have a set of laws which all states abide by (mrder/rape/burglary etc) and then let each state legislate as they see fit. The way Europe works now is un-democratic and so obfuscated that barely anything gets done (without taking years and costing millions)
We need to reform Britain before we start on Europe though!
Complain about this comment
If these were Tory Peers accused of selling British Laws, it would be a 'Conservative' scandal requiring Tory scalps and much flagellation.
Instead, because they're all Labour Peers, it's a 'constitutional issue' requiring the reform of the House of Lords to help the poor, confused Labour members?
Indeed, you Nick have not mentioned once in your piece that all the accused are 'Labour' Peers. This is not a constitutional issue - it is a Labour Sleaze issue - and far worse than anything the Tories were ever accused of.
Selling laws ? Isn't that treason?
Complain about this comment
Lies+
ASBOS+
Benefits+
Overspending+
Unemployment=
Riots.
Election Please.
Complain about this comment
#169 Browendov
"In such a climate, many feel that democratising the EU is the only hope"
A vain hope I fear, unless there are some very major changes.
One of the advantages of a true democracy is that when you get fed up with one lot, you can eventually boot them out (although not always soon enough!)
The EU commission has huge power, but We The People have no say in who they are. In the case of Lord Voldemort, an unpopular, twice resigned master of spin and the dark arts!
Complain about this comment
# 171 mightychewster
"I'm with you on this one. I'm all for Europe as a vehicle for trade and common values/laws. More of a common market approach than a superstate"
When we had the referendum on staying in the Common Market back in 1975, I voted "yes". (Younger readers, ask your parents!)
Like you, I am for free trade and a common market approach.
We have never been asked if we want a European Superstate - but slowly that's what is evolving without our consent.
When asked, France, Netherlands and Ireland all said "no" to the new constitution. But we have not been allowed any say!
I am a great fan of Star Trek - and am always impressed that whatever planet they visit, there is usually one government for the whole planet.
Very good, providing it is properly democratic!
But the EU is not like the Federation. It behaves like the Borg collective, and tells us to "prepare to be assimilated".
Resistance is not futile!
Complain about this comment
There is a chance here for the "New Conservatives". I'm pleased that they have not come out with loud condemnation as that would surely backfire, inviting someone else to bring up their past crimes.
However I think they should:
- Denounce this type of behaviour as corrupt
- State that even if proven they cannot denounce these specific acts on account of past Tory faults.
- Restate deep regret and respect public withdrawal of support from subsequent elections.
- State that they have changed. Conservatives under DC will not tolerate any sleaze.
- Restate commitment to Social Justice
- Commit to a new constitutional framework to include:
- Bring wrong doers to book, New rules to curb abuse of power both corporate and political (as previously stated)
- Define duties and responsibilities of public service for both elected and unelected officials, within and without parliament. No more house rules. An end to "No rules for Government, misrule for the people".
- Rules to prevent politicisation of public institutions, and define how public information should be used to facilitate transparent government.
- Complete reform of the HoL to become a House of all the talents, and a political section filled according to the public vote under PR. 'Talented' peers to be appointed independently. All interests declared.
- Written constitution for peoples rights and responsibilities as citizens.
- Devolved parliament for England with revised federal Parliament in Westminster drawing on proportion of Devolved politicians to debate federal issues.
- Fixed term parliaments
These are just my thoughts, but the point is, forget tinkering on the sides. A full root and branch overhaul to restore public faith in Government and prevent future abuses of power.
Cameron has to show that he pays more than lip service to social justice, and fix it that old Tories or any other party for that matter can never undo it, without a referendum.
Complain about this comment
154 BGarvie
#It exposes Labour as a truely ROTTEN Party operating a hypocritical dysfunctional Government.
Lord Conrad Black, in jail, Lord Archer,was in jail Lord Ashcroft say no more,Jonathan Aitkin, was in jail, Gentleman john
Speechley,in jail. to name but a few.
Our new hero Ken Clark has to have a glass of whisky at the dispatch box and sits on the board of the company that exports millions of cigarettes to third world countries.
Does anybody know how many Tory and liberal Lords were offered the same deal and how many refused it or was this just a case of entrapment. Don't get me wrong If it were possible I'd sack the lot of them.It is rather strange though that only Labour Lords were chosen, incidentally what is the percentage of Tory Lords that sit on the board of several different companies compared to Labour and Liberal Lords?.
Complain about this comment
Nick.. all
just came across this site check it out
http://www.labour-watch.com/sleaze.htm.
It never ceases to amaze me the constant attacks re Tory sleaze, even you Nick the slightest whiff of a Tory wrong doing you go into a dizzy spin ratcheting it up for all its worth even if it turns out to be nothing,
also I would like to point out that the Tory high command acts immediately if one of their team falls foul, sometimes to heavy handed if you ask me.
It appears to me the majority of Tory sleaze is nothing in comparison to Labour sleaze, and those of a serious nature were dealt with by the courts.
Nick your loyalty to this Labour government is outstanding, as is hypocrisy.
Complain about this comment
So all these newlabour peers have denied any worng doing.
I'll try that this weekend when I refuse to pay my taxes.
I deny any wrong doing.
I'll try that next time I'm caught accidentally shoplifting.
I deny any wrong doing.
No doubt Tony Blair will deny any worng doing about the Iraq war.
Only a twelve year period of blame free newlabour could deny so much workng doing.
Call an election.
Complain about this comment
158. derekbarker
Apology? Remind me what for, I forget.
You owe me money, much more important
1 million cyber credits I think it was
Complain about this comment
#93 you state that the "noble" Lords are entitled to the same "due process" as the rest of us. Couldn't agree with you more. Only thing is "for the rest of us" such a process would include a visit by Plod AND AN INTERVIEW UNDER CAUTION with, depending on the evidence obtained after A THOROUGH INVESTIGATION either an ARREST followed by A CRIMINAL CHARGE BEING LIBELLED or not as the case may be.
That is the only enquiry that counts here!
Complain about this comment
#177 so do you think any Labour Lords or MP's caught up in expenses frauds will get prison sentences as these Tories did or is it just Tories ?
Complain about this comment
#177 Grandantidote
Does anybody know how many Tory and liberal Lords were offered the same deal and how many refused it or was this just a case of entrapment. Don't get me wrong If it were possible I'd sack the lot of them.It is rather strange though that only Labour Lords were chosen, incidentally what is the percentage of Tory Lords that sit on the board of several different companies compared to Labour and Liberal Lords?.
I understand that the press have admitted going for at least 10, representative of all parties including one independent. Only the 4 labour peers had their snouts in the trough allegedly
As for your signing off question re seats on Boards. I'm not too sure were this line of questioning takes you. If a peer sits on a Board then his relationship is in the open.
Far more insidious are the types of business relationships which the Times exposed.
By the way - I don't subscribe to the view that just because 4 Labour peers are under investigation that all Labour politicians are sleazy, just as I didn't subscribe to the view that all Tories were sleazy under Major.
Complain about this comment
#175 DistantTraveller
When asked, France, Netherlands and Ireland all said "No" to the new constitution. But we have not been allowed any say!
Is it worth the political effort to force a referendum?
Those who vote 'No' have to vote until they say 'Yes'.
Those who vote 'Yes' are never asked again.
Doesn't seem to me to be a very democratic institution.
More like a dictatorship wearing a pretty dress.
Complain about this comment
#174 DistantTraveller
"A vain hope I fear, unless there are some very major changes."
Quite possibly so, but it appears to be marginally less unlikely than obtaining democracy for Westmidden and is thus the leastworst choice.
The only trouble is that by pushing Scotland toward independence, democracy for England becomes an even more distant daydream.
You may not have noticed that today the Scottish budget was voted down, likely forcing new elections for Holyrood. Care to place a bet on who will win them?
Complain about this comment
#175 DistantTraveller
"When we had the referendum on staying in the Common Market back in 1975, I voted "yes"."
Not that it matters any more, but in '75 I voted "no" despite being a Liberal believing we had "missed the bus" in not joining (and probably leading) the ECSC and would make bad Europeans. I don't think I have been proved wrong yet.
I also think that Clegg lost the plot in whipping the LibDems to vote against a referendum over Lisbon. Given the opportunity, I'd have voted "yes" but Clegg's disregard for democracy will make it very difficult for me to vote LibDem ever again.
Their siding with the unionists in the Glasgow East debates made it near certain that I would only ever vote for them in attempting to deny NuLab a seat.
Complain about this comment
#176 thomasak001
A good program, certainly, but as unlikely as a duff bottle of Hirondelle from the "official" unionists.
Complain about this comment
177. grandantidote
10 Peers were approached by Sunday Time reporters
They selected 10 Lords who already had a number of paid consultancies.
Three Conservative peers did not return the calls
A Liberal Democrat and an Ulster Unionist both declined to help after meeting the undercover reporters.
However, four out of the five Labour peers were willing to help to amend the bill in return for retainers.
But you made a good point. The Tory Lords went to jail.
Wonder what will happen to these 4.
Shall we have a wager?
Complain about this comment
#177 grandantidote
Pointing out that the "official" Tory unionists have proven to be nearly as bad as the NuLab ones hardly excuses NuLab.
If anything, it makes it worse - if you're going to elect Tory sleazebags, you might as well vote for the ones who actually believe that such behaviour is acceptable - at least they may be good at other things!
Complain about this comment
149. PortcullisGate
Fanastic link, Id missed that. Thanks
Everyone else just has to fly over and see the conversation going on on NuLaours new web site.
Better still fly in and poop.
Complain about this comment
#129
I couldn't possibly comment.
If I were, for instance, to leave a message with the Herald, would he be able to answer it?
Complain about this comment
#188
They also attempted to contact 11 drummers drumming, 12 pipers piping, and a whole raft of milkmaids. And that was just the cover story.
Complain about this comment
There is a certain poetic echo from history. In 1381, the people rose in the Peasant's Revolt. Jack Straw's Castle is a reminder of one of their leaders, and Thomas Taylor was one of his followers. Straw was executed without trial...
Complain about this comment
I wonder how much a Labour Lord could make by dipping his snout in a Oligarch trough.
Complain about this comment
#174 DistantTraveller
"One of the advantages of a true democracy is that when you get fed up with one lot, you can eventually boot them out"
True, but the Westmidden model of alternating one lot of tory unionists for the "official" Tory unionists is as inviting as a Procrustean bed to anyone who believes in democracy.
Complain about this comment
#149 Carrots
Don't go to the official Labourlist site, that will only massage Dolly's ego, and add to the number of hits and revenue stream in the future.
Go instead to the shadow site www.labourist.org it replicates everything, but annoys the heck out of Dolly and shows all the comments he censors as well.
The free market always beats state control in the end!
Complain about this comment
#187 Brownedof
I appreciate that by every normal measure my thoughts are naive and fanciful. We shouldn't have to wait for Scotland to vote to leave the Union to realise that our Constitution is broken.
I confess to being ignorant of must things Constitutional, but it seems to me that the first objective of a constitution is to define the rights and freedoms of the people and how they will be governed. There are numerous examples of how past governments have served their own interests. I'm sure that where this has been enlightened self interest the people may have got something from the deal. Self serving is bad enough, but sleaze, blatant lies and cover-ups and less obviously endless spinning show complete and utter contempt for the electorate.
Worse still, the current system appears completely bereft of checks and balances to deal with such abuses. No action, just endless reviews and enquiries to further obfuscate purpose and justice. This current government is merely the latest obscenity. The system repeatedly delivers governments of the people, by a ruling elite that serves the vested interests of the few. How can the ideal of: government of the people by the people, exist when ministers can serve from the Lords where they are unaccountable?
The system doesn't need fixing, it needs replacing. What further evidence do we need? What better time than in response to economic meltdown fueled by if not actually caused by government failure on a grand scale?
No matter how good the opposition policies are, if they only serve to restore the current system, then whats the point? We'll be here again in a decade or two.
Cameron has added social justice to his vocabulary but it is just one thread amongst many. Social justice needs to be one of the primary goals of economic recovery, not just a ruse to get some votes by bringing to book a few bankers.
Worse still, on TV at the weekend, I saw both Clarke and Osbourne talking about the awful mess they will inherit WHEN they get in, not if, when. That's arrogance and complacency 16 months BEFORE the election. Arrogance and complacency are the mother and father of sleaze. Have they really changed?
If Dave wants my vote on anything more than a short-term basis to get rid of this shower then he needs to be more than just a sleaze-free version of the old Tory party. I for one want to know more about his vision for social justice. He says he's changed, let him show us how serious he is.
Complain about this comment
NO MAN OR LORD IS ABOVE THE LAW
TREASON
Any Lord who asks for, or accepts, a retainer to influence legislation on behalf of clients is guilty of breaking the rules and the law, it is a form of treason and a criminal offence.
When a Lord becomes a member of the House of Lords, he accepts, that he has a duty of service to the people. He must not use his power or privileged position to serve himself.
“Where one man is more powerful than another, it is inevitable that he will try to use his power to gain his ends; and if his power is much greater than the other’s, he might, perhaps, be said to be using it oppressively. If he uses his power illegally, he must of course pay for his illegality in the ordinary way; but he is not to be punished simply because he is the more powerful. In the case of the government it is different, for servants of the government are also servants of the people and the use of their power must always be subordinate to their duty of service.”
Rooks v Barnard (Lord Devlin, H.O.L. and Privy Council. (E) [1964] A.C., Page 1226).
Lords Take Notice.
In principle and in law, and at all times, you Lords, are in possession of a Constructive Notice and Constructive Trust.
Perhaps members of the Lords should accept a retainer to influence legislation to strip any Lord of his title and to dish out mandatory and appropriate jail sentences for breaking the rules. After all a retainer of £120,000 would be cheap for this service and to get rid of such unscrupulous Lords. What sentence would Oliver Cromwell have dished out for such behaviour most foul, had he been alive?
Complain about this comment
179 Robin jd
I'll try that next time I'm caught accidentally shoplifting.
Could that be a freudian slip, or a statement of fact.
Complain about this comment
182 elrond 511
#.so do you think any Labour Lords or MP's caught up in expenses frauds will get prison sentences as these Tories did or is it just Tories ?
No unfortunately not.
The difference being that the crimes of the tory lords occurred outside of the house and therefore were criminal which in turn involved the police.
Complain about this comment
188 carrots need quangoes
Thanks for information.
Nothing will happen to them as we know but somethink should dont you think.
Complain about this comment
189 browndov
I was not only pointing out that they were as bad but that they were worse after reading the absurd comments of Bgarvie
#It exposes Labour as a truely ROTTEN Party operating a hypocritical dysfunctional Government.
unfortunately we have rotten apples in all walks of life and from all classes, but lets not apportion blame to any one group, lets try to weed them out and if possibkle take them to court.
Complain about this comment
189 browndov
Its strange that many of you have picked up on 177 but not BGarvie
Complain about this comment
free
Complain about this comment
201. grandantidote
I do.
Its an affront to democracy, which ever party does it.
Time for change
Complain about this comment
Strikes break out across the UK in support of a walkout by energy workers against the use of foreign labour.
Now they've got rather more than a foot in the door, seems too little, too late. Glad enough to get the foreigners to do the dirty work, but now when things are tough, the great British Workman has woken up.
Complain about this comment
#206
Why doesn't Brown give his position to Angela Merkel? She is a member of the EU. This is not off-topic!
Complain about this comment
206 phoenixarison
Does any one remember the program, please excuse my German " Auf weidesen pet"well thats probably wrong but I'm sure you know the program, it concerened thousands of workers in the eighties going to the continent to get work principally Germany.
I spent a couple of years in the mid eighties in the Netherlands and at that time there were many British workers in the shipyards as there was no work back home.
I wonder how many of those same guys are amongst those protesting against legally employed foreign workers now.
Lets go the whole hog and throw out all foreign workers, the country would grind to a halt within days.
Complain about this comment
#208 grandantidote
Good day, to you grandantidote,
Never saw that TV programme, but heard about it.
My anger is not directed at the foreign workers, as such, but rather at the employers who will go for the cheapest option. These same employers spread the slander that the British workman is lazy and doesn't want to work. In the end, many do become so demoralised, that they take to a life on benefits.
Grandantidote, you claim to be a socialist, so don't you think that there should be real solidarity amongst all workers, foreign and British, to stand united against the bloated bosses who exploit them? There, that must surprise you from a person who is ardently for self reliance and equates socialism as it is today with fascism.
If as you say the country did grind to a falt within days without the foreigners, I believe it would most likely revive as quickly, because workers would roll up their sleeves as in World War II and start production. When there is no choice, the only choice is action.
Complain about this comment
#209
Apologise for typing error: Last sentence should read:
When there is no choice, the only course is action.
Complain about this comment
In these hard times you can understand the arguments on both sides of the divide in this developing dispute. The companies and their management are anxious to employ expertise at as low a cost as possible to keep their overheads reasonable. The British workers on the other hand remember Gordon Brown's words in 2007 when he suggested that there should be British jobs for British workers. Of course The Credit Crisis hadn't yet reared its ugly head at that time. With workers losing jobs left right and centre the British workers are miffed when they see jobs being set aside for up to 300 foreign workers. I think that both sides are unfortunately caught up in The Credit Crunch. You can sympathise with both but the solution could well be an intractable one.
Complain about this comment
209/211 phoenixarison/sicilian
Goodmorning Gents
I think that both your opinions have there merits.
In the light of more information becoming available it would seem that these contracts were put up for tender and were won quite legitimately by these other European contracters perhaps even before the credit crunch.
They of course were entitled to employ anyone they wished from within the EU on condition that they pay them the same wages as they would British workers and thats what they have to assertain, if they meet that criteria then any complaints by the British workforce is out of order.
Yes I am a socialist and I do agree with solidarity, but the solidarity that I believe in does not mean that when things get tough lets forget solidarity and look after number one, I like to think that I am a man of my word and if I sign up to something and the situation changes to my disadvantage I dont start marching and saying I can now break that agreement because its nots so good for me now and I am afraid thats what these wildcat strikers are doing right now.
As for the country grinding to a halt, just on one point, have you any idea how many foreign workers are employed in the NHS Surgeons, Doctors, Nurses, Ward orderlies And Cleaning staff. there would have to be a awful lot of reluctant sleeves to be rolled up just to cover that part of our society.
As for the war my friend, yes this little country did brilliantly but if it wasn't for the English channel it would have been over in a few weeks,we were also being helped by those damn foreigners the Canadians, Australians, Indians, New Zealanders and the rest of the commonwealth and later by the Americans, so not exactly standing alone, and they all into the category of foreigners .
I agree that when it comes to the crunch [excuse the pun] that we have to knuckle down and the country needs to do that but the way to do it is not to make fellow workers and friends our enemies.
These workers should remember at the time of the Thatcher/ Scargill strikes the Dutch and the Poles were sending food parcels to the miners, now thats solidarity.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#212
THIS WAS REFERRED TO MODERATORS FOR NO REASON I CAN SEE. I HAVE REMOVED THE LAST PARAGRAPH WHICH STATES, THAT IN MY OPINION, BROWN IS UNFIT FOR SERVICE.
PERHAPS MY MENTION THAT IRAQ WAS ON THE AXIS SIDE IN WORLD WAR II UPSET SOME MODERATOR WITH AN AGENDA?
THIS POSTING IS NOT, I REPEAT, NOT, OFF TOPIC, AND IT HAS BEEN COPIED FOR FUTURE REFERENCE.
Good morning on this crisp, cold day.
I will respond very briefly to your posting, grandantidote, as I have chores, and also, who knows if it won't be moderated and pulled off after all my hard work!
Regarding the help from the old Commonwealth, they were wonderful, and how were they rewarded? I know many Canadians, Kiwis, etc who cannot get work and residence in the UK, whereas Pakistanis, Iraqis. Somalis, Uncle Tom Cobley and all are ushered in with housing, benefits, etc. Many of their home countrieds were activelly for Hitler in World War II. Iraq is a case in point.
The hospitals are filled with foreign workers, yet British born people wishing to do nursing and allied work are unable to get training as budgets are cut. Think about it! If we had more British cleaners and orderlies, directly employed by the hospitals and not agencies, cleanliness would be at a much higher standard, and the old values
British hospitals were famouse for would be the norm. Not the many sub-Third World hygiene which NHS patients have to put up with. The same goes for the transport services, drivers and conductors and other staff receiving proper training, decent conditions and a pride in the work ethic.
Brown, and this will hurt you, but I am sorry, is a man who has no empathy with the working classes. He mixes and uses in his cabinet characters of the ilk of Mandelson. He neither has an understanding of a capitalist society. tHE REST HAS BEEN MODERATED!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I rewrote and revised, and consequently there are many spelling and typographical errors. It is getting impossible to have a civilized debate on this BBC forum. One can discuss pleasantly with those of opposite views, since most of the contentious writers have gone to pastures new. But, and this is a serious BUT, the Moderators seem to have become paranoid and postings from all and sundry are whipped off without reason. This is reminiscent of life in the Empire, in Gibbon's masterpiece, The Decline and Fall of Rome.
Complain about this comment
214/216 Phoenixarison
I don't agree witha lot you say as you would have expected but certainly defend your right to say it perhaps the moderaters have been replaced with good old British stock which to be honest you would like to see but perhaps they want to be more efficient and typically British.
Hospital cleaning agencies brought in by the Tories to save money not lives. contrary to what you say old chap there are plenty of opportunity for nurses to train,the only trouble is that once they are trained their off to other countries or to private hospitals that make no effort to train their own and that includes Doctors and Surgeons also specialists all trained by the NHS who pay more but they fail to train their own nurses as we had to when Labour took over from the Tories there were massive shortages of staff.
My wife was recently in hospital for a knee replacement less that three months after seeing the surgeon who was obviously of Asian descent, and was the most sensitive and understanding person you could wish to meet . My wife arrived at the hospital in the afternoon was seen by the surgeon and was operated on the following morning, the operation was extremely successful and a first class job. the wards were spotless the nurses were a mixture of Asian and British and were very efficient and cheerful as were the dinner ladies and the porters and indeed the cleaners, the food was excellent and couldn't be faulted, the equipment was superb and the beds were as if from another planet, absolutely first class from top to bottom.
I at one time in my life spent two years in hospital and couldn't get home quick enough and that was all british staff, if it had been in a ward like the one my wife was in I would have stayed there forever.
So I am afraid old friend its not at all the way you paint it, I hope you dont have to experience it yourself but if you did you would have a eye opener.
Sorry old friend but I totally disagree with your last remarks. I think that any man that had his medical experience as a young man and now with all the problems of being PM and having a child with SB, then I think he has a pretty good understanding of life,
Hope you got you fatigues done buttons polished and rifle cleaned. moderater inspection tomorrow.
Complain about this comment
#213 and #215
In response to emails I finally received, without any explanation.
Dear Sir/\Madam
My posting was neither offensive, off-topic or guilty of breaking any House Rules. Please send me another email, indicating which passage is objectionable. I would really appreciate this and would then know it isn't simply a matter of not agreeing with my views. Subjective moderation is against your own House Rules. A copy of this is being kept. Many thanks
Complain about this comment
I wish I could agree with Grandantidote's comments about the cleanliness of our hospitals.
Just before he died three years ago, my father was admitted to our local hospital. He was put into a side ward on his own. Not only did we have to clean it before I would allow him to set foot in it, we had to buy the cleaner and cloths to do it. It was filthy.
The same with my father-in-law, who sadly died last year. He was at a large London Hospital. He had major surgery and we noticed on our second visit, that there was dust and dirt under his bed. This was eight days after our first visit and it hadn't been cleaned up. There was a layer of dust on every surface and the windows in his ward had black mould round them. When we asked why they were so dirty we were told they hadn't had their windows cleaned for some years. The other point I would make is that it took the consultants and surgeons nearly four months to get him in for urgent surgery. By that time, his illness was terminal.
I hope you think yourself lucky grandy - some of us have to put up with a hell of a lot less under the same useless system!
Complain about this comment
#217 grandantidote
Rifles at the ready!
I'm pleased your wife had such a good hospital and excellent treatment, and trust she is completely recovered. Knees can be very tricky. My father had such an operation during the war, and the military hospital was very well run. Pity those Queen Alexander nurses do not serve as matrons in some of our hospitals today. A few years ago, a relative had a hospital experience - dustballs under the beds, horrible food, kindly staff, but senior nurses sitting at a service station whilst the juniors did all the work. Somehow I don't think you live in the London area, because it's very dodgy here. Also, trained nurses are sometimes leaving because the NHS cannot afford places for them. As I said, rifles at the ready - and it's snowing!
Complain about this comment
'Sorry old friend but I totally disagree with your last remarks. I think that any man that had his medical experience as a young man and now with all the problems of being PM and having a child with SB, then I think he has a pretty good understanding of life.'
I beg to differ. As far as I can make out the person in question is more interested in himself and his future prospects. Just my opinion of course but one that is shared by many.
Complain about this comment
221 phoenixarison
#I beg to differ. As far as I can make out the person in question is more interested in himself and his future prospects.
Sorry you feel that way old chap, I had expected a little more compassion from a fellow combatant.
Whatever fault you may think the man has I am sure that if his child could be made well by him retiring tomorrow then thats what he would do as I would expect that Cameron would do for his poorly child and as I think any man with a ounce of decency would.
#Just my opinion of course but one that is shared by many.
Only by those consumed by hatred.
Time to get the mittens and balaclava out my friend.
Complain about this comment
219 shellingout
I am of course very sorry to hear of both your Dads and your father in laws untimely deaths.
Perhaps you should move to Wales.
Where the situation I discribed is common place.
Yes I am indeed very grateful to the as I said Asian surgeon and the staff many of whom were Asian, and extremely grateful that they had left their contries to come to work here.
We all know that their living standards are the main reason for them coming here and why not , many peple here are moving to Dubia for the very same reason.
Should we want to round them all up and send them back, well I certainly dont the NHS would collapse without them.
I unfortunately have spent quite a lot of time in hospitals over the last few years and I can honestly say that the greatest respect and efficiency that I have experienced has been from what we loosely call foreigners.
I am not saying that our own grown nurses are all bad not by any means some of them are wonderful but many I spoke to openly admitted that as soon as their training was over they were off abroad for more money, so I guess what goes around comes around.
Perhaps you people living in England instead of complaining that you need to dump Scotland and Wales should perhaps try to emulate us then you will be a lot happier.
First lesson at twickers shortly, sorry could't resist that one.
Complain about this comment
222. At 12:43pm on 02 Feb 2009, grandantidote wrote:
222. At 12:43pm on 02 Feb 2009, grandantidote wrote:
221 phoenixarison
#I beg to differ. As far as I can make out the person in question is more interested in himself and his future prospects.
Complain about this comment
222. At 12:43pm on 02 Feb 2009, grandantidote wrote:
221 phoenixarison
#I beg to differ. As far as I can make out the person in question is more interested in himself and his future prospects.
I thought we had a decent understanding respecting each other's different points of view.
How dare you accuse me of writing #221. If you hadn't sat on your spectacles you would see that Sicilian 29 wrote it!!!!!
Seems it is not only your political vision that's warped!
Complain about this comment
#225:
Sorry phoenix.
Didn't mean to get you into trouble. Apparently I'm consumed by hatred because I suspect the PM's motivation.
Complain about this comment
#225 sicilian29
Apology accepted. Now I want one from my old friend/foe grandantidote.
Complain about this comment
223 grandy
Perhaps you people living in England instead of complaining that you need to dump Scotland and Wales should perhaps try to emulate us then you will be a lot happier.
.....................................................
Don't remember saying that we needed to dump either Scotland or Wales.
Please tell me where I said that.
Complain about this comment
225 phoenixarisonq
My sincerest apologies my friend I am afraid that I was confused by the"'Sorry old friend " that unbelievably came from Sicilian I am not normaly blessed with that type of affectionate term from sicilian.
In my defence you will note that I said,
#Sorry you feel that way old chap, I had expected a little more compassion from a fellow combatant.
The emphasis being on combatant.
And I think that further in my defence my reference to
#Time to get the mittens and balaclava out my friend.
Would indicate to you that it was a genuine mistake. Nevertheless old friend I think your post was a little hash considering that,
#I thought we had a decent understanding respecting each other's different points of view.
I would have thought that my error was pretty obvious.
Now is the time to keep the home fires burning, old fellow.
Complain about this comment
222. grandantidote
It's not ME that's consumed by hatred. I don't confuse who has written what, hate has gotten to you and made you reckless in your accusations.
In contrast, I don't even hate Gordon Brown. Just want him removed quickly and as painlessly as possible, for all our sakes.
Complain about this comment
226 sicilian29
Apparently I'm consumed by hatred because I suspect the PM's motivation
You are consumed by hatred because you unbelievably believe that Gordon Brown puts his own future above the health of his child, I can only assume that you have no children otherwise you would realise how wrong you are.
Complain about this comment
228 shellingout
#Perhaps you people living in England instead of complaining that you need to dump Scotland and Wales should perhaps try to emulate us then you will be a lot happier.
I did not say you specifically its known I think as a generalisation, there have been many little Englanders on here preaching the advantage of being separated from Scotland and Wales strangely not Northern Ireland or perhaps not so strangely as Northern Irish MPs normally vote with the Tories. I could have taken the trouble to check your posts to see if you were one of them but I would have found that to tedious you know if you are or not don't you?.
Was it the "you people" or "See you at twickers that upset you"?. You need to lighten up my friend.
Complain about this comment
.230 phoenixarison
# It's not ME that's consumed by hatred. I don't confuse who has written what, hate has gotten to you and made you reckless in your accusations.
In contrast, I don't even hate Gordon Brown. Just want him removed quickly and as painlessly as possible, for all our sakes
I am afraid old chap you are letting this get out of hand which is unlike you, It was you 225 that pointed out that I had addressed you in error and I have apologised for that so why you seem to want to carry on this aggression is beyond my understanding. my mistake was a genuine mistake your continued aggression after you realised that I made a mistake is uncalled for and unlike any other dealings that I have had with you.
There is enough bitterness expressed on these blogs without you and I falling out over an old mans error,. Phoenix I think it is you that now owe me a apology don't you?.
Complain about this comment
#233 grandantidote
Your apology was not printed when I wrote
#230, so you will realise I was still hurt and angry. That explains, I believe my continued "aggression", although actually it was genuine dismay.
Let's shake hands, both apologise, have a metaphorical drink together, and demonstrate that in this crazy world there are still civilised members of The League of Gentlemen!
Complain about this comment
234 phoenixarisonq
Let's shake hands, both apologise, have a metaphorical drink together, and demonstrate that in this crazy world there are still civilised members of The League of Gentlemen!
I extend my hand to you my friend, now lets retire to the mess room and drink a toast to reasoned argument .
Complain about this comment
#235 grandantidote
Here's a toast to 2009, good health, happiness and all the best!
I will not be posting anymore to day, so take care, old chum.
Complain about this comment
Let peers espouse those causes and work in favour of those that they wish to favour. But to take pay from the favoured is venal and disgraceful. The limit of what is permissible for Commons members to receive is famously said to be a bag of boiled sweets. The Lords by conrast seem to be hard put to it to define where honour begins and ends.
Complain about this comment
WHAT IS MORE SINISTER ABOUT LORD TRUSCOTT’S STATEMENTS.
What is more serious and disturbing about the lords is how Lord Truscott, a Labour Peer, could confidently rely on Conservative Peers and Politicians to co-operate to influence legislation for payment. His statements show that Lords and Politicians, regardless of what ever party they are supposed to represent, do not oppose each other but turn a blind eye to sleaze and what goes on. Truscott’s statements show that he was not representing his constituents, that his loyalty was to himself. His statements show that he knows which Lords and Politicians’ are pals in the same club open to bribes.
What sentence would Oliver Cromwell have dished out for such behaviour most foul, had he been alive?
Complain about this comment
FORENSIC-DEBATE
I have long thought that the Hoc and the HoL were just names for elite clubs.
These people make the rules by which most of us have to abide, but when they do, I reckon they make sure that their interests are not compromised first.
They can be seen to have a pop at each other over the woolsack but have a laugh and a drink together afterwards in the Commons bar - which is heavily subsedised by the taxpayer!
Complain about this comment
Hi,
A little lighter note, after Mr Clarkson partially apologised about his calling Mr Brown names.
If Mr Brown is blind in one eye then Clarkson's could be sort of right.
But to say Brown is an idiot is not so certain, so perhaps his apology was back to front.
Also Clarkson is lucky that he his is not in Poland where it is breaking the law to defamate your "Leader" !!! and could be sent to prison.
After all that I agreed with Clarkson .
Cheers.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS