Labour Lords Change Laws For Cash

#1
Revealed: Labour lords change laws for cash

LABOUR peers are prepared to accept fees of up to £120,000 a year to amend laws in the House of Lords on behalf of business clients, a Sunday Times investigation has found.

Four peers — including two former ministers — offered to help undercover reporters posing as lobbyists obtain an amendment in return for cash.

Two of the peers were secretly recorded telling the reporters they had previously secured changes to bills going through parliament to help their clients.

Lord Truscott, the former energy minister, said he had helped to ensure the Energy Bill was favourable to a client selling “smart” electricity meters. Lord Taylor of Blackburn claimed he had changed the law to help his client Experian, the credit check company.

Click to continue.
Well that's a bit naughty. I wonder how this is going to play it, is it possible to throw people out of the Lords? Now it could just be chance but it's interesting how the Peers and their responses, apart from that one Labour Peer, seem to break down along party lines.
 
#2
First class one way single on the outrage bus please - Im want to pke thier eyes out with a white hot spoon greedy cnuts
 
#4
Ashie and Sven will be on line in a minute to say it is only an extension of Maggie's policy. Nothing wrong with it because they are only good socialists attempting to redress the balance and re-distribute the wealth.

Besides it was reported in the Daily Vile which proves it must be wrong
 
#5
Does this really surprise anyone? I mean, crooked politicians?

What troubles me is this in the Lords. Labour, in the House of Lords Act 1999, got rid of the right of the hereditary peers to sit and vote (all but 92 of them), instead replacing them with life peers of those thought to be able to offer most. There has already been trouble about this. Remember the story about being able to buy your way into the Lords?

Of course, according to both major political parties, there was no truth in this at all.... :roll:

Perhaps these Labour peers decided that they needed to refill their coffers. Perhaps they are just crooks.

The law is here on removal. I don't know what the score is with suspension as I couldn't find anything.

The Buckhurst Peerage Case established the principle that once a peer inherits the peerage, he is forever "ennobled in blood" and cannot be deprived of it (except by Act of Parliament)
So it boils down that law breakers can get chucked out. However, the good Jeffrey Archer went to jail for 4 years for perjury and he still has his barony so I wouldn't hold out much hope for Parliament to do the right thing here either.

It would appear to me that although hereditary peers wasn't a brilliant way of selecting your upper house, it at least gave you folk who knew what their role was and were less political than what we have now. The new "by appointment only" makeup of the upper House stinks (it has given us both Mandelson :skull: and the four now in question, fine examples of integrity all) and means that voting is far more partisan than before.

I look forward to this story unfolding.
 
#6
Herrumph said:
Besides it was reported in the Daily Vile which proves it must be wrong
It's a reasonably good target indicator, though. Having said that, there must be one or two new journos at the "Daily Hate" who haven't had writing real stories beaten out of them yet.

Mind you, as has been said by i_t_c, when was "corrupt socialist" news?
 
#7
Pigs in trough, nothing new then
 
#10
in_the_cheapseats said:
It would appear to me that although hereditary peers wasn't a brilliant way of selecting your upper house, it at least gave you folk who knew what their role was and were less political than what we have now. The new "by appointment only" makeup of the upper House stinks (it has given us both Mandelson :skull: and the four now in question, fine examples of integrity all) and means that voting is far more partisan than before.
Not absolutely sure about the partisan bit - the Lords has handed this government a splendid series of reverses over e.g. the length of detention without charge. IIRC the government has used the Parliament Act to bypass the Upper House on more occasions than any other? I'm guessing that once you've already bribed someone as much as you can, their loyalty in the future is far less certain.

As to the 'known quantity' of hereditary Peers, I have the casual acquaintance through friends of one such who kept his seat in the Lords and the man's a blithering idiot. It's always unnerved me that he got to rule on the nation's laws.
 
#11
Funny, I could have sworn the link put up was to the Times Website. Ah well, never let the truth get in the way of a good dig at the Daily Hate...
 
#12
The root of the problem is in very existence of this unelected body. Unelected chamber of parliament contradicts to fundamental principles of democracy.
 
#13
KGB_resident said:
The root of the problem is in very existence of this unelected body. Unelected chamber of parliament contradicts to fundamental principles of democracy.
Democracy has nothing to do with it Sergey. The men are crooks - allegedly :twisted:
 
#14
Herrumph said:
Ashie and Sven will be on line in a minute to say it is only an extension of Maggie's policy. Nothing wrong with it because they are only good socialists attempting to redress the balance and re-distribute the wealth.

Besides it was reported in the Daily Vile which proves it must be wrong
I agree - stand by for excuses, waffle, spin, blushing and f@rting :D

However it was the Sunday Times.
 
#16
KGB_resident said:
The root of the problem is in very existence of this unelected body. Unelected chamber of parliament contradicts to fundamental principles of democracy.
If that was the case, you'd expect all MPs to be straight as arrows, which they aren't.
 
#17
Bravo_Zulu said:
KGB_resident said:
The root of the problem is in very existence of this unelected body. Unelected chamber of parliament contradicts to fundamental principles of democracy.
If that was the case, you'd expect all MPs to be straight as arrows, which they aren't.
Exactly - because the Party Machine selects the candidates, there is no 'grand democratic principle' whereby the engaged electorate selects a man of principle and honesty, if you wish to vote for the general thrust of one party's policies, you have to vote for the shaved monkey who is foisted upon you. The fact that he is there because he either donated money to the party, slept with Mandelson and has threatened to tell, or knows where some of the skeletons are kept means you have no real choice.

Regardless of the 'blithering idiot' comment, at least hereditaries saw themselves as the guardians of a country that would outlast them and needed to change slowly. This provided an excellent counter-weight to the standard, transient politician's horizon which used to be 4 years (to coincide with the General Election cycle - although even that has now been stretched to the limit) but is now about 24 hours in order to achieve good headlines in the tabloids.

A fully elected second house would just give you a rubber-stamp for the sitting party as they would most likely have a majority in both houses (given the very partisan voting that we have seen over the past few years), although that may even be less awful than the system we have now, where the sitting party can just stuff the upper chamber with their cronies - who now 'owe' the PM their loyalty in return for their ennoblement. Mandelson being a prime example - and why is his department being run by a bunch of unelected Lords appointees? If Broon wanted him in his Government, he should have put him up as a candidate in one of his safe seats - or did he think that the man was so objectionable, even a Labour stronghold would not have voted him in.

This Government is awful, awful, awful and must be voted out immediately. I do not care who gets in, and before we get the Svens of this world whining on that 'the Tories are worse', it doesn't matter. Absolute power has corrupted this bunch of thieves and liars so badly that they need a short, sharp lesson, followed by a night of the long knives, after which they can perhaps start effective opposition to whoever is in.
 
#18
KGB_resident said:
The root of the problem is in very existence of this unelected body. Unelected chamber of parliament contradicts to fundamental principles of democracy.
Really? The hereditaries don't belong to any Political party, by and large, have never climbed the greasy and corrupt pole of local and National politics, are not beholden to anyone for their support in the past, largely don't owe any favours to anyone. And have mostly held down real jobs with real problems in the real world.......Unlike most of the current crop of the House of Commons.

You can't withdraw the whip from a Lord, dangle Government posts in front of their eyes, promote their "careers" or exile them to the back benches. A Lord can't really be the Prime Minister.
 
#20
Don't worry, I'm sure incidents like this will soon become a thing of the past - because the Government will pass a Bill and make it an offence under the FOIA / Official Secrets Act for newspapers to publish such flagrant stories.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top