Labour Lords Change Laws For Cash

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Brick, Jan 25, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. 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
  3. Don't see anything wrong with this myself...
  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. in_the_cheapseats

    in_the_cheapseats LE Moderator

    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.

    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. 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
  8. Any one remember Tory Sleaze ?
    Two MP's offering for stuffed brown envelopes.
    My My How Labour Squealed then.
  9. IIRC the Tories only charged two grand a time.The rate today is £120k per year.Inflation I suppose?
  10. 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. Democracy has nothing to do with it Sergey. The men are crooks - allegedly :twisted:
  14. I agree - stand by for excuses, waffle, spin, blushing and f@rting :D

    However it was the Sunday Times.
  15. From the link:
    Seems to be a patern. Do you get a peerage for having taught Harry Potter?