Lord denied permission to leave!

#3
"Basically we mistake passing new laws for achievements on the ground.

"We have politicians and civil servants who have done nothing outside parliament. All they are fit for is passing new sky blue laws."


If only there were a few hundred more in that place with his sense of reality.
 

Purple_Flash

ADC
Moderator
#4
We are New Labour and we will assimilate you. Resistance is futile.
 
#6
Guess the problem just never came up before. I'm surprised that there isn't a get out clause like the post of Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Chiltern Hundreds or Manor of Northstead like there is for MP's who want to resign. Probably figured after paying so much money for the things people would never want to give them up. ;)

Seriously though, it sounds like this is exactly the type of person that should be in politics at Westminster. Says something when after putting up with it for X amount of time he comes to feel it's pointless and wants to quit. It's like the old cliche really, someone gets promoted to a position of power and responsibility but protests that they didn't want it, which is exactly why you're the right man comes the reply.

Edit: Seems that there are limits on even how the hereditary peers are able to disclaim their positions. According to the Peerage Act 1963 they have to say they want to step down withing a year of succeeding to the position otherwise they're stuck with it. And since he's had the peerage since 1998 even if they tried to argue it also applied to life peers he's still out of luck.
 
#7
I always thought that it was organisations like the Mafia, IRA or the Communist party that it was easier to join than to leave!!!
 
#8
He should become a cross-bencher and speak out every time he feels unhappy. If he gets 'named' or whatever the Lords equivalent is, then he won't have to turn up and will get more publicity for his views.
 
#12
DigitalGeek said:
jonwilly said:
Ah just wait till ya have Lard Press This ( mi dear) of Two Jags, ya'll never get rid of him.
john




Fat Cnut! :x
No- Prezza the Cnut! :lol:

....a remarkable likeness! :pukel:
 
#14
This, perhaps, reflects that being a Peer of the Realm is not a job. It's an elevation to a higher position in life and, by definition, is for life. We elect MPs for the life of the Parliament only.

Maybe some of these "new" Peers should think twice before boarding what they think is the gravy train.
 
#15
The practice of making Life Peers has fallen into total disrepute. Formerly, it was act of God, or Fate, that led to a man or lady becoming a Peer. Most of these people were honest and diligent and above all they had no axes to grind. I think it was a bad thing to 'reward' average politicians, donors to political partys and cronies with Peerages. The benighted chump Bliar has used this device to place his friends into high and important places - Lord Chancellor, Attorney General etc, without the requirement for us, the great unwashed, to be involved. It stinks.
The previous system worked for hundreds of years and now we have a shambles.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#16
Couple of points:

Being a member of the House of Lords is not a job. They don't get paid; all they get is expenses (very generous ones at that) for each time they turn up. If he don't like it then he just has to phone in a sickie.

Isquared: you must live in a very cloistered life if you think that peers got there by being nice. Most of the hereditary peers got there because one of their ancestors was a bigger rogue (I use the nice word here as we is talkin about Lords ) than the next man. The Life Peers got theirs by backstabbing better than their peers :oops: . Not very many have reached that peak by being nice.
 
#17
Apparently he is being refused permission to leave the
House of Lords until his cheque to New Labour has cleared...
 
#18
lsquared said:
The practice of making Life Peers has fallen into total disrepute. Formerly, it was act of God, or Fate, that led to a man or lady becoming a Peer. Most of these people were honest and diligent and above all they had no axes to grind. I think it was a bad thing to 'reward' average politicians, donors to political partys and cronies with Peerages. The benighted chump Bliar has used this device to place his friends into high and important places - Lord Chancellor, Attorney General etc, without the requirement for us, the great unwashed, to be involved. It stinks.
The previous system worked for hundreds of years and now we have a shambles.
Well, I wouldn’t say it was because they were 'nice' so much as they provided benefit to the country and so HMG. The House of lords was originally filled with the greatest thinkers, warriors, artists and economic barons (pun intended :oops:) that Britain had to offer, they were the crème de la crème of British society, and were tasked as acting as a counterbalance to the lower house.

Unfortunately these days, much like the Honours system, The House of Lords has been horribly corrupted. Usually in the name of 'reform', though all I've ever seen done is damage.

Filling the house with hereditary peers was obviously not the most democratic part of Parliament, it did however work. As such removal of hereditary peers in favour of appointed life peers should have been a much more considered issue, avoiding the situation where we have now. Life peerages should not be handed out as political favours or the such, they should come only from the very top for providing a tangible benefit to the Britain.

However, again much like the Honours system, the House of Lords has over time been emasculated, and left rather toothless by supposed reforms. :x
 

BuggerAll

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#19
I heard the Noble Lord on the radio the other day, most of what he had to say was entirly sensible but he wishes to relinquish his membership of the House of Lords because he wants to go off and do other things. Thats fine he can go off and do them. He feels that if you are peer you should take part. but thats nonsense. Its not as if he is blocking anyone elses seat. If he is off doing great works for charidy then he might find that having a voice in the HoL was a good thing.

Part of the strength of the HoL is that the members can't be leant on politically, they can't be sacked or whipped into line etc. Even creatures like Archer can't be got rid off just because Labour don't like him.
 
#20
sknn said:
Part of the strength of the HoL is that the members can't be leant on politically, they can't be sacked or whipped into line etc. Even creatures like Archer can't be got rid off just because Labour don't like him.
No, they simply completly reorder the house, slanting it heavily in their favour.
 

Latest Threads

Top