Quiz time

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Is this Labour's "cash for questions" ?

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?

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.

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

Gosh, who held your hand when you wrote this one Nick?

"....the public whose interests they are meant to represent."

I think that meant is the appropriate word

"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.

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.

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!"

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?

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.

Does anyone else think Lord Taylor of Blackburn sounded like Count Arthur Strong? Which could explain any cofusion he may be having about things.....

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.

@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.

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?

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

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.

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.

@ 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?

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 !

@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.

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.

#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.

"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.

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.

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.

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!!!

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?

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?

@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.

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....

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?

@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.

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.

@ 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.

@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?

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.

#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.

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....

#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

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.

@ 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.

@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!

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

#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.

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.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

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.

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?

Nick: weak.

#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

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.

@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.

#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?

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.

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.

@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.

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)

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

"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'??

"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.

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.

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 ;).

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.

#65 weejonnie

Well spotted.

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.

What about the bishops?
They are paid by the Church of England, yet represent its interests in the House of Lords.

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.

#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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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!!!!!

#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.

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.

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?"

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

#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

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.

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.

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 ;)

#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.

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.

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.

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.

'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!

@ 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).

'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.

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.