« William Hague repeats call for Iraq Inquiry as Cabinet minutes are set to be published | Main | Talk of a Tory landslide is premature and counterproductive »


Of course there must be sanctions. How can it be otherwise?

They kept it quiet, though. I never suspected that there was NO mechanism for expulsion.

It is possible for peers to be expelled from the Lords - the facility is called an Act of Attainder. It's just not automatic, and instead involves Parliament passing a specific Act to strip a specific person of their peerage.

Adam in London - Yes you would be able to do that. Although the word Attainder is to do with corruption of blood, and attainders were usually used to deprive the heirs to a title of its use. Effectively it produced a perpetual punishment, so attainder may not be the technical way of doing it. There is a kind of precedent in the Titles Deprivation Act 1917 although that was for traitors.

Fully support what is said above, but I have to ask, why hasn't Brown withdrawn the party whip from these four little crooks?

Is it fear of a backlash, fear of losing vital votes in the Lords, fear of seeming too hard on corrupt low-life... or just fear?

"Making the tough decisions...." Yeah, right!

Now all you Tories have to do is boot out any of the corrupt members that YOU have and I predict that you will skyrocket in the polls.......make it a manifesto promise to drop ID cards, 42 days detention and make a pledge to restore our freedoms lost under Labour, promise to put the guilty, greedy bankers on trial for fraud and I might even vote for you. :O) as I predict would 90% of the country.

Lets face it, this is a long overdue measure.

The problem with many things in this country is that the regulatory system lacks teeth. We need to give them some.

Here is what, furiously angry, members of the public on BBC's Have Your Say think of this disgusting state of affairs, Mr Cameron, in quotations from numerous most recommended posts:

"corruption... above the law... buying power...abolish the Lords...bribery...criminals....Nose in the trough...sack them...laws changed at whim...lining their bulging pockets...'consultancy work' means bribe...remove all benefits...set an example... trousered cash...conflict of interest...get rid of Lords...ban from taking any remuneration from lobbying... consultancy work = caught with your hand in the till...lock them up...country's going to the dogs...make them accountable to the electorate"

Plus the following gem:

"How long before traffic cops are demanding money at check points and we require food aid that is being stolen by the political class and sold on the black market."

Please ensure that any corrupt peers are sacked and that this never happens again.

Well, this is what happens when you get rid of most of the hereditary peers and then appoint more peers than all the previous prime ministers put together. So what did anybody expect?

No class ....

Alan Douglas

If there is to be regulation on this, then it should include the ability to sanction along with the means to remove titles and disbar peers from the House of Lords. It's surely an anathema in the 21st century to gift what amounts to a job for life to anybody let alone the idea of a title for life regardless of their actions. It is certainly not a "common" thing to be given a job for life and to be heralded above the working man by 'uncommon' peers of the realm and such a thing brings into focus what our Lordships are all about. It's jobs for the boys plain and simple, and the better off's are soaking money by using their positions which have far greater influence than others, whilst 'common' people are being thrown out of work left right and center.

The idea that lobbyists can even approach these people quite defies my sense of fairness actually, since many people write to Lords and MP's in protest and many send petitions, yet these are simply ignored. Take the Lisbon Treaty for instance. Totally ignored was a petition to Her Majesty with 900,000 signatures calling for her to stop it. To be fair about it, many Lords did in fact argue against the Lisbon Treaty but not as a result of 'lobbying' and more as a result of their own recognition that it is unworthy as a democratic document.

I feel sad for those Lords who work damned hard and are not looking to earn vast amounts of money for their services to the country and will undoubtedly be blighted by this recent episode which smacks of corruption.

I do hope they get it sorted out and hopefully do away with life peerages altogether, but certainly they should be accountable, and open to disciplinary procedures like the rest of us. I'd prefer a 5 or 7 year peerage rather than a life peerage, which could take account of a need for a second chamber, by offering these places to those who have served our country first and foremost, and not for reason they happen to know the right person or have passed a brown envelope to someone else, or because of their sex or race which just happens to be politically correct for the day, or for any other arbitrary reason which happens to suit the political classes of the day. They should be butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers. They should be people from the military and civil services, academia, and sport and other civic groups who have reached attainment or high achievements in political life and never for reason of political expediency. People who are seen to have done service for their country without asking for reward. Alternately, we should have a second chamber of elected people who will actually represent the public of their own regions and obey rules in common with those who attend the House of Commons, for they are no different and certainly not with different colour blood to us.

Meanwhile, if these 4 have acted in a way which the general populace would find dishonorable if not dishonest, then they should be stripped of their titles. They should be banned from sitting in the House of Lords, and a retrospective law should be brought in to get rid of other jokers and soakers and the upsetters of our democracy, for they are there singularly to protect it. They are not there to upset it for their own monetary, political or cultural advantage but they are there to serve us in our democratic rights.

Who can disagree with any of this? Let's hope there are no revelations of any peers on our side.
The reason Brown has not withdrawn the whip is that all four men deny any wrongdoing and it's innocent until proven guilty. Having said that,after listening to the tape their defence should be interesting!

A simple statement from cameron would do:

"Any enobled person who is found guilty of fraud, corruption or attempted corruption will be stripped of their title and disbarred from public office"

that would do

A simple statement from cameron would do

No, it wouldn't. At a time like this people want to hear more than a few words so they know people like Cameron care. A throw-away comment like you suggested would be regarded as paying lip-service to the problem.

Well done to DC on this.

And what is David Cameron's response to the House of Lords decision to ban the showing of a film by two of its members following threats of mass rioting by one of its own members,a convicted criminal awaiting sentence for a serious offence.
To any serious politician, this complete surrender to threats of violence by a criminal is indeed reminiscent of fascism but is of no importance to the Tory leadership.

The comments to this entry are closed.



ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker