House of Lords sleaze
Sunday 25th January 2009, 05:51 pm by Michael Shilliday
As Brian Walker has said at Slugger, well done Dennis. Former UUP President Lord Rogan was approached by Sunday Times journalists and asked to lay down amendments to legislation in return for payment. He told them to sling their hook.
Iain Dale has pointed out that all parties have had their instances to sleaze. The cash for questions scandal was without doubt a sign than the Conservative Party had lost some moral authority to govern, and helped cause the 1997 landslide. First, as Ken Clarke has said this morning, these men have only been accused at this stage and may be innocent of what they are accused of. If they are not however it is a scandal much worse than cash for questions. Altering the law to suit the interests of groups who are paying you is unforgivable, particularly for a former minister. If true, it can demonstrate nothing less than the worse abuse of the privilege that comes with being a legislator.
I have said before on the antecedent to this blog, as well as other blogs, that the House of Lords is not a legitimate legislative body in a modern democracy. An MP could be punished at the ballot box for things like this, as could their party should they stand down in shame. Lords with less integrity than our own Lord Rogan can continue to legislate until a positive action is taken against them. That cannot be right.
2 Responses to “House of Lords sleaze”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
January 27th, 2009 at 10:13 am
I don’t agree Michael. The HoL is an excellent repository of experience and expertise. An elected chamber wouldn’t perform its role as effectively.
February 12th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Let’s compare and contrast the UK Parliament with the US Congress shall we and sees where this thinking gets us.
For a legitimate law to be made in parliament all that needs to be done is the primus inter pares PM to tell his executive colleagues how to vote, on fear of losing their jobs as Ministers; tells his party members of parliament how to vote, on fear of them losing party whip etc; advice the upper house not to delay Bill, on fear of using Parliament Acts 1911 & 1949; advise HM Queen to give Royal Assent which she will, on fear of having that royal prerogative stripped of her. Therefore law making resides squarely in the lower house of parliament, with the executive and more specifically with the PM.
In congress law making is based on the frustration of the House of Representatives and Senate as both are equal constitutionally in that purpose with the President given the ‘Royal Assent’ by another name – Presidential Veto.
If the House of Lords were to become like the US Senate then it is natural that members will demand equality with the House of Commons which means being paid a salary to scrutinise and make law and this in turn will reduce the PM into but a bit-player in constitution something Blair and our now uncrowned King Brown would not tolerate.