RECENT (3 yrs to 2009) FAKE MEDIA `SHOCKS' - PRETENDING THE CORRUPTION IS NEW In reality, last two or three decades prove that UK Gov'ts of `Left' or `Right' have been irredeemably corrupt - representing only the rich and powerful. [ check www.perceptions.couk.com/taxone.html#pays ] --- http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/27/lords-legislation-cash-inquiry The return of sleaze The House of Lords scandal reminds us that political corruption is endemic – and that it must be rooted out * Martin Bell In the short history of parliamentary broadcasting I have seen no sadder spectacle than the quasi-apology by Lord Taylor of Blackburn for whatever he may have done, in good faith of course. It was as if a plug had been pulled under their lordships and respect for the House of Lords was draining away, leaving only the shipwreck of its majesty. It is easy – perhaps too easy – to conclude that we are merely revisiting the scandals of the Tory years; that our politicians are of course no plaster saints and never were; and that things are no worse than they used to be. This would be a mistake. I was a witness to those earlier scandals, which mostly involved minor figures in dodgy transactions: and when it came to using public office for private gain, asking questions was not as serious as seeking to amend the law of the land. In only one instance, so far as I know, is this déjà vu. In 1989 a Conservative MP tabled an amendment to the finance bill that, if it had been passed, would have saved the oil companies £70m in additional taxation. He then billed Mobil Oil £10,000 for his parliamentary services. Although this did not come to light for ten years, he was thrown out of office earlier and on other grounds by a popular insurrection among his constituents. I witnessed that too. There is a lot to be said for the wisdom of crowds, especially crowds who vote. But just look where we are now. Public trust in public life stands even lower than it did then. And this is not something done to the politicians. It is something done by them. They have no one to blame but themselves. The four peers named by the Sunday Times are of course entitled to the presumption of innocence. But the publication of some of the transcripts makes grim reading. A Noble Lord boasts of his influence in amending legislation, and sets out the sums received (modest in his view) for this or that service to this or that company. The disciplinary reforms by the House of Commons after cash-for-questions, limited though they were, seem to have done no more than drive the sleaze-merchants from the green to the red end of the Palace of Westminster. Two things remain constant in all this slew of scandals. The first is that a governing party is more vulnerable to corruption than an opposition party. It has more power and influence. The MPs whose conduct was investigated by the first parliamentary commissioner for standards, Sir Gordon Downey, were almost all Conservatives. The peers compromised in the present affair are all Labour. The second is that the party leaders at the time went conspicuously AWOL. I have never heard the personal integrity of John Major or Gordon Brown questioned by anyone. They are both decent and honourable men. Yet each let these things happen on his watch. Surely the politicians can see it now, if only because if they don't they should take to the life-rafts. The few-rotten-apples-in-the- barrel defence is no longer tenable. Sleaze is not occasional. It is endemic. It ranges all the way from expenses scams to the sale of legislation. It must be rooted out. If MPs can be disciplined and suspended, then it should be made possible for miscreant peers also to be stripped of their titles. Naming and shaming is no longer enough. In normal times this wouldn't matter so much. But these are not normal times. The economic crisis affects the livelihood of just about everyone in the country except the Honourable Members and Noble Lords. I am out of politics now. But if I were a party leader, a humble back-bencher or a worried peer, the restoration of trust in the midst of recession would be my number one priority. --- http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/264/ Tuesday 21 March 2006 Brendan O’Neill Don’t moan about the House of Lords - abolish it The ‘peerages for loans’ scandal is a symptom, not the cause, of the deeply undemocratic nature of the second chamber. Here we have a spat over how and why individuals are appointed to the House of Lords. But instead of it generating a debate about the House of Lords itself, how it works and whether it should even exist, it has given rise to an interminable discussion of which businessmen gave how much money to the Labour Party, allegedly in return for peerages, and which Labour officials knew about the loans and which did not - a discussion so breathtakingly boring that even friends of mine who are normally news junkies have asked me to explain to them what is going on because they can’t be arsed to follow it. Yet again, our obsession with sleaze, with who said what to whom in some Downing Street backroom, has turned a big political issue into a silly little pantomime. It is alleged that at least four businessmen, and possibly more, who made unpublicised loans to the Labour Party were subsequently nominated for peerages by Tony Blair. What’s more, the Labour Party treasurer Jack Dromey, other leading party officials and even an apparently ‘unhappy’ deputy prime minister John Prescott did not know about these secret loans, received in 2005. However, Tony Blair and the party’s general secretary did know about the loans, and reportedly Blair’s fundraising chief and close friend Lord Levy was the ‘middle man’ who made the loans happen. It has all apparently caused something of a stink in Labour Party circles, as well it might; but is it really, in the words of newspaper columnist Marina Hyde, a scandal so shameful that it makes the ‘justification for invading Iraq…sound like an exercise in Aristotelian logic’? Hyde says the peerages spat shows that we ‘have had [our] dreams trodden so unsoftly upon by the Blair administration’ (1). Speak for yourself. Those who are dreaming should wake up. Paying or brownnosing your way into the House of Lords has been going on for ages. All of the mainstream parties have nominated their donors, especially the generous ones, for peerages or knighthoods. The newspaper proprietor Lord Northcliffe - who in the early twentieth century founded the Daily Mirror and bought and transformed both the Observer and The Times - once declared: ‘When I want a peerage, I shall buy it like an honest man.’ (2) There may have been a law banning the sale of titles, but there were various ways around it; and as the journalist Richard Ehrman pointed out this week, that law has only been evoked once - in 1933, when ‘notorious honours broker’ Maundy Gregory, who had worked for Lloyd George and other prime ministers, ‘got two months for trying to peddle a knighthood for £10,000 to a naval officer who did not want it’ (3). (Presumably if the naval officer had wanted it, we’d still be none the wiser about the movements of money behind the scenes that made it happen.) Privately, Lloyd George told a colleague: ‘You and I know that the sale of honours is the cleanest way of raising money for a political party. The worst of it is that you cannot defend it in public.’ (4) In the 1980s, the Conservative Party also received loans that magically resulted in the loaner getting a peerage, and it still does the same thing today. The Power Commission into electoral politics, published earlier this month, found that over the past five years every Labour donor who has given more than £1million to the party has received a knighthood or a peerage from the current Labour government. In 2001, the Electoral Commission began keeping a check on political donations, and since then the Labour government has bestowed honours on 12 of the 14 individuals who have donated more than £200,000 to the Labour Party, and on 17 of the 22 who have donated more than £100,000. Three quarters of those who have donated over £50,000 to the Labour Party have been honoured in some way (5). We might not call it ‘selling peerages’ anymore, and Lord Levy and his pals might be more sophisticated in how they go about things than was Maundy Gregory trying to hawk a title for 10 grand, but it still amounts to the same thing: Patronage Wins Prizes. The unelected second chamber, the House of Lords, has always been stuffed with individuals who happened to be born into a prestigious family or, increasingly in the twentieth century, especially following the creation of non-hereditary life peers in 1958, with individuals who stumped up cash for political parties or did some other kind of favour for the prime minister or another influential figure. What did those who are so shocked by the ‘peerages for loans’ scandal think the House of Lords was? An honourable institution full of honourable men and women? You only have to watch one of its debates for a few minutes - and see old men snoring while some trendy young-ish Asian businessman makes a speech about social inclusion or something - to know that these people did not get into the chamber by merit. Traditionally they were born into it, and more recently they have bought into it - literally. The fact that individuals can effectively donate their way into the House of Lords, and once there assume the right to block decisions made by elected politicians in the House of Commons, points to a far bigger problem that has largely been ignored in the debate about peerages for loans: the profoundly undemocratic nature of the second chamber. The constitution of the House of Lords may have changed over the decades, but its role remains the same: to keep a ‘check and balance’ on the House of Commons, on those members of parliament we the people elect to run the country. For centuries the House of Lords was made up of old aristocrats, those who were born lords or ladies. In 1776, the English revolutionary Tom Paine referred to the Lords as ‘the remains of aristocratical tyranny’, which existed to frustrate the House of Commons, the one democratic body in the British constitution, ‘on whose virtue depends the freedom of England’ said Paine. Various restrictions have been put on the House of Lords’ powers over the past hundred years. Most notably, in the constitutional crisis of 1909-1911, Liberal prime minister Herbert Asquith faced down the House of Lords, which had refused to pass his chancellor’s ‘People’s Budget’. The Lords’ veto on the budget was overturned, and Asquith fought an election on this very issue, establishing the primacy of the elected Commons over the unelected Lords. In 1958, the Life Peerages Act allowed the creation of life baronies, individuals who were appointed to the House of Lords by political parties who considered that they would do a good job there. Since then, the number of hereditary peers has steadily declined and the New Labour government has made moves to phase them out entirely. Today there are 595 life peers to only 92 hereditary peers and 26 ‘Lords Spirituals’ (bishops and suchlike). Yet for all the reforms, the Lords remains a powerful snub to the idea of popular democracy. The life peers - largely political worthies and ambitious business types - play the same undemocratic role as those born to the manor did for so long. We could say that Paine’s ‘aristocratical tyranny’ has given way to a new sanctimonious tyranny, to the blocking power of individuals who also were never elected by anybody but who think they know better than politicians who were picked by the untrustworthy rabble. They are continuing with a deeply dishonourable and undemocratic tradition of tightening the reins on what is presumed to be the fickleness and irrationality of democratic politics. Indeed, the alleged handing out of peerages for loans can be seen as a consequence of reforms that have tweaked the make-up of the House of Lords while leaving the institution itself intact. In the old days, the Lords was simply made up of individuals who happened to be born into the right family at the right time. Today, when lords and ladies are appointed by political parties, the process is open to being influenced by ambitious individuals who long to have a fancy title and a seat in the plush second chamber. They are not born to be lords, and nor are they elected by the public, so how else do they get into the House? By doing favours, making donations, by effectively buying their way to political influence. It is the very undemocratic nature of the Lords, the fact that it is not elected and accountable to the public, that means seats can be bought and sold between friends and acquaintances. In this sense, the creation of life peers - and New Labour’s recent half-hearted and constantly stalled proposals of further reform of the Lords, to allow even more life peers and for a section of it (around 20 per cent) to be elected - have not made the Lords democratic; they have made it more grubby still. If there is financial or personal corruption in the way peerages are handed out these days, it only reflects the politically corrupt nature of the Lords itself. The solution is not to have an elected second chamber either, since that would leave intact the anti-democratic idea that the people’s will must be kept in check by further layers of decision-making; the solution is to abolish the second chamber entirely. Moaning about the peerages for loans scandal without interrogating the nature of the Lords is like complaining about the Queen having lots of cash and land without challenging the role of the monarch in British affairs (and many in the media do that, too, as it happens). Peerages for loans are a symptom of the undemocratic nature of the Lords, not its cause. Of course, New Labour has no one to blame but itself for this current scandal: it was Blair who told us he would be whiter than white, unlike the sleazy Tories, and who brought in a host of new rules about party funding and the need to declare loans and donations. Such measures were aimed at creating transparency; in fact they encouraged suspicion, both of politicians and party funders. If the recent Tessa Jowell affair raised the question, ‘Who would want to be a politician these days?’, then the current peerages for loans affair raises the even more basic question: ‘Who would want to donate money to a political party these days?’ Let us stop obsessing over sleaze and instead talk politics; and let us stop wondering about how certain individuals got into the House of Lords and instead ask: what the hell do they think they are doing there? --- http://cobdenscomments.blogspot.com/2009/01/house-of-lords-scandal-reinforces-case.html Tuesday, 27 January 2009 House of Lords scandal reinforces the case for abolition The most extraordinary aspect about the latest parliamentary sleaze scandal engulfing the Lords is not that Lord Taylor of Blackburn was prepared to accept £100,000 to put down amendments but that there are companies and organisations out there that are prepared to pay that much. If you want to put down a Lords amendment against Government legislation, it would be much better to speak to an Opposition Lord - they’ll probably do it for free! Some are calling for the four Lords that were the victims of the Sunday Times sting to be prosecuted for breaking the law, but that really misses the point. True, they may have technically broken the rules but it is difficult to justify rules which say that while it is unacceptable to take money directly to ask questions and put downs amendments; it’s okay to take money to ask a colleague to do so. According to today’s papers, 20 per cent of Lords run their own consultancies – many of a lobbying nature. There are probably even more with political conflicts when you consider the number that chair campaign groups and trade bodies. For me, there is nothing wrong with lobbying – companies, organisations and NGOs should have every right to make their case to lawmakers. But it stinks when lawmakers also play the role of paid lobbyists. Forget the corrupt four – the bigger story here is that so many Lords are legitimately able to play the role of lobbyist too (and none of the political parties seem to be objecting to this!) It is difficult to justify the case for the undemocratic Lords at the best of times. This latest scandal further demonstrates why the Lords is an institution that is unfit for purpose. It should be abolished. --- http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5581547.ece LABOUR peers are prepared to accept fees of up to £120,000 a year to amend laws in the House of Lords on behalf of business clients, a Sunday Times investigation has found. Four peers — including two former ministers — offered to help undercover reporters posing as lobbyists obtain an amendment in return for cash. Two of the peers were secretly recorded telling the reporters they had previously secured changes to bills going through parliament to help their clients. Lord Truscott, the former energy minister, said he had helped to ensure the Energy Bill was favourable to a client selling “smart” electricity meters. Lord Taylor of Blackburn claimed he had changed the law to help his client Experian, the credit check company. Taylor told the reporters: “I will work within the rules, but the rules are meant to be bent sometimes.” The other peers who agreed to assist our reporters for a fee were Lord Moonie, a former defence minister, and Lord Snape, a former Labour whip. The disclosure that peers are “for hire” to help change legislation confirms persistent rumours in Westminster that lobbyists are targeting the Lords rather than the Commons, where MPs are under greater scrutiny. Brendan Keith, the registrar of Lords’ interests, said on Friday that taking a fee to help amend bills was a breach of the “no paid advocacy” rules which prevent peers from promoting the cause of a paid client in parliament. “The rules say that a member of the House must never accept any financial inducement as an incentive or reward for exerting parliamentary influence,” he said. Baroness Royall of Blaisdon, leader of the House of Lords, issued a statement yesterday saying: “I am deeply concerned about these allegations. I have spoken to the members who are the subject of them and I shall be pursuing these matters with the utmost vigour." Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrat MP, said he would take up the issue with the Lords authorities. “Legislators in the Commons and the Lords are there to pass legislation on behalf of the country, not to change the law in return for financial favours,” he said. The Sunday Times began its investigation last year after Taylor had been forced to apologise for asking a question in the House on behalf of a paying client without declaring an interest. His friend Jack Straw, the justice minister, was reprimanded last week over an undeclared donation which had been arranged by the peer. Our reporters posed as lobbyists acting for a foreign client who was setting up a chain of shops in the UK and wanted to secure an exemption from the Business Rates Supplements Bill. We selected 10 Lords who already had a number of paid consultancies. The three Conservative peers did not return our calls and a Liberal Democrat and an Ulster Unionist both declined to help after meeting the undercover reporters. However, four of the five Labour peers were willing to help to amend the bill in return for retainers. Some were more forthright than others. Taylor, a former BAE consultant, said he would not table the amendment himself but offered to conduct a “behind the scenes” campaign to persuade ministers and officials. After agreeing a one-year retainer for £120,000, he said he would discuss the amendment with Yvette Cooper, chief secretary to the Treasury, and talk to officials drafting the bill. Truscott, his Labour colleague, was also keen to help “behind the scenes” — for a fee of up to £72,000: “I can work with you . . . identifying people and following it . . . meeting people, talking to people to facilitate the amendment and making sure the thing is granted.” He said he would identify and talk to people who could be persuaded to change the legislation. He offered to contact MPs, peers, civil servants and John Healey, the minister in charge of the legislation. Moonie offered to help for a fee of £30,000 a year and Snape indicated that he would charge £24,000. By contrast Lord Rogan, the Ulster Unionist peer, said: “If your direct proposal is as stark as for me . . . to help to put down an amendment, that’s a non-runner. A, it’s not right and b, my personal integrity wouldn’t let me do it.” ---------------------------------------------- further details of individual `MPs & Lords' (protected and `legal') thieves is at www.perceptions.couk.com/#uk-crims ---------------------------------------------- FURTHER REFERENCES GO - "search perceptions" - in SEARCH-ENGINE file-ID www.perceptions.couk.com/corrupt-ukpolitics.txt