Sleazy Peers

[ratewhore]

Did we have sleaze issues with hereditary peers, or is this a cronyism thing?

[Mich the Tester]

Socialists seem to have a problem with people who inherit stuff, even if the inheritance is more a duty than a benefit, as is perhaps the case with hereditary peers. I can think of good reasons why a peerage should be given on merit and not inheritance, but I can’t help thinking it was misguided jealousy that drove Labour to attack the hereditary peers, and not really a desire to make the system more democratic.

[Doggy Styles]

I like hereditary peers. They weren't brought up and trained to be lying, mealy-mouthed, short-termist, professional politicians. Which suggests there is more chance of them doing the right things.

I expect they could still be sleazy though.

[Mich the Tester]

I like hereditary peers. They weren't brought up and trained to be lying, mealy-mouthed, short-termist, professional politicians. Which suggests there is more chance of them doing the right things.

I expect they could still be sleazy though.

Is sleaze necessarily a bad thing? Can a little nepotism never be harnessed for a good cause?

[DS23]

who is the greatest sleazy peer?

[Lockhouse]

I thought this Government couldn't get any worse and yet again they prove me wrong. They make the Major years look like a rose-tinted age of innocence.

[Doggy Styles]

Is sleaze necessarily a bad thing? Can a little nepotism never be harnessed for a good cause?

On balance it probably is a bad thing. The bribery bits anyway. The romps are probably OK.

[Mich the Tester]

On balance it probably is a bad thing. The bribery bits anyway. The romps are probably OK.

Put it this way. My father owns a business which employs a few people. I also own a business which employs a few people. Should either one of us die or become mentally incapacitated, then the other would have to take over his business and thereby the responsibility for the people who depend upon it for a living. Not easy, because neither of us know anything about each other’s businesses, but at least we have the contacts to try and appoint a capable successor and the will to fulfil the business’ duties to employees, creditors, customers and other stakeholders. But then along comes our NuLabour taxman, full of his ‘fairness’ and ‘social justice’ and charges the heir a tulipload of money for inheriting the business. What has he actually inherited? Not a big load of money with no duties, but the responsibilities, risks and liabilities of the other. So why tax him?

Same goes for hereditary peers; they don’t simply inherit power, but the duty of using it for the good of the country, even though they haven’t asked for that duty. So why moan at them?

[Doggy Styles]

Put it this way. My father owns a business which employs a few people. I also own a business which employs a few people. Should either one of us die or become mentally incapacitated, then the other would have to take over his business and thereby the responsibility for the people who depend upon it for a living. Not easy, because neither of us know anything about each other’s businesses, but at least we have the contacts to try and appoint a capable successor and the will to fulfil the business’ duties to employees, creditors, customers and other stakeholders. But then along comes our NuLabour taxman, full of his ‘fairness’ and ‘social justice’ and charges the heir a tulipload of money for inheriting the business. What has he actually inherited? Not a big load of money with no duties, but the responsibilities, risks and liabilities of the other. So why tax him?

Same goes for hereditary peers; they don’t simply inherit power, but the duty of using it for the good of the country, even though they haven’t asked for that duty. So why moan at them?

That's fine, but what's the connection with sleaze?

[EternalOptimist]

Funny enough, a similar argument raged a couple of hundred years ago on the subject of purchased commissions in the military.

Now we all know that the right man should be in the right job, reward and promotion based on merit etc. The counter argument was that the people who could afford to purchase a commision (rank) had a stake in the country nd the likelihood of a military coup was therefore minimised.

Method in the madness.