• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Reply to: Sleazy Peers

Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Sleazy Peers"

Collapse

  • DS23
    replied
    christ - i think my lunch is coming back up.

    Leave a comment:


  • ratewhore
    replied
    linky

    Shudder...

    Leave a comment:


  • Mich the Tester
    replied
    Originally posted by Doggy Styles View Post
    That's fine, but what's the connection with sleaze?
    It’s more a connection with the jealousy that I think motivated NuLabour to start taking apart hereditary peerages. People forget that with inheritance comes duty. Those who were appointed to the Lords might get the idea that they’re so great they can do pretty much what they like, while some of the hereditaries have been brought up to see their position as a duty rather than a privilege.

    Leave a comment:


  • EternalOptimist
    replied
    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.




    Last edited by EternalOptimist; 27 January 2009, 13:29.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doggy Styles
    replied
    Originally posted by Mich the Tester View Post
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Mich the Tester
    replied
    Originally posted by Doggy Styles View Post
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Doggy Styles
    replied
    Originally posted by Mich the Tester View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lockhouse
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • DS23
    replied
    who is the greatest sleazy peer?

    Leave a comment:


  • Mich the Tester
    replied
    Originally posted by Doggy Styles View Post
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Doggy Styles
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mich the Tester
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • ratewhore
    started a topic Sleazy Peers

    Sleazy Peers

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

Working...
X