Yesterday's papers were full of front page stories about how Labour were going to ban all MPS' outside interests (aim: turn story back on the Tories) and how Lords Archer and Black would get the boot from the House of Lords under "tough new plans unveiled today" (aim: turn the story back on the Tories).Those Labour spin doctors had certainly been hard at work, and with some success. For they managed to omit any mention of the name of Mike Watson. Who he? He was the Labour Peer and MSP (and former MP) who set fire to the hotel in Edinburgh, served eight months in prison (having been sentenced to 16), then retook his seat in the Lords. He has apparently since topped the league table of Lords' allowance claims. Just thought I'd mention it, seeing as neither the Sunday Times nor Sunday Telegraph saw fit to.
Of course, if Watson were to be expelled, it might well jeopardise his lucrative role as a Director of the Edinburgh based lobbying company Caledonia Consulting, which is headed up by Devin Scobie. Not that the company admits it is involved in lobbying. Oh no, perish the thought. "I don't really consider myself a lobbyist, I consider myself a business consultant," says Scobie.
It's a bit like me saying "I'm not a blogger, I'm an internet journalist". Pass the sickbag, Alice.
Hattip for graphic to Alba.
27 comments:
How exactly would they kick Black out? Last I heard he has been granted a chance to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the charges they were able to convict him on. Big upset if he actually wins his freedom.
Nobody's thought to point out that the only problems have been with life peers, rather than real peers. Breeding shows, doncha know!
Frankly, if Conman and Archhole get kicked out of the Lords its no skin off my nose. This doesn't really have anything to do with the disgraceful, if legal, behaviour of some Liebour peers, I dont know why the press are so compliant. Oh and am I the only one who picked up on McBroons little gem about the Italian and Portuguese workers having the skills We Don't. THIS STUFF IS PRICELESS ! please nobody waste the opportunity to keep kicking Him hard while He's on the floor, Do it He's worth it!
Labour are getting desperate. And that means they're getting even more nasty vicious and unpleasant.
There's far more of this as they struggle with the impact of cold reality on their spun narrative.
Mostly because no-one has ever heard of Watson, which is a shame because, of course, all that Black and Archer did was to be a bit greedy and tell porkies, Watson's actions actually could have caused people to die.
He is actually the best reason to permit expulsion of peers, not Black or Archer.
As the blizzard intensifies Gord announces, "The Government is doing everything.....blah, blah, blah!
Great post, Iain and an excellent spot. However you are talking about a Labour Peer. The likes of Kinnock and Mandy, white as white, topically, pure as the driven snow
The move to expell Black and Archer is entirely diversionary. Have these two been using their positions in quite the same way as the four named Labour Peers (and now, others, we learn)?
So it's now about expelling those who have been found guilty in the courts? Will the same principles apply to all MPs?
And what of those who clearly are so enthusiastically prepared to consider and adopt corrupt actions? When will they be called to account for their previous wrongdoings? However, this is not solely about legality, it's about morality and personal standards.
Thus we can see the honourable and lovely Baroness Royal, that model of integrity, carefully steering the public gaze away from the wrongdoing of her fellow Labour Peers.
Frankly if these people cannot tell the difference between right and wrong they should all be thrown out. The Earl of Onslow's recent trenchant comments were bang on the mark.
And note the huge difference in attitudes between the hereditaries and those who have been appointed. I'm profoundly unimpressed by Janet Anne Royall. She is merely another unelected NuLab Apparatchik doing her Master's bidding. One wonders why.
Also, let us not forget Lord Ahmed who has been charged with dangerous driving after admitting sending and receiving text messages whilst driving, resulting in a motorway pile-up.
This has been spoken about at drinks and winks 'dos' for years in Scotland Iain.
Thanks for bringing it to the attention of the English media.
Absolutely Iain - I noticed that the press have quietly ignored Mike Watson. This man once served as the Tourism Minister in the Scottish administration (this was pre-curtain burning days).
I saw him at an event once - he had a couple of lackeys that followed him around. One had his diary, the other had his briefcase...nuff said. He's a right sleazy little runt of a fellow.
To give some background, he's another Labour ex-MP who wasn't around long and achieved bugger all, but was elevated to the peerage as his seat (Glasgow Central in Watson's case) was abolished in a boundary change. He'd been an MP from 1990-97. That's why "Baron Moonie" came to be - he was kicked upstairs to let Brown take over his Kirkcaldy seat.
But it comes as no surprise that Watson retook his seat in the Lords and has been coining it in ever since.
Archer is a scoundrel, but that came down to lieing in court about having it off with a prossie and then claiming damages from the gutter press. Black I will not comment on - if you read any Mark Steyn then then the whole trial seems like a sham. But maybe I'm biased...
But Watson got pissed and seriously endangered people's lives. The man's a disgrace, and you've done a great job in reminding people of him.
Journalist? Don't make me laugh.
Good point on Watson, but ...
A drunken prank, which admittedly went very wrong and could have gone wronger still, is hardly in the same league in terms of suitability to be a member of the legislature as Archer persistent lying in court (not to mention appalling novels) or Black's persistent dishonest thieving self enrichment.
And I'd say promising to pay tax in the UK and then avoiding it at all costs for years and years - effectively depriving the other taxpayers of millions of support while making laws overv their heads - is also much worse.
There have been some "real" peers in the clink down the years also. The Tory and Boris good mate Lord Brocket springs to mind. Sadly Boris didn't make him a Deputy Mayor for Law and Order or fast cars. But he did have talks.
Brocket buried a fleet of Ferraris in the grounds in an insurance scam. Again more serious than getting arseholed and playing with matches for a jape. Which went wrong. And could have gone wronger.
Good question about Archer and using his influence. Hope someone has the answers to that Unsworth? The man has been a dissembling b'stard since he was knee high to a grass hopper.
Fakery throughout his career.
Standard Jockanese
8 months for burning down a hotel, after injecting heroin, stabbing his kids, murdering his wife and drinking 12 litres of buckfast whilst anally raping a sheep. Probably.
@ Chris Paul
Put up your evidence! I don't care whether you choose to be partisan in this or not, but just put up your evidence of malpractice in the House of Lords, eh?
You see, these others were tried for activities outside, and actually nothing to do with, the workings of the House - unless you can prove otherwise. Whereas the four named Peers have made it quite clear that they are/were perfectly prepared to directly influence the Parliamentary process for their own and others' pecuniary gain.
You say Archer did this? Put up - or shut up.
Am I right that the crime of 'fire raising' is the Scottish version of arson, but that arson tends to carry with it much harsher sentences?
The omission of Watson was ridiculous, considering he was jailed for 8 months. His main achievement as an MSP was to have fox-hunting banned in Scotland....
While we're on this subject it appears that the Lord Foulkes MSP is acting as a lobbyist at Westminster although lobbying is strictly forbidden at Holyrood. Was Foulkes actually found guilty of assaulting a policeman some years ago after a drunken night out, or was he merely cautioned? Obviously he was suitable material for the Upper House.
Of course there is the fact that Black and Archer are more high profile
I totally agree Iain - it was an excellent job at spinning the story away from the fact that some Labour Lords have benn caught with their nose's in the trough. If it was four Tory Lords then we know that the story would be about Conservative sleaze and would run and run.
I had long understood, from people on the inside, that there was far more to the Archer story than ever got out. Let's just say that he was acting waaaay out of character, in honourable if misguided defence of the reputation of a Tory with a substantially higher profile.
Archer as Sidney Carton? Good grief!
Separately, I have heard from more than one person that he's a rather splendid fellow.
We either have a fully elected second chamber, or we have one in which you sit for life. No resignations. No expulsions. None of that. Government wants to be able to force peers out so that it can actually do so, really rather often. Their independence would be gone.
And that, of course, was also the reason for removing the hereditary basis of membership. That basis guaranteed independence. Yes, it threw up a few anomalies and the very occasional outrage. But, manifestly, so does that which has replaced it. And so, of course, would anything which replaced that.
Oh, well, the genie is out of the bottle. It is going to have to be an elected Senate now. But while there is the dear old House of Lords, then seats in it must be for life. Anything else would destroy the whole reason for having the thing. Independence.
Obviously, those newspapers missed Question Time, where Mike Watson and Jeffrey Archer's name's were used in the same sentence, on several occasions, as "Lords" who should be excluded from the House of Lords.
The House of Lords is now stuffed with the sort of people Bertie Wooster would have called Bogus Oiks.
Chris Paul,
No it wasn't a, "drunken prank", or a, "jape", by Mike Watson. He was refused drink so he deliberately set fire to the hotel which had over a hundred guests in it.
Lord Archer may be a perjurer and liar but he didn't put a hundred people at risk of dying a horrible death due to burns and/or smoke inhalation because he was refused a drink.
The full story on the BBC web site
Iain,
Small, but perhaps important point. Mike Watson sits as an unaffiliated Peer. Yes, he was originally sent to the Lords as a Labour nominee, but after his prison sentence, he wasn't exactly welcomed back. His expulsion would support that... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Watson
So, in fairness to Labour (for a change), his continued existence is hardly their fault. That said, if Labour had proposed legislation expelling criminals from the Lords, it would probably have passed...
Mark, the same is true of Jeffrey Archer. So your point is? :)
My point is, Iain, that he isn't a Labour peer now. So Labour spin doctors had no need to act in this instance.
Given that most people are aware of Lords Archer and Black - their trials were rather more high profile that Lord Watson's was - I'd put it down to lazy journalism. And let's face it, much of the journalism has been pretty shoddy throughout this whole Lords fiasco.
The notion that legislation could be introduced retrospectively to expel the likes of Archer, Black and Watson was always an unlikely one, yet everyone bought it. Now, as I always expected, Jack Straw is saying that it might not be possible after all.
It is time to clean up the Lords, and the only way to do it is to have an elected second chamber. If your team will vote for it, ours will probably do the same.
Mark, you make my point for me. It was all Labour spin. They tried to smear the Tories by mentioning Black and Archer, neither of whom are Tories.
I totally agree with your last para. An elected second chamber is a must.
"A drunken prank?"
Man refused service, tries to burn down hotel.
That's some prank...
Post a Comment