Archer again?!?

[HStorm]

It seems that disgraced Tory peer, adulterer, financial criminal and serial fantasist, Lord Jeffrey Archer, has applied to rejoin the Conservative Party. Will he ever learn to accept that he does more harm than good?

I know everyone's entitled to a chance to make amends for past indiscretions, but come on, I mean how many chances is he entitled to? He probably had the worst ratio of corruption to positive contributions to the House of Commons in the Twentieth Century, one of the most corrupt politicians of the modern era. Even when William Hague put everything on the line and gave him something like his fifth chance to redeem himself, Archer let him down by once again lying and attempting to cover up things he'd still not been taken to book for.

Surely the Tories can't be stupid enough to let him back in again?!?

[Thanatos]

Archer is a convicted perjurer and known to have engaged in insider trading, an imprisonable offence, and lied repeatedly about his past, so the Tory Party is the perfect place for him.

[ringmasterrob]

It seems Archer has become a leadership contest issue, with David Cameron making it clear if Archer was allowed to return it would be as a normal party member and nothing more. In my opinion he doesn't even deserve that, let alone his peerage which, in my opinon, should be revoked

[Thanatos]

All peerages should be revoked.

[Naselus]

I don't think all peerages should be revoked, but anyone with a record of corruption and outright crime like Archer's should lose all titles and priviledges. And then spend time in a REAL prison, without weekends off.

[HStorm]

thanatos said:

All peerages should be revoked.

All peerages should be earned, and those that have been should not be revoked. Those that have been inherited, been given as a palm-greaser, or been demerited by subsequent misdeeds, should be revoked.

Beyond doubt, Archer belongs in the final category of revokees, and never earned his title in the first place.

[The Tommunist]

To be perfectly honest, the amount of media coverage the idiot (and let's face it, he is if he thinks he can rejoin mainstream politics after a well publicised perjury stint) receives is a bit OTT. He isn't really a major problem anymore, and shouldn't be considered so (unless you are one of those simpletons who believes everything you watch on the BBC). Even if he is reaccepted by the Party, it just goes to show what "aristocrats" can actually bargain for with their title.

Then again, the BBC may be right - remember that drama they did about him? He must have been something if he slept with Thatcher while conscious.

thanatos said:

All peerages should be revoked.

So, you mean we shouldn't have experienced specialists available for consultation? I admit that most peerages are basically 50+ aristocrats who couldn't give a toss about the general public (we could pretty much say that about any politician really), but what if peerages were given to people like Bob Geldof (not that he'd be a good politician though, just an example) as a people's peer, people who are actually appreciated by the public? I only mention it as it was shown to be an option in Politics class.

[HStorm]

liquidus219 said:

Then again, the BBC may be right - remember that drama they did about him? He must have been something if he slept with Thatcher while conscious.

Heh, if you're refering to Archer: The Truth, it wasn't a drama, it was a parody of Archer's ludicrous self-delusions. Very good parody, mind. To the best of my knowledge, no, he never slept with Thatcher. Even Archer isn't that sick in the head.

So, you mean we shouldn't have experienced specialists available for consultation?

You can have them without assigning them to the House of Lords.

I admit that most peerages are basically 50+ aristocrats who couldn't give a toss about the general public

Well, that was more before the reform of the HoL. Being an aristocrat isn't necessarily the problem. My frustration with the way the HoL used to be run is more the way appointments were used as a bribe; it means many a stick-in-the-mud civil servant who hadn't really done anything outstanding got honours.

but what if peerages were given to people like Bob Geldof

In his case, he probably isn't eligible as he's a citizen of the Irish Republic.

[TheCritique]

There are many advantages to having an appointed, rather than elected, House of Lords. This is not to suggest, however, that the present appointments system and composition is adequate (i.e. former politicians and civil servants, and Labour Party donors). Fortunately we are moving towards an independent Appointments Commission with proper authority. It would be worthwhile introducing legislation disqualifying any person with a criminal conviction from holding a peerage.

It is good that we have specialists with legislative authority. If the Lords were elected, many specialists would not stand for election and therefore their contribution to the nation would be lost. And their contribution is valuable. For example, on the present anti-terrorism bill, a former Law Lord made a speech to the effect that ‘glorification’ was not a legal term currently in use, and it was extremely vague and open to misinterpretation. The Lords then voted to remove the word from the bill. This would not have happened with an elected Lords without specialists.

[HStorm]

I'm not saying I'm necessarily for or against an appointed Upper House, as there are strengths and weaknesses on both sides. I'm simply saying I'm fed up to the back teeth with Prime Ministers blatantly using honours as bribes. Remember 18 months ago when Blair bought silence by giving honours to the Civil Servants he'd previously accused of giving him "bad intelligence" for the Iraqi WMD dossier? (See thegreatcritic.proboards24.com/index.cgi?board=Polls&action=display&thread=1097517413 )

[ringmasterrob]

I don't think there's a great deal of substance to Archer's bid to rejoin the Tory party. In my opinion it was an attempt to drum up some publicity for his latest book which is out early this year...