Think Holac is part of the fabric of British life? Think again.
I dont think anything about HOLAC. Only that they have rules, which Boris failed to circumvent. People go on about me keeping on. I think you would argue with a signpost.
Officially created in 2005. First move was to dispute their power with Tony Blair. Meaning that Blair and Brown declined to have a Resignation Honours List.
There was a reason for that as you well know.
Only actually started in the job in 2016, with Cameron's Resignation Honours List.
Total Lists scrutinised prior to Boris? 2. Cameron/May.
Applications reviewed, prior to Boris? 35. Number approved? 35/35. 16/16 Cameron/19/19 May.
Boris list? 15. Number accepted/refused? 7 ok'd/8 refused. No reasons given, to the public or those refused
To be honest, this is like reading stuff that Boris would write A few proverbial dead cats.. I have no real interest in the history of HOLAC, or what Lloyd-George had for breakfast.
The following is what seems to be important to me rather than the above. Lets just concentrate on Boris and Dories. Boris published his Honours list last July, just prior to his resignation. Both of them have clearly stated that they knew the rules. So Dorries then understood that she had to make a public statement confirming that she intended resigning within 6 months. Had she done that, she would have been heading for the House of Lords, without any problem. None of us can be sure of what happened next. Maybe she didnt want to lose her MP salary. Maybe Boris didnt want to admit to Sunak that he had created at least 3 by-elections. What seems obvious is that she didnt want to resign, and wished to continue as an MP, until the next general election. Dorries was very keen on getting a peerage, and rightly so, I dont like the woman, but what has happened is extremely unfair. This is why my best bet on her reason for not resigning, was because she was given assurances by Boris. Clearly, assurances that he wasnt able to keep. The deadline for her resignation, was early January. This deadline had passed by the time Boris received an update on the list from the Cabinet Office in February. So we must assume that she had been removed from the list, by the time he received the upgrade. We cant be sure of what happened between the update in February, and the Sunak meeting. An honest man would have made some time for this during the 3 or 4 months in between Maybe Boris was too busy, jetting around the world, making millions from his speeches. When he met Sunak it was too late. The resignation deadline had passed almost 6 months before. So the only option left open to Boris, was some rule bending. It seems that neither HOLAC, nor Sunak were up for this. So Boris came unstuck, and Dories lost out.
I am also at a loss as to why Boris or Dorries would think that Sunak would do either of them any favours. What goes around comes around as they say in Politics. Boris has blamed him for his downfall, and regularly accuses Sunak of stabbing him in the back, it was only the other day when he was trying to muster support to vote against the Windsor Framework. Dorries has a pop at him at every opportunity.
Think Holac is part of the fabric of British life? Think again.
Officially created in 2005. First move was to dispute their power with Tony Blair. Meaning that Blair and Brown declined to have a Resignation Honours List.
Only actually started in the job in 2016, with Cameron's Resignation Honours List.
Total Lists scrutinised prior to Boris? 2. Cameron/May.
Applications reviewed, prior to Boris? 35. Number approved? 35/35. 16/16 Cameron/19/19 May.
Boris list? 15. Number accepted/refused? 7 ok'd/8 refused. No reasons given, to the public or those refused
This came up on the weekend. Gordon Brown had a Dissolution Honours list.
The shadows over the system have caused some to shudder away from honours. In 2010, Gordon Brown evaded a formal resignation list in the wake of the police investigation over some of the honours distributed by his predecessor, Tony Blair. Instead, the retiring Labour leader advised on a dissolution honours list. However, Keith Hill, who was standing down after 18 years in parliament and service in a variety of government roles, including junior minister and whip, firmly turned down a knighthood. He told his local paper, the Streatham Guardian: “My fundamental reason is that I have never had the least desire to have a title. I don’t want to be discourteous, but I find the whole idea a little embarrassing and too much for me.”
I saw the interview. I am not keen on the House of Lords, it is long overdue for reform. The Honours system could also do with some.
Olivia Utley made the point about one of the people on the Boris list. From intern to Baroness in 6 years. I think it was a little more than 6 years actually.
My view is that nothing like that should ever happen. Its b0ll0cks.
There is a woman that collects money in a bucket around my local pubs. She does it 3 or 4 nights per week, every week. She is now 80, and still at it. She has collected over £1.5million for various charities, in the 60 years she has been doing it for. To be fair she got an MBE a couple of years ago. That is the sort of person I like to see receiving Honours. Or people that have put a lifetime into Parliament, or Public Service. Not 29 year olds, that have only worked for 5 minutes. Or the PMs Dad, or Brother, or both.
Think Holac is part of the fabric of British life? Think again.
Officially created in 2005. First move was to dispute their power with Tony Blair. Meaning that Blair and Brown declined to have a Resignation Honours List.
Only actually started in the job in 2016, with Cameron's Resignation Honours List.
Total Lists scrutinised prior to Boris? 2. Cameron/May.
Applications reviewed, prior to Boris? 35. Number approved? 35/35. 16/16 Cameron/19/19 May.
Boris list? 15. Number accepted/refused? 7 ok'd/8 refused. No reasons given, to the public or those refused
This came up on the weekend. Gordon Brown had a Dissolution Honours list.
The shadows over the system have caused some to shudder away from honours. In 2010, Gordon Brown evaded a formal resignation list in the wake of the police investigation over some of the honours distributed by his predecessor, Tony Blair. Instead, the retiring Labour leader advised on a dissolution honours list. However, Keith Hill, who was standing down after 18 years in parliament and service in a variety of government roles, including junior minister and whip, firmly turned down a knighthood. He told his local paper, the Streatham Guardian: “My fundamental reason is that I have never had the least desire to have a title. I don’t want to be discourteous, but I find the whole idea a little embarrassing and too much for me.”
I saw the interview. I am not keen on the House of Lords, it is long overdue for reform. The Honours system could also do with some.
Olivia Utley made the point about one of the people on the Boris list. From intern to Baroness in 6 years. I think it was a little more than 6 years actually.
My view is that nothing like that should ever happen. Its b0ll0cks.
There is a woman that collects money in a bucket around my local pubs. She does it 3 or 4 nights per week, every week. She is now 80, and still at it. She has collected over £1.5million for various charities, in the 60 years she has been doing it for. To be fair she got an MBE a couple of years ago. That is the sort of person I like to see receiving Honours. Or people that have put a lifetime into Parliament, or Public Service. Not 29 year olds, that have only worked for 5 minutes. Or the PMs Dad, or Brother, or both.
Here's a simple reform.
It is a previous PM's Honours List. Not (like many others) a sitting PM's List.
Why does Holac report to the current PM? It's not his list. And he does not have a Mandate to control the House of Lords.
The simple answer is that, where it is a previous PM's Honours List, Holac should liaise directly with that previous PM. Not someone different, with a different political agenda. Because then, if Holac perceive that there are hurdles in the way of granting approval, they go to the previous PM. And records can show that everything is above board.
Whereas, at present, we have a PM who is denying that it is him who has blocked these appointments. Which is not true-Holac makes recommendations, no more than that. They report to the PM, and it is his decision.
And there can be no allegations that a sitting PM deliberately hid the potential hurdles from a previous PM for his own personal reasons. When it is not his Resignation Honours List.
Think Holac is part of the fabric of British life? Think again.
Officially created in 2005. First move was to dispute their power with Tony Blair. Meaning that Blair and Brown declined to have a Resignation Honours List.
Only actually started in the job in 2016, with Cameron's Resignation Honours List.
Total Lists scrutinised prior to Boris? 2. Cameron/May.
Applications reviewed, prior to Boris? 35. Number approved? 35/35. 16/16 Cameron/19/19 May.
Boris list? 15. Number accepted/refused? 7 ok'd/8 refused. No reasons given, to the public or those refused
This came up on the weekend. Gordon Brown had a Dissolution Honours list.
The shadows over the system have caused some to shudder away from honours. In 2010, Gordon Brown evaded a formal resignation list in the wake of the police investigation over some of the honours distributed by his predecessor, Tony Blair. Instead, the retiring Labour leader advised on a dissolution honours list. However, Keith Hill, who was standing down after 18 years in parliament and service in a variety of government roles, including junior minister and whip, firmly turned down a knighthood. He told his local paper, the Streatham Guardian: “My fundamental reason is that I have never had the least desire to have a title. I don’t want to be discourteous, but I find the whole idea a little embarrassing and too much for me.”
I saw the interview. I am not keen on the House of Lords, it is long overdue for reform. The Honours system could also do with some.
Olivia Utley made the point about one of the people on the Boris list. From intern to Baroness in 6 years. I think it was a little more than 6 years actually.
My view is that nothing like that should ever happen. Its b0ll0cks.
There is a woman that collects money in a bucket around my local pubs. She does it 3 or 4 nights per week, every week. She is now 80, and still at it. She has collected over £1.5million for various charities, in the 60 years she has been doing it for. To be fair she got an MBE a couple of years ago. That is the sort of person I like to see receiving Honours. Or people that have put a lifetime into Parliament, or Public Service. Not 29 year olds, that have only worked for 5 minutes. Or the PMs Dad, or Brother, or both.
Here's a simple reform.
It is a previous PM's Honours List. Not (like many others) a sitting PM's List.
Why does Holac report to the current PM? It's not his list. And he does not have a Mandate to control the House of Lords.
The simple answer is that, where it is a previous PM's Honours List, Holac should liaise directly with that previous PM. Not someone different, with a different political agenda. Because then, if Holac perceive that there are hurdles in the way of granting approval, they go to the previous PM. And records can show that everything is above board.
Whereas, at present, we have a PM who is denying that it is him who has blocked these appointments. Which is not true-Holac makes recommendations, no more than that. They report to the PM, and it is his decision.
And there can be no allegations that a sitting PM deliberately hid the potential hurdles from a previous PM for his own personal reasons. When it is not his Resignation Honours List.
I am not sure that we would have ended up with a different result. I think that a moderately intelligent person, would familiarise themselves with the rules, and not trust proven liars. I think HOLAC should have the final say. I dont see any point in having HOLAC, if a PM can overrule them. I dont think that rules should be constantly bent, or broken. Maybe a PM should have to justify an award. Just being a donor should not qualify. Cronies shouldnt qualify, for just being cronies. A PMs family shouldnt qualify.
So I think that there should be more rules on who does, and doesnt qualify. HOLAC shouldnt be overruled.
Think Holac is part of the fabric of British life? Think again.
Officially created in 2005. First move was to dispute their power with Tony Blair. Meaning that Blair and Brown declined to have a Resignation Honours List.
Only actually started in the job in 2016, with Cameron's Resignation Honours List.
Total Lists scrutinised prior to Boris? 2. Cameron/May.
Applications reviewed, prior to Boris? 35. Number approved? 35/35. 16/16 Cameron/19/19 May.
Boris list? 15. Number accepted/refused? 7 ok'd/8 refused. No reasons given, to the public or those refused
This came up on the weekend. Gordon Brown had a Dissolution Honours list.
The shadows over the system have caused some to shudder away from honours. In 2010, Gordon Brown evaded a formal resignation list in the wake of the police investigation over some of the honours distributed by his predecessor, Tony Blair. Instead, the retiring Labour leader advised on a dissolution honours list. However, Keith Hill, who was standing down after 18 years in parliament and service in a variety of government roles, including junior minister and whip, firmly turned down a knighthood. He told his local paper, the Streatham Guardian: “My fundamental reason is that I have never had the least desire to have a title. I don’t want to be discourteous, but I find the whole idea a little embarrassing and too much for me.”
I saw the interview. I am not keen on the House of Lords, it is long overdue for reform. The Honours system could also do with some.
Olivia Utley made the point about one of the people on the Boris list. From intern to Baroness in 6 years. I think it was a little more than 6 years actually.
My view is that nothing like that should ever happen. Its b0ll0cks.
There is a woman that collects money in a bucket around my local pubs. She does it 3 or 4 nights per week, every week. She is now 80, and still at it. She has collected over £1.5million for various charities, in the 60 years she has been doing it for. To be fair she got an MBE a couple of years ago. That is the sort of person I like to see receiving Honours. Or people that have put a lifetime into Parliament, or Public Service. Not 29 year olds, that have only worked for 5 minutes. Or the PMs Dad, or Brother, or both.
Here's a simple reform.
It is a previous PM's Honours List. Not (like many others) a sitting PM's List.
Why does Holac report to the current PM? It's not his list. And he does not have a Mandate to control the House of Lords.
The simple answer is that, where it is a previous PM's Honours List, Holac should liaise directly with that previous PM. Not someone different, with a different political agenda. Because then, if Holac perceive that there are hurdles in the way of granting approval, they go to the previous PM. And records can show that everything is above board.
Whereas, at present, we have a PM who is denying that it is him who has blocked these appointments. Which is not true-Holac makes recommendations, no more than that. They report to the PM, and it is his decision.
And there can be no allegations that a sitting PM deliberately hid the potential hurdles from a previous PM for his own personal reasons. When it is not his Resignation Honours List.
Think Holac is part of the fabric of British life? Think again.
Officially created in 2005. First move was to dispute their power with Tony Blair. Meaning that Blair and Brown declined to have a Resignation Honours List.
Only actually started in the job in 2016, with Cameron's Resignation Honours List.
Total Lists scrutinised prior to Boris? 2. Cameron/May.
Applications reviewed, prior to Boris? 35. Number approved? 35/35. 16/16 Cameron/19/19 May.
Boris list? 15. Number accepted/refused? 7 ok'd/8 refused. No reasons given, to the public or those refused
This came up on the weekend. Gordon Brown had a Dissolution Honours list.
The shadows over the system have caused some to shudder away from honours. In 2010, Gordon Brown evaded a formal resignation list in the wake of the police investigation over some of the honours distributed by his predecessor, Tony Blair. Instead, the retiring Labour leader advised on a dissolution honours list. However, Keith Hill, who was standing down after 18 years in parliament and service in a variety of government roles, including junior minister and whip, firmly turned down a knighthood. He told his local paper, the Streatham Guardian: “My fundamental reason is that I have never had the least desire to have a title. I don’t want to be discourteous, but I find the whole idea a little embarrassing and too much for me.”
I saw the interview. I am not keen on the House of Lords, it is long overdue for reform. The Honours system could also do with some.
Olivia Utley made the point about one of the people on the Boris list. From intern to Baroness in 6 years. I think it was a little more than 6 years actually.
My view is that nothing like that should ever happen. Its b0ll0cks.
There is a woman that collects money in a bucket around my local pubs. She does it 3 or 4 nights per week, every week. She is now 80, and still at it. She has collected over £1.5million for various charities, in the 60 years she has been doing it for. To be fair she got an MBE a couple of years ago. That is the sort of person I like to see receiving Honours. Or people that have put a lifetime into Parliament, or Public Service. Not 29 year olds, that have only worked for 5 minutes. Or the PMs Dad, or Brother, or both.
Here's a simple reform.
It is a previous PM's Honours List. Not (like many others) a sitting PM's List.
Why does Holac report to the current PM? It's not his list. And he does not have a Mandate to control the House of Lords.
The simple answer is that, where it is a previous PM's Honours List, Holac should liaise directly with that previous PM. Not someone different, with a different political agenda. Because then, if Holac perceive that there are hurdles in the way of granting approval, they go to the previous PM. And records can show that everything is above board.
Whereas, at present, we have a PM who is denying that it is him who has blocked these appointments. Which is not true-Holac makes recommendations, no more than that. They report to the PM, and it is his decision.
And there can be no allegations that a sitting PM deliberately hid the potential hurdles from a previous PM for his own personal reasons. When it is not his Resignation Honours List.
I am not sure that we would have ended up with a different result. I think that a moderately intelligent person, would familiarise themselves with the rules, and not trust proven liars. I think HOLAC should have the final say. I dont see any point in having HOLAC, if a PM can overrule them. I dont think that rules should be constantly bent, or broken. Maybe a PM should have to justify an award. Just being a donor should not qualify. Cronies shouldnt qualify, for just being cronies. A PMs family shouldnt qualify.
So I think that there should be more rules on who does, and doesnt qualify. HOLAC shouldnt be overruled.
That's a pretty big wish list.
The first thing to say is-of course we would have ended up with a different result. Taking Dorries as the obvious example-either Boris would have given her a Damehood instead, or she would have chosen to resign. You ignore the fact that Boris-a proven liar-has clearly trusted the word of Rishi Sunak-another proven liar.
You keep referring to "familiarise themselves with the rules". There were no rules. Simply because no sitting MP has been awarded a Peerage in this way. Show me where Holac pronounced the need for an MP's timetable to resign before refusing recommendations. Show me the leak to the papers about the right process before. Because I am seeing plenty of deliberate leaks afterwards.
A PM can overrule Holac. As Boris has done previously. Who should have any final say is, IMHO, less important than the fact that the decision should be transparent. Both as to why someone gets an Award. And why one is denied. Unless the person chooses anonymity. Incidentally, the reason for approval is always expressly mentioned.
Agreed that a PM should have to justify an award-but, similarly, there needs to be transparency in relation to refusal.
Just being a donor? Totally agree. Although there is a long history of politicians doing exactly that.
Cronies? Only if genuinely given public service. Like at least 3 of the refusals.
Family members? Should be judged like anyone else. So-for example-absolutely nothing wrong with the award to his Brother. Massive problems in relation to his Father.
Think Holac is part of the fabric of British life? Think again.
Officially created in 2005. First move was to dispute their power with Tony Blair. Meaning that Blair and Brown declined to have a Resignation Honours List.
Only actually started in the job in 2016, with Cameron's Resignation Honours List.
Total Lists scrutinised prior to Boris? 2. Cameron/May.
Applications reviewed, prior to Boris? 35. Number approved? 35/35. 16/16 Cameron/19/19 May.
Boris list? 15. Number accepted/refused? 7 ok'd/8 refused. No reasons given, to the public or those refused
This came up on the weekend. Gordon Brown had a Dissolution Honours list.
The shadows over the system have caused some to shudder away from honours. In 2010, Gordon Brown evaded a formal resignation list in the wake of the police investigation over some of the honours distributed by his predecessor, Tony Blair. Instead, the retiring Labour leader advised on a dissolution honours list. However, Keith Hill, who was standing down after 18 years in parliament and service in a variety of government roles, including junior minister and whip, firmly turned down a knighthood. He told his local paper, the Streatham Guardian: “My fundamental reason is that I have never had the least desire to have a title. I don’t want to be discourteous, but I find the whole idea a little embarrassing and too much for me.”
I saw the interview. I am not keen on the House of Lords, it is long overdue for reform. The Honours system could also do with some.
Olivia Utley made the point about one of the people on the Boris list. From intern to Baroness in 6 years. I think it was a little more than 6 years actually.
My view is that nothing like that should ever happen. Its b0ll0cks.
There is a woman that collects money in a bucket around my local pubs. She does it 3 or 4 nights per week, every week. She is now 80, and still at it. She has collected over £1.5million for various charities, in the 60 years she has been doing it for. To be fair she got an MBE a couple of years ago. That is the sort of person I like to see receiving Honours. Or people that have put a lifetime into Parliament, or Public Service. Not 29 year olds, that have only worked for 5 minutes. Or the PMs Dad, or Brother, or both.
Here's a simple reform.
It is a previous PM's Honours List. Not (like many others) a sitting PM's List.
Why does Holac report to the current PM? It's not his list. And he does not have a Mandate to control the House of Lords.
The simple answer is that, where it is a previous PM's Honours List, Holac should liaise directly with that previous PM. Not someone different, with a different political agenda. Because then, if Holac perceive that there are hurdles in the way of granting approval, they go to the previous PM. And records can show that everything is above board.
Whereas, at present, we have a PM who is denying that it is him who has blocked these appointments. Which is not true-Holac makes recommendations, no more than that. They report to the PM, and it is his decision.
And there can be no allegations that a sitting PM deliberately hid the potential hurdles from a previous PM for his own personal reasons. When it is not his Resignation Honours List.
Dorries has now delayed her resignation.
She is going to resign when it suits her. Not when it suits the Conservative Party.
I expect there will be timed resignations to cause maximum harm to the Party, right up to the time they finally admit defeat and call a General Election.
Then the fun begins. Who on earth is going to be the next leader of the Nasty Party?
Think Holac is part of the fabric of British life? Think again.
Officially created in 2005. First move was to dispute their power with Tony Blair. Meaning that Blair and Brown declined to have a Resignation Honours List.
Only actually started in the job in 2016, with Cameron's Resignation Honours List.
Total Lists scrutinised prior to Boris? 2. Cameron/May.
Applications reviewed, prior to Boris? 35. Number approved? 35/35. 16/16 Cameron/19/19 May.
Boris list? 15. Number accepted/refused? 7 ok'd/8 refused. No reasons given, to the public or those refused
This came up on the weekend. Gordon Brown had a Dissolution Honours list.
The shadows over the system have caused some to shudder away from honours. In 2010, Gordon Brown evaded a formal resignation list in the wake of the police investigation over some of the honours distributed by his predecessor, Tony Blair. Instead, the retiring Labour leader advised on a dissolution honours list. However, Keith Hill, who was standing down after 18 years in parliament and service in a variety of government roles, including junior minister and whip, firmly turned down a knighthood. He told his local paper, the Streatham Guardian: “My fundamental reason is that I have never had the least desire to have a title. I don’t want to be discourteous, but I find the whole idea a little embarrassing and too much for me.”
I saw the interview. I am not keen on the House of Lords, it is long overdue for reform. The Honours system could also do with some.
Olivia Utley made the point about one of the people on the Boris list. From intern to Baroness in 6 years. I think it was a little more than 6 years actually.
My view is that nothing like that should ever happen. Its b0ll0cks.
There is a woman that collects money in a bucket around my local pubs. She does it 3 or 4 nights per week, every week. She is now 80, and still at it. She has collected over £1.5million for various charities, in the 60 years she has been doing it for. To be fair she got an MBE a couple of years ago. That is the sort of person I like to see receiving Honours. Or people that have put a lifetime into Parliament, or Public Service. Not 29 year olds, that have only worked for 5 minutes. Or the PMs Dad, or Brother, or both.
Here's a simple reform.
It is a previous PM's Honours List. Not (like many others) a sitting PM's List.
Why does Holac report to the current PM? It's not his list. And he does not have a Mandate to control the House of Lords.
The simple answer is that, where it is a previous PM's Honours List, Holac should liaise directly with that previous PM. Not someone different, with a different political agenda. Because then, if Holac perceive that there are hurdles in the way of granting approval, they go to the previous PM. And records can show that everything is above board.
Whereas, at present, we have a PM who is denying that it is him who has blocked these appointments. Which is not true-Holac makes recommendations, no more than that. They report to the PM, and it is his decision.
And there can be no allegations that a sitting PM deliberately hid the potential hurdles from a previous PM for his own personal reasons. When it is not his Resignation Honours List.
Dorries has now delayed her resignation.
She is going to resign when it suits her. Not when it suits the Conservative Party.
I expect there will be timed resignations to cause maximum harm to the Party, right up to the time they finally admit defeat and call a General Election.
Then the fun begins. Who on earth is going to be the next leader of the Nasty Party?
All this over an "Honour" she feels entitled to. The sheer vanity astonishes.
Think Holac is part of the fabric of British life? Think again.
Officially created in 2005. First move was to dispute their power with Tony Blair. Meaning that Blair and Brown declined to have a Resignation Honours List.
Only actually started in the job in 2016, with Cameron's Resignation Honours List.
Total Lists scrutinised prior to Boris? 2. Cameron/May.
Applications reviewed, prior to Boris? 35. Number approved? 35/35. 16/16 Cameron/19/19 May.
Boris list? 15. Number accepted/refused? 7 ok'd/8 refused. No reasons given, to the public or those refused
This came up on the weekend. Gordon Brown had a Dissolution Honours list.
The shadows over the system have caused some to shudder away from honours. In 2010, Gordon Brown evaded a formal resignation list in the wake of the police investigation over some of the honours distributed by his predecessor, Tony Blair. Instead, the retiring Labour leader advised on a dissolution honours list. However, Keith Hill, who was standing down after 18 years in parliament and service in a variety of government roles, including junior minister and whip, firmly turned down a knighthood. He told his local paper, the Streatham Guardian: “My fundamental reason is that I have never had the least desire to have a title. I don’t want to be discourteous, but I find the whole idea a little embarrassing and too much for me.”
I saw the interview. I am not keen on the House of Lords, it is long overdue for reform. The Honours system could also do with some.
Olivia Utley made the point about one of the people on the Boris list. From intern to Baroness in 6 years. I think it was a little more than 6 years actually.
My view is that nothing like that should ever happen. Its b0ll0cks.
There is a woman that collects money in a bucket around my local pubs. She does it 3 or 4 nights per week, every week. She is now 80, and still at it. She has collected over £1.5million for various charities, in the 60 years she has been doing it for. To be fair she got an MBE a couple of years ago. That is the sort of person I like to see receiving Honours. Or people that have put a lifetime into Parliament, or Public Service. Not 29 year olds, that have only worked for 5 minutes. Or the PMs Dad, or Brother, or both.
Here's a simple reform.
It is a previous PM's Honours List. Not (like many others) a sitting PM's List.
Why does Holac report to the current PM? It's not his list. And he does not have a Mandate to control the House of Lords.
The simple answer is that, where it is a previous PM's Honours List, Holac should liaise directly with that previous PM. Not someone different, with a different political agenda. Because then, if Holac perceive that there are hurdles in the way of granting approval, they go to the previous PM. And records can show that everything is above board.
Whereas, at present, we have a PM who is denying that it is him who has blocked these appointments. Which is not true-Holac makes recommendations, no more than that. They report to the PM, and it is his decision.
And there can be no allegations that a sitting PM deliberately hid the potential hurdles from a previous PM for his own personal reasons. When it is not his Resignation Honours List.
Dorries has now delayed her resignation.
She is going to resign when it suits her. Not when it suits the Conservative Party.
I expect there will be timed resignations to cause maximum harm to the Party, right up to the time they finally admit defeat and call a General Election.
Then the fun begins. Who on earth is going to be the next leader of the Nasty Party?
All this over an "Honour" she feels entitled to. The sheer vanity astonishes.
Disagree.
This is the Parliamentary equivalent of a Gold watch for loyal service.
Except the new MD has inscribed "everyone hates you" on the watch. And removed the gold.
It's not vanity. It is being stabbed in the back by the person who stabbed your old boss in the back.
Boris Johnson trashed a lot of things that are an essential part of our Democracy, such as his attempt to prorogue Parliament.
Sunak is exactly the same. With an added dash of spite.
Anyone remember during Sunak's first attempt at being leader, when he claimed he "won a scholarship" to Winchester? Only to later admit he had not?
Think Holac is part of the fabric of British life? Think again.
Officially created in 2005. First move was to dispute their power with Tony Blair. Meaning that Blair and Brown declined to have a Resignation Honours List.
Only actually started in the job in 2016, with Cameron's Resignation Honours List.
Total Lists scrutinised prior to Boris? 2. Cameron/May.
Applications reviewed, prior to Boris? 35. Number approved? 35/35. 16/16 Cameron/19/19 May.
Boris list? 15. Number accepted/refused? 7 ok'd/8 refused. No reasons given, to the public or those refused
This came up on the weekend. Gordon Brown had a Dissolution Honours list.
The shadows over the system have caused some to shudder away from honours. In 2010, Gordon Brown evaded a formal resignation list in the wake of the police investigation over some of the honours distributed by his predecessor, Tony Blair. Instead, the retiring Labour leader advised on a dissolution honours list. However, Keith Hill, who was standing down after 18 years in parliament and service in a variety of government roles, including junior minister and whip, firmly turned down a knighthood. He told his local paper, the Streatham Guardian: “My fundamental reason is that I have never had the least desire to have a title. I don’t want to be discourteous, but I find the whole idea a little embarrassing and too much for me.”
I saw the interview. I am not keen on the House of Lords, it is long overdue for reform. The Honours system could also do with some.
Olivia Utley made the point about one of the people on the Boris list. From intern to Baroness in 6 years. I think it was a little more than 6 years actually.
My view is that nothing like that should ever happen. Its b0ll0cks.
There is a woman that collects money in a bucket around my local pubs. She does it 3 or 4 nights per week, every week. She is now 80, and still at it. She has collected over £1.5million for various charities, in the 60 years she has been doing it for. To be fair she got an MBE a couple of years ago. That is the sort of person I like to see receiving Honours. Or people that have put a lifetime into Parliament, or Public Service. Not 29 year olds, that have only worked for 5 minutes. Or the PMs Dad, or Brother, or both.
Here's a simple reform.
It is a previous PM's Honours List. Not (like many others) a sitting PM's List.
Why does Holac report to the current PM? It's not his list. And he does not have a Mandate to control the House of Lords.
The simple answer is that, where it is a previous PM's Honours List, Holac should liaise directly with that previous PM. Not someone different, with a different political agenda. Because then, if Holac perceive that there are hurdles in the way of granting approval, they go to the previous PM. And records can show that everything is above board.
Whereas, at present, we have a PM who is denying that it is him who has blocked these appointments. Which is not true-Holac makes recommendations, no more than that. They report to the PM, and it is his decision.
And there can be no allegations that a sitting PM deliberately hid the potential hurdles from a previous PM for his own personal reasons. When it is not his Resignation Honours List.
I am not sure that we would have ended up with a different result. I think that a moderately intelligent person, would familiarise themselves with the rules, and not trust proven liars. I think HOLAC should have the final say. I dont see any point in having HOLAC, if a PM can overrule them. I dont think that rules should be constantly bent, or broken. Maybe a PM should have to justify an award. Just being a donor should not qualify. Cronies shouldnt qualify, for just being cronies. A PMs family shouldnt qualify.
So I think that there should be more rules on who does, and doesnt qualify. HOLAC shouldnt be overruled.
That's a pretty big wish list.
The first thing to say is-of course we would have ended up with a different result. Taking Dorries as the obvious example-either Boris would have given her a Damehood instead, or she would have chosen to resign. You ignore the fact that Boris-a proven liar-has clearly trusted the word of Rishi Sunak-another proven liar.
You keep referring to "familiarise themselves with the rules". There were no rules. Simply because no sitting MP has been awarded a Peerage in this way. Show me where Holac pronounced the need for an MP's timetable to resign before refusing recommendations. Show me the leak to the papers about the right process before. Because I am seeing plenty of deliberate leaks afterwards.
A PM can overrule Holac. As Boris has done previously. Who should have any final say is, IMHO, less important than the fact that the decision should be transparent. Both as to why someone gets an Award. And why one is denied. Unless the person chooses anonymity. Incidentally, the reason for approval is always expressly mentioned.
Agreed that a PM should have to justify an award-but, similarly, there needs to be transparency in relation to refusal.
Just being a donor? Totally agree. Although there is a long history of politicians doing exactly that.
Cronies? Only if genuinely given public service. Like at least 3 of the refusals.
Family members? Should be judged like anyone else. So-for example-absolutely nothing wrong with the award to his Brother. Massive problems in relation to his Father.
Think Holac is part of the fabric of British life? Think again.
Officially created in 2005. First move was to dispute their power with Tony Blair. Meaning that Blair and Brown declined to have a Resignation Honours List.
Only actually started in the job in 2016, with Cameron's Resignation Honours List.
Total Lists scrutinised prior to Boris? 2. Cameron/May.
Applications reviewed, prior to Boris? 35. Number approved? 35/35. 16/16 Cameron/19/19 May.
Boris list? 15. Number accepted/refused? 7 ok'd/8 refused. No reasons given, to the public or those refused
This came up on the weekend. Gordon Brown had a Dissolution Honours list.
The shadows over the system have caused some to shudder away from honours. In 2010, Gordon Brown evaded a formal resignation list in the wake of the police investigation over some of the honours distributed by his predecessor, Tony Blair. Instead, the retiring Labour leader advised on a dissolution honours list. However, Keith Hill, who was standing down after 18 years in parliament and service in a variety of government roles, including junior minister and whip, firmly turned down a knighthood. He told his local paper, the Streatham Guardian: “My fundamental reason is that I have never had the least desire to have a title. I don’t want to be discourteous, but I find the whole idea a little embarrassing and too much for me.”
I saw the interview. I am not keen on the House of Lords, it is long overdue for reform. The Honours system could also do with some.
Olivia Utley made the point about one of the people on the Boris list. From intern to Baroness in 6 years. I think it was a little more than 6 years actually.
My view is that nothing like that should ever happen. Its b0ll0cks.
There is a woman that collects money in a bucket around my local pubs. She does it 3 or 4 nights per week, every week. She is now 80, and still at it. She has collected over £1.5million for various charities, in the 60 years she has been doing it for. To be fair she got an MBE a couple of years ago. That is the sort of person I like to see receiving Honours. Or people that have put a lifetime into Parliament, or Public Service. Not 29 year olds, that have only worked for 5 minutes. Or the PMs Dad, or Brother, or both.
Here's a simple reform.
It is a previous PM's Honours List. Not (like many others) a sitting PM's List.
Why does Holac report to the current PM? It's not his list. And he does not have a Mandate to control the House of Lords.
The simple answer is that, where it is a previous PM's Honours List, Holac should liaise directly with that previous PM. Not someone different, with a different political agenda. Because then, if Holac perceive that there are hurdles in the way of granting approval, they go to the previous PM. And records can show that everything is above board.
Whereas, at present, we have a PM who is denying that it is him who has blocked these appointments. Which is not true-Holac makes recommendations, no more than that. They report to the PM, and it is his decision.
And there can be no allegations that a sitting PM deliberately hid the potential hurdles from a previous PM for his own personal reasons. When it is not his Resignation Honours List.
Dorries has now delayed her resignation.
She is going to resign when it suits her. Not when it suits the Conservative Party.
I expect there will be timed resignations to cause maximum harm to the Party, right up to the time they finally admit defeat and call a General Election.
Then the fun begins. Who on earth is going to be the next leader of the Nasty Party?
Think Holac is part of the fabric of British life? Think again.
Officially created in 2005. First move was to dispute their power with Tony Blair. Meaning that Blair and Brown declined to have a Resignation Honours List.
Only actually started in the job in 2016, with Cameron's Resignation Honours List.
Total Lists scrutinised prior to Boris? 2. Cameron/May.
Applications reviewed, prior to Boris? 35. Number approved? 35/35. 16/16 Cameron/19/19 May.
Boris list? 15. Number accepted/refused? 7 ok'd/8 refused. No reasons given, to the public or those refused
This came up on the weekend. Gordon Brown had a Dissolution Honours list.
The shadows over the system have caused some to shudder away from honours. In 2010, Gordon Brown evaded a formal resignation list in the wake of the police investigation over some of the honours distributed by his predecessor, Tony Blair. Instead, the retiring Labour leader advised on a dissolution honours list. However, Keith Hill, who was standing down after 18 years in parliament and service in a variety of government roles, including junior minister and whip, firmly turned down a knighthood. He told his local paper, the Streatham Guardian: “My fundamental reason is that I have never had the least desire to have a title. I don’t want to be discourteous, but I find the whole idea a little embarrassing and too much for me.”
I saw the interview. I am not keen on the House of Lords, it is long overdue for reform. The Honours system could also do with some.
Olivia Utley made the point about one of the people on the Boris list. From intern to Baroness in 6 years. I think it was a little more than 6 years actually.
My view is that nothing like that should ever happen. Its b0ll0cks.
There is a woman that collects money in a bucket around my local pubs. She does it 3 or 4 nights per week, every week. She is now 80, and still at it. She has collected over £1.5million for various charities, in the 60 years she has been doing it for. To be fair she got an MBE a couple of years ago. That is the sort of person I like to see receiving Honours. Or people that have put a lifetime into Parliament, or Public Service. Not 29 year olds, that have only worked for 5 minutes. Or the PMs Dad, or Brother, or both.
Here's a simple reform.
It is a previous PM's Honours List. Not (like many others) a sitting PM's List.
Why does Holac report to the current PM? It's not his list. And he does not have a Mandate to control the House of Lords.
The simple answer is that, where it is a previous PM's Honours List, Holac should liaise directly with that previous PM. Not someone different, with a different political agenda. Because then, if Holac perceive that there are hurdles in the way of granting approval, they go to the previous PM. And records can show that everything is above board.
Whereas, at present, we have a PM who is denying that it is him who has blocked these appointments. Which is not true-Holac makes recommendations, no more than that. They report to the PM, and it is his decision.
And there can be no allegations that a sitting PM deliberately hid the potential hurdles from a previous PM for his own personal reasons. When it is not his Resignation Honours List.
Dorries has now delayed her resignation.
She is going to resign when it suits her. Not when it suits the Conservative Party.
I expect there will be timed resignations to cause maximum harm to the Party, right up to the time they finally admit defeat and call a General Election.
Then the fun begins. Who on earth is going to be the next leader of the Nasty Party?
All this over an "Honour" she feels entitled to. The sheer vanity astonishes.
Disagree.
This is the Parliamentary equivalent of a Gold watch for loyal service.
Except the new MD has inscribed "everyone hates you" on the watch. And removed the gold.
It's not vanity. It is being stabbed in the back by the person who stabbed your old boss in the back.
Boris Johnson trashed a lot of things that are an essential part of our Democracy, such as his attempt to prorogue Parliament.
Sunak is exactly the same. With an added dash of spite.
Anyone remember during Sunak's first attempt at being leader, when he claimed he "won a scholarship" to Winchester? Only to later admit he had not?
Whatever way we look at it, the award of the "Honour" is discretionary, not mandatory.
It's no different to Christmas or Birthday presents. We may be disappointed when Auntie does not buy us a pressie, but we have zero right to complain.
Think Holac is part of the fabric of British life? Think again.
Officially created in 2005. First move was to dispute their power with Tony Blair. Meaning that Blair and Brown declined to have a Resignation Honours List.
Only actually started in the job in 2016, with Cameron's Resignation Honours List.
Total Lists scrutinised prior to Boris? 2. Cameron/May.
Applications reviewed, prior to Boris? 35. Number approved? 35/35. 16/16 Cameron/19/19 May.
Boris list? 15. Number accepted/refused? 7 ok'd/8 refused. No reasons given, to the public or those refused
This came up on the weekend. Gordon Brown had a Dissolution Honours list.
The shadows over the system have caused some to shudder away from honours. In 2010, Gordon Brown evaded a formal resignation list in the wake of the police investigation over some of the honours distributed by his predecessor, Tony Blair. Instead, the retiring Labour leader advised on a dissolution honours list. However, Keith Hill, who was standing down after 18 years in parliament and service in a variety of government roles, including junior minister and whip, firmly turned down a knighthood. He told his local paper, the Streatham Guardian: “My fundamental reason is that I have never had the least desire to have a title. I don’t want to be discourteous, but I find the whole idea a little embarrassing and too much for me.”
I saw the interview. I am not keen on the House of Lords, it is long overdue for reform. The Honours system could also do with some.
Olivia Utley made the point about one of the people on the Boris list. From intern to Baroness in 6 years. I think it was a little more than 6 years actually.
My view is that nothing like that should ever happen. Its b0ll0cks.
There is a woman that collects money in a bucket around my local pubs. She does it 3 or 4 nights per week, every week. She is now 80, and still at it. She has collected over £1.5million for various charities, in the 60 years she has been doing it for. To be fair she got an MBE a couple of years ago. That is the sort of person I like to see receiving Honours. Or people that have put a lifetime into Parliament, or Public Service. Not 29 year olds, that have only worked for 5 minutes. Or the PMs Dad, or Brother, or both.
Here's a simple reform.
It is a previous PM's Honours List. Not (like many others) a sitting PM's List.
Why does Holac report to the current PM? It's not his list. And he does not have a Mandate to control the House of Lords.
The simple answer is that, where it is a previous PM's Honours List, Holac should liaise directly with that previous PM. Not someone different, with a different political agenda. Because then, if Holac perceive that there are hurdles in the way of granting approval, they go to the previous PM. And records can show that everything is above board.
Whereas, at present, we have a PM who is denying that it is him who has blocked these appointments. Which is not true-Holac makes recommendations, no more than that. They report to the PM, and it is his decision.
And there can be no allegations that a sitting PM deliberately hid the potential hurdles from a previous PM for his own personal reasons. When it is not his Resignation Honours List.
Dorries has now delayed her resignation.
She is going to resign when it suits her. Not when it suits the Conservative Party.
I expect there will be timed resignations to cause maximum harm to the Party, right up to the time they finally admit defeat and call a General Election.
Then the fun begins. Who on earth is going to be the next leader of the Nasty Party?
All this over an "Honour" she feels entitled to. The sheer vanity astonishes.
I really dont like the woman, but to be fair, she was promised a Peerage. I guess she is now aware of what a promise from Boris is really worth. The Tories wanted to hold the 3 by-elections on the same day. It will now be 2 on the same day, and the other on a different day. I am not sure this will make a massive difference. She had the biggest majority of the three. I think I would have far less respect for Sunak, if he had gone along with the Boris rule bending. Its a shame she has lost out. Blame Boris.
Think Holac is part of the fabric of British life? Think again.
Officially created in 2005. First move was to dispute their power with Tony Blair. Meaning that Blair and Brown declined to have a Resignation Honours List.
Only actually started in the job in 2016, with Cameron's Resignation Honours List.
Total Lists scrutinised prior to Boris? 2. Cameron/May.
Applications reviewed, prior to Boris? 35. Number approved? 35/35. 16/16 Cameron/19/19 May.
Boris list? 15. Number accepted/refused? 7 ok'd/8 refused. No reasons given, to the public or those refused
This came up on the weekend. Gordon Brown had a Dissolution Honours list.
The shadows over the system have caused some to shudder away from honours. In 2010, Gordon Brown evaded a formal resignation list in the wake of the police investigation over some of the honours distributed by his predecessor, Tony Blair. Instead, the retiring Labour leader advised on a dissolution honours list. However, Keith Hill, who was standing down after 18 years in parliament and service in a variety of government roles, including junior minister and whip, firmly turned down a knighthood. He told his local paper, the Streatham Guardian: “My fundamental reason is that I have never had the least desire to have a title. I don’t want to be discourteous, but I find the whole idea a little embarrassing and too much for me.”
I saw the interview. I am not keen on the House of Lords, it is long overdue for reform. The Honours system could also do with some.
Olivia Utley made the point about one of the people on the Boris list. From intern to Baroness in 6 years. I think it was a little more than 6 years actually.
My view is that nothing like that should ever happen. Its b0ll0cks.
There is a woman that collects money in a bucket around my local pubs. She does it 3 or 4 nights per week, every week. She is now 80, and still at it. She has collected over £1.5million for various charities, in the 60 years she has been doing it for. To be fair she got an MBE a couple of years ago. That is the sort of person I like to see receiving Honours. Or people that have put a lifetime into Parliament, or Public Service. Not 29 year olds, that have only worked for 5 minutes. Or the PMs Dad, or Brother, or both.
Here's a simple reform.
It is a previous PM's Honours List. Not (like many others) a sitting PM's List.
Why does Holac report to the current PM? It's not his list. And he does not have a Mandate to control the House of Lords.
The simple answer is that, where it is a previous PM's Honours List, Holac should liaise directly with that previous PM. Not someone different, with a different political agenda. Because then, if Holac perceive that there are hurdles in the way of granting approval, they go to the previous PM. And records can show that everything is above board.
Whereas, at present, we have a PM who is denying that it is him who has blocked these appointments. Which is not true-Holac makes recommendations, no more than that. They report to the PM, and it is his decision.
And there can be no allegations that a sitting PM deliberately hid the potential hurdles from a previous PM for his own personal reasons. When it is not his Resignation Honours List.
Dorries has now delayed her resignation.
She is going to resign when it suits her. Not when it suits the Conservative Party.
I expect there will be timed resignations to cause maximum harm to the Party, right up to the time they finally admit defeat and call a General Election.
Then the fun begins. Who on earth is going to be the next leader of the Nasty Party?
Boris?
No.
I would say definitely, no. But I've said that before. He's made people look like an idiot before
The thing is, there is no person on the Tories at present who looks even vaguely like a unity candidate. Perhaps being humiliated at by-elections, and (more importantly) a General Election will concentrate the mind.
They are all too busy trying to prove who is in charge-meanwhile, nothing gets done in relation to the massive problems faced by this country.
Think Holac is part of the fabric of British life? Think again.
Officially created in 2005. First move was to dispute their power with Tony Blair. Meaning that Blair and Brown declined to have a Resignation Honours List.
Only actually started in the job in 2016, with Cameron's Resignation Honours List.
Total Lists scrutinised prior to Boris? 2. Cameron/May.
Applications reviewed, prior to Boris? 35. Number approved? 35/35. 16/16 Cameron/19/19 May.
Boris list? 15. Number accepted/refused? 7 ok'd/8 refused. No reasons given, to the public or those refused
This came up on the weekend. Gordon Brown had a Dissolution Honours list.
The shadows over the system have caused some to shudder away from honours. In 2010, Gordon Brown evaded a formal resignation list in the wake of the police investigation over some of the honours distributed by his predecessor, Tony Blair. Instead, the retiring Labour leader advised on a dissolution honours list. However, Keith Hill, who was standing down after 18 years in parliament and service in a variety of government roles, including junior minister and whip, firmly turned down a knighthood. He told his local paper, the Streatham Guardian: “My fundamental reason is that I have never had the least desire to have a title. I don’t want to be discourteous, but I find the whole idea a little embarrassing and too much for me.”
I saw the interview. I am not keen on the House of Lords, it is long overdue for reform. The Honours system could also do with some.
Olivia Utley made the point about one of the people on the Boris list. From intern to Baroness in 6 years. I think it was a little more than 6 years actually.
My view is that nothing like that should ever happen. Its b0ll0cks.
There is a woman that collects money in a bucket around my local pubs. She does it 3 or 4 nights per week, every week. She is now 80, and still at it. She has collected over £1.5million for various charities, in the 60 years she has been doing it for. To be fair she got an MBE a couple of years ago. That is the sort of person I like to see receiving Honours. Or people that have put a lifetime into Parliament, or Public Service. Not 29 year olds, that have only worked for 5 minutes. Or the PMs Dad, or Brother, or both.
Here's a simple reform.
It is a previous PM's Honours List. Not (like many others) a sitting PM's List.
Why does Holac report to the current PM? It's not his list. And he does not have a Mandate to control the House of Lords.
The simple answer is that, where it is a previous PM's Honours List, Holac should liaise directly with that previous PM. Not someone different, with a different political agenda. Because then, if Holac perceive that there are hurdles in the way of granting approval, they go to the previous PM. And records can show that everything is above board.
Whereas, at present, we have a PM who is denying that it is him who has blocked these appointments. Which is not true-Holac makes recommendations, no more than that. They report to the PM, and it is his decision.
And there can be no allegations that a sitting PM deliberately hid the potential hurdles from a previous PM for his own personal reasons. When it is not his Resignation Honours List.
Dorries has now delayed her resignation.
She is going to resign when it suits her. Not when it suits the Conservative Party.
I expect there will be timed resignations to cause maximum harm to the Party, right up to the time they finally admit defeat and call a General Election.
Then the fun begins. Who on earth is going to be the next leader of the Nasty Party?
All this over an "Honour" she feels entitled to. The sheer vanity astonishes.
Disagree.
This is the Parliamentary equivalent of a Gold watch for loyal service.
Except the new MD has inscribed "everyone hates you" on the watch. And removed the gold.
It's not vanity. It is being stabbed in the back by the person who stabbed your old boss in the back.
Boris Johnson trashed a lot of things that are an essential part of our Democracy, such as his attempt to prorogue Parliament.
Sunak is exactly the same. With an added dash of spite.
Anyone remember during Sunak's first attempt at being leader, when he claimed he "won a scholarship" to Winchester? Only to later admit he had not?
Whatever way we look at it, the award of the "Honour" is discretionary, not mandatory.
It's no different to Christmas or Birthday presents. We may be disappointed when Auntie does not buy us a pressie, but we have zero right to complain.
But that is not what has happened here.
An Uncle has given us a present. Something we have wanted for years. And it has been taken away by the family. Just because they don't like the creepy Uncle.
Think Holac is part of the fabric of British life? Think again.
Officially created in 2005. First move was to dispute their power with Tony Blair. Meaning that Blair and Brown declined to have a Resignation Honours List.
Only actually started in the job in 2016, with Cameron's Resignation Honours List.
Total Lists scrutinised prior to Boris? 2. Cameron/May.
Applications reviewed, prior to Boris? 35. Number approved? 35/35. 16/16 Cameron/19/19 May.
Boris list? 15. Number accepted/refused? 7 ok'd/8 refused. No reasons given, to the public or those refused
This came up on the weekend. Gordon Brown had a Dissolution Honours list.
The shadows over the system have caused some to shudder away from honours. In 2010, Gordon Brown evaded a formal resignation list in the wake of the police investigation over some of the honours distributed by his predecessor, Tony Blair. Instead, the retiring Labour leader advised on a dissolution honours list. However, Keith Hill, who was standing down after 18 years in parliament and service in a variety of government roles, including junior minister and whip, firmly turned down a knighthood. He told his local paper, the Streatham Guardian: “My fundamental reason is that I have never had the least desire to have a title. I don’t want to be discourteous, but I find the whole idea a little embarrassing and too much for me.”
I saw the interview. I am not keen on the House of Lords, it is long overdue for reform. The Honours system could also do with some.
Olivia Utley made the point about one of the people on the Boris list. From intern to Baroness in 6 years. I think it was a little more than 6 years actually.
My view is that nothing like that should ever happen. Its b0ll0cks.
There is a woman that collects money in a bucket around my local pubs. She does it 3 or 4 nights per week, every week. She is now 80, and still at it. She has collected over £1.5million for various charities, in the 60 years she has been doing it for. To be fair she got an MBE a couple of years ago. That is the sort of person I like to see receiving Honours. Or people that have put a lifetime into Parliament, or Public Service. Not 29 year olds, that have only worked for 5 minutes. Or the PMs Dad, or Brother, or both.
Here's a simple reform.
It is a previous PM's Honours List. Not (like many others) a sitting PM's List.
Why does Holac report to the current PM? It's not his list. And he does not have a Mandate to control the House of Lords.
The simple answer is that, where it is a previous PM's Honours List, Holac should liaise directly with that previous PM. Not someone different, with a different political agenda. Because then, if Holac perceive that there are hurdles in the way of granting approval, they go to the previous PM. And records can show that everything is above board.
Whereas, at present, we have a PM who is denying that it is him who has blocked these appointments. Which is not true-Holac makes recommendations, no more than that. They report to the PM, and it is his decision.
And there can be no allegations that a sitting PM deliberately hid the potential hurdles from a previous PM for his own personal reasons. When it is not his Resignation Honours List.
Dorries has now delayed her resignation.
She is going to resign when it suits her. Not when it suits the Conservative Party.
I expect there will be timed resignations to cause maximum harm to the Party, right up to the time they finally admit defeat and call a General Election.
Then the fun begins. Who on earth is going to be the next leader of the Nasty Party?
All this over an "Honour" she feels entitled to. The sheer vanity astonishes.
I really dont like the woman, but to be fair, she was promised a Peerage. I guess she is now aware of what a promise from Boris is really worth. The Tories wanted to hold the 3 by-elections on the same day. It will now be 2 on the same day, and the other on a different day. I am not sure this will make a massive difference. She had the biggest majority of the three. I think I would have far less respect for Sunak, if he had gone along with the Boris rule bending. Its a shame she has lost out. Blame Boris.
I can't stand the woman. It's the principle that is important.
Some unelected people on a Committee, who have all been given Peerages, decree that an elected person is not to be allowed to be ennobled. There has been a 9-month time lag between the list and the decision.
And if Sunak or Holac had explained what they considered to be the necessary steps in those 9 months, where's the proof?
This is not the fault of Boris. Unless you consider that his previous treatment of others means it is open season on anyone who was loyal to him?
Think Holac is part of the fabric of British life? Think again.
Officially created in 2005. First move was to dispute their power with Tony Blair. Meaning that Blair and Brown declined to have a Resignation Honours List.
Only actually started in the job in 2016, with Cameron's Resignation Honours List.
Total Lists scrutinised prior to Boris? 2. Cameron/May.
Applications reviewed, prior to Boris? 35. Number approved? 35/35. 16/16 Cameron/19/19 May.
Boris list? 15. Number accepted/refused? 7 ok'd/8 refused. No reasons given, to the public or those refused
This came up on the weekend. Gordon Brown had a Dissolution Honours list.
The shadows over the system have caused some to shudder away from honours. In 2010, Gordon Brown evaded a formal resignation list in the wake of the police investigation over some of the honours distributed by his predecessor, Tony Blair. Instead, the retiring Labour leader advised on a dissolution honours list. However, Keith Hill, who was standing down after 18 years in parliament and service in a variety of government roles, including junior minister and whip, firmly turned down a knighthood. He told his local paper, the Streatham Guardian: “My fundamental reason is that I have never had the least desire to have a title. I don’t want to be discourteous, but I find the whole idea a little embarrassing and too much for me.”
I saw the interview. I am not keen on the House of Lords, it is long overdue for reform. The Honours system could also do with some.
Olivia Utley made the point about one of the people on the Boris list. From intern to Baroness in 6 years. I think it was a little more than 6 years actually.
My view is that nothing like that should ever happen. Its b0ll0cks.
There is a woman that collects money in a bucket around my local pubs. She does it 3 or 4 nights per week, every week. She is now 80, and still at it. She has collected over £1.5million for various charities, in the 60 years she has been doing it for. To be fair she got an MBE a couple of years ago. That is the sort of person I like to see receiving Honours. Or people that have put a lifetime into Parliament, or Public Service. Not 29 year olds, that have only worked for 5 minutes. Or the PMs Dad, or Brother, or both.
Here's a simple reform.
It is a previous PM's Honours List. Not (like many others) a sitting PM's List.
Why does Holac report to the current PM? It's not his list. And he does not have a Mandate to control the House of Lords.
The simple answer is that, where it is a previous PM's Honours List, Holac should liaise directly with that previous PM. Not someone different, with a different political agenda. Because then, if Holac perceive that there are hurdles in the way of granting approval, they go to the previous PM. And records can show that everything is above board.
Whereas, at present, we have a PM who is denying that it is him who has blocked these appointments. Which is not true-Holac makes recommendations, no more than that. They report to the PM, and it is his decision.
And there can be no allegations that a sitting PM deliberately hid the potential hurdles from a previous PM for his own personal reasons. When it is not his Resignation Honours List.
I am not sure that we would have ended up with a different result. I think that a moderately intelligent person, would familiarise themselves with the rules, and not trust proven liars. I think HOLAC should have the final say. I dont see any point in having HOLAC, if a PM can overrule them. I dont think that rules should be constantly bent, or broken. Maybe a PM should have to justify an award. Just being a donor should not qualify. Cronies shouldnt qualify, for just being cronies. A PMs family shouldnt qualify.
So I think that there should be more rules on who does, and doesnt qualify. HOLAC shouldnt be overruled.
That's a pretty big wish list.
The first thing to say is-of course we would have ended up with a different result. Taking Dorries as the obvious example-either Boris would have given her a Damehood instead, or she would have chosen to resign. You ignore the fact that Boris-a proven liar-has clearly trusted the word of Rishi Sunak-another proven liar.
I dont know why you keep saying this stuff. Dorries maintains she knew the rules. Boris could have initially given her a Damehood, but he didnt. She knew she had to resign. The meeting between Boris and Sunak was 6 months too late. Boris was updated by the Cabinet Office, 4 months before the meeting with Sunak. She foolishly trusted Boris.
You keep referring to "familiarise themselves with the rules". There were no rules. Simply because no sitting MP has been awarded a Peerage in this way. Show me where Holac pronounced the need for an MP's timetable to resign before refusing recommendations. Show me the leak to the papers about the right process before. Because I am seeing plenty of deliberate leaks afterwards.
No I dont. I have used that phrase once. This is when I suggested that the least that someone included on an Honours List could do, would be to familiarise themselves with the rules. Common sense, even for Dorries. How on earth can you say there were no rules? Dorries and Boris both maintain that they were aware of the rules. Do you think they are both lying about this, as well. The HOLAC rules are clear. They are unable to approve Peerages for sitting MPs if we are more than 6 months away from a general election, unless the MP makes a public statement of their intention to resign within 6 months. That is very clear, and is one sentence. So when Boris, and Dorries both stated they were aware of the rules, what do you think they meant?
A PM can overrule Holac. As Boris has done previously. Who should have any final say is, IMHO, less important than the fact that the decision should be transparent. Both as to why someone gets an Award. And why one is denied. Unless the person chooses anonymity. Incidentally, the reason for approval is always expressly mentioned.
Agreed that a PM should have to justify an award-but, similarly, there needs to be transparency in relation to refusal.
Just being a donor? Totally agree. Although there is a long history of politicians doing exactly that.
Cronies? Only if genuinely given public service. Like at least 3 of the refusals.
Family members? Should be judged like anyone else. So-for example-absolutely nothing wrong with the award to his Brother. Massive problems in relation to his Father.
How a call from The Times triggered turmoil for Tories By Steven Swinford, the reporter who informed Nadine Dorries that she had missed out on her peerage after all
The immediate events that precipitated Boris Johnson’s resignation as a Tory MP last week began with a phone call from The Times.
On Thursday evening this newspaper told Nadine Dorries, the former culture secretary, that her name was not on Johnson’s resignation honours list, which was due to be published the following day.
It was the first that Dorries had heard of it and her initial reaction was one of disbelief.
“I was totally stunned,” she said yesterday. “I thought that it was mischief-making from within No 10 in the last few minutes, that it was someone trying to cause trouble with a story that would discredit me.
“I spoke to Boris. He was in Egypt. He said it’s absolute ****, it’s not true. He said I’ve had assurances from Sunak, he wouldn’t lie to me.”
The genesis of last week’s events lies in the dying days of Johnson’s premiership when he began to consider his resignation honours list. Soon after he quit he discussed the matter with Simon Case, the cabinet secretary, who came up with an “elegant solution” regarding giving peerages to sitting MPs.
Under the plans those MPs would be conferred delayed peerages, which they would take up after the next general election. Dorries said Case spoke to her about the plan last autumn. She claimed: “He said there is a plan, we can have an asterisked system. There is precedent. We put an asterisk to your name that says holding until after the election. He said ‘I think that plan will work’.”
A source close to Case said it was untrue that he was behind the idea. The insider said the cabinet secretary had been asked if senior politicians could use the “model of deferred peerages”. He said it was a matter for the House of Lords Appointments Committee (Holac), which vets peerages.
Holac concluded that it would be constitutionally improper for an MP to stay on with a promise of a peerage. It advised that the delineation between the houses should be respected.
The committee later disclosed that it had advised against eight of Johnson’s nominations. They are understood to include the Tory MPs as well as David Ross, the co-founder of Carphone Warehouse, Stuart Marks, a former Tory treasurer, and Gerard Lyons, who advised Johnson in City Hall. The reason for the decisions was unclear.
The honours list was submitted to the Cabinet Office in February, shorn of those nominations. The political ramifications were explosive.
Johnson and his allies claim they repeatedly sought reassurances from the government but none were given. “No 10 deliberately withheld information,” Dorries said. “Nobody in No 10 spoke to me, Alok Sharma or Nigel Adams. We heard nothing. Something went seriously wrong in No 10.”
A Downing Street source said Johnson was aware the names had been removed. The insider said it was a “confidential process which must be free from outside influence” and the MPs would not have been informed.
When reports of Holac’s decision emerged last month, Dorries said she was reassured by a cabinet minister that she would not need to stand down as an MP to take a peerage. The minister suggested Case was working on an accommodation and their names would be on the list.
Johnson, however, was concerned enough to press James Forsyth, Sunak’s political secretary, for a meeting with the prime minister in his office more than a week ago. What was said in that 45-minute meeting remains a source of contention. Johnson claims he came to a “gentleman’s agreement” with Sunak that he would call off hostilities in return for his resignation honours list being waved through. He says that Sunak assured him the list he submitted, including the nominations for peerages, would be honoured. The MPs would be “re-vetted” by Holac and get their peerages at a later date and standing down. “It wasn’t a big deal in the meeting,” an ally of Johnson said. “The message from Sunak was ‘don’t worry, I will put your list through intact’.”
That Times article seems entirely plausible. The bits that particularly interest me are:-
1. Note how the other rejected people are now being leaked-David Ross, Stuart Marks, Gerard Lyons. While reasons for rejection are not. The worst of both worlds-rejection, public shaming, no reason given 2. Is it not ridiculous that, 9 months after a list is made known, it is left to a newspaper to inform Dorries that she is not on the list? 3. The "I will put your list through intact." There is the sophistry. Sunak has made no changes to the approved list he has received. What he has not told Boris is that he has scratched 8 names off the "not approved" list.
Boris is not a very good liar. When he is lying, there tends to be a lot of bluster, a lot of harrumphing, and next to no facts.
Compare/contrast 2 things Boris has said. The "simple to re-vet" bit. Does not sound true. Whereas his meeting, his offer to stop making waves in return for his Honours List being approved-that all looks very true. As is the fact that Boris genuinely thought Sunak would not lie to him.
That Times article seems entirely plausible. The bits that particularly interest me are:-
1. Note how the other rejected people are now being leaked-David Ross, Stuart Marks, Gerard Lyons. While reasons for rejection are not. The worst of both worlds-rejection, public shaming, no reason given 2. Is it not ridiculous that, 9 months after a list is made known, it is left to a newspaper to inform Dorries that she is not on the list? 3. The "I will put your list through intact." There is the sophistry. Sunak has made no changes to the approved list he has received. What he has not told Boris is that he has scratched 8 names off the "not approved" list.
Boris is not a very good liar. When he is lying, there tends to be a lot of bluster, a lot of harrumphing, and next to no facts.
Compare/contrast 2 things Boris has said. The "simple to re-vet" bit. Does not sound true. Whereas his meeting, his offer to stop making waves in return for his Honours List being approved-that all looks very true. As is the fact that Boris genuinely thought Sunak would not lie to him.
Yes Simon Case came up with the well known asterisk plan. Two problems. Simon Case denies this. HOLAC have no knowledge of the plan.
Comments
A few proverbial dead cats..
I have no real interest in the history of HOLAC, or what Lloyd-George had for breakfast.
The following is what seems to be important to me rather than the above.
Lets just concentrate on Boris and Dories.
Boris published his Honours list last July, just prior to his resignation.
Both of them have clearly stated that they knew the rules.
So Dorries then understood that she had to make a public statement confirming that she intended resigning within 6 months.
Had she done that, she would have been heading for the House of Lords, without any problem.
None of us can be sure of what happened next.
Maybe she didnt want to lose her MP salary.
Maybe Boris didnt want to admit to Sunak that he had created at least 3 by-elections.
What seems obvious is that she didnt want to resign, and wished to continue as an MP, until the next general election.
Dorries was very keen on getting a peerage, and rightly so, I dont like the woman, but what has happened is extremely unfair.
This is why my best bet on her reason for not resigning, was because she was given assurances by Boris.
Clearly, assurances that he wasnt able to keep.
The deadline for her resignation, was early January.
This deadline had passed by the time Boris received an update on the list from the Cabinet Office in February.
So we must assume that she had been removed from the list, by the time he received the upgrade.
We cant be sure of what happened between the update in February, and the Sunak meeting.
An honest man would have made some time for this during the 3 or 4 months in between
Maybe Boris was too busy, jetting around the world, making millions from his speeches.
When he met Sunak it was too late.
The resignation deadline had passed almost 6 months before.
So the only option left open to Boris, was some rule bending.
It seems that neither HOLAC, nor Sunak were up for this.
So Boris came unstuck, and Dories lost out.
I am also at a loss as to why Boris or Dorries would think that Sunak would do either of them any favours.
What goes around comes around as they say in Politics.
Boris has blamed him for his downfall, and regularly accuses Sunak of stabbing him in the back, it was only the other day when he was trying to muster support to vote against the Windsor Framework.
Dorries has a pop at him at every opportunity.
I am not keen on the House of Lords, it is long overdue for reform.
The Honours system could also do with some.
Olivia Utley made the point about one of the people on the Boris list.
From intern to Baroness in 6 years.
I think it was a little more than 6 years actually.
My view is that nothing like that should ever happen.
Its b0ll0cks.
There is a woman that collects money in a bucket around my local pubs.
She does it 3 or 4 nights per week, every week.
She is now 80, and still at it.
She has collected over £1.5million for various charities, in the 60 years she has been doing it for.
To be fair she got an MBE a couple of years ago.
That is the sort of person I like to see receiving Honours.
Or people that have put a lifetime into Parliament, or Public Service.
Not 29 year olds, that have only worked for 5 minutes.
Or the PMs Dad, or Brother, or both.
It is a previous PM's Honours List. Not (like many others) a sitting PM's List.
Why does Holac report to the current PM? It's not his list. And he does not have a Mandate to control the House of Lords.
The simple answer is that, where it is a previous PM's Honours List, Holac should liaise directly with that previous PM. Not someone different, with a different political agenda. Because then, if Holac perceive that there are hurdles in the way of granting approval, they go to the previous PM. And records can show that everything is above board.
Whereas, at present, we have a PM who is denying that it is him who has blocked these appointments. Which is not true-Holac makes recommendations, no more than that. They report to the PM, and it is his decision.
And there can be no allegations that a sitting PM deliberately hid the potential hurdles from a previous PM for his own personal reasons. When it is not his Resignation Honours List.
I think that a moderately intelligent person, would familiarise themselves with the rules, and not trust proven liars.
I think HOLAC should have the final say.
I dont see any point in having HOLAC, if a PM can overrule them.
I dont think that rules should be constantly bent, or broken.
Maybe a PM should have to justify an award.
Just being a donor should not qualify.
Cronies shouldnt qualify, for just being cronies.
A PMs family shouldnt qualify.
So I think that there should be more rules on who does, and doesnt qualify.
HOLAC shouldnt be overruled.
The first thing to say is-of course we would have ended up with a different result. Taking Dorries as the obvious example-either Boris would have given her a Damehood instead, or she would have chosen to resign. You ignore the fact that Boris-a proven liar-has clearly trusted the word of Rishi Sunak-another proven liar.
You keep referring to "familiarise themselves with the rules". There were no rules. Simply because no sitting MP has been awarded a Peerage in this way. Show me where Holac pronounced the need for an MP's timetable to resign before refusing recommendations. Show me the leak to the papers about the right process before. Because I am seeing plenty of deliberate leaks afterwards.
A PM can overrule Holac. As Boris has done previously. Who should have any final say is, IMHO, less important than the fact that the decision should be transparent. Both as to why someone gets an Award. And why one is denied. Unless the person chooses anonymity. Incidentally, the reason for approval is always expressly mentioned.
Agreed that a PM should have to justify an award-but, similarly, there needs to be transparency in relation to refusal.
Just being a donor? Totally agree. Although there is a long history of politicians doing exactly that.
Cronies? Only if genuinely given public service. Like at least 3 of the refusals.
Family members? Should be judged like anyone else. So-for example-absolutely nothing wrong with the award to his Brother. Massive problems in relation to his Father.
I expect there will be timed resignations to cause maximum harm to the Party, right up to the time they finally admit defeat and call a General Election.
Then the fun begins. Who on earth is going to be the next leader of the Nasty Party?
This is the Parliamentary equivalent of a Gold watch for loyal service.
Except the new MD has inscribed "everyone hates you" on the watch. And removed the gold.
It's not vanity. It is being stabbed in the back by the person who stabbed your old boss in the back.
Boris Johnson trashed a lot of things that are an essential part of our Democracy, such as his attempt to prorogue Parliament.
Sunak is exactly the same. With an added dash of spite.
Anyone remember during Sunak's first attempt at being leader, when he claimed he "won a scholarship" to Winchester? Only to later admit he had not?
Whatever way we look at it, the award of the "Honour" is discretionary, not mandatory.
It's no different to Christmas or Birthday presents. We may be disappointed when Auntie does not buy us a pressie, but we have zero right to complain.
I guess she is now aware of what a promise from Boris is really worth.
The Tories wanted to hold the 3 by-elections on the same day.
It will now be 2 on the same day, and the other on a different day.
I am not sure this will make a massive difference.
She had the biggest majority of the three.
I think I would have far less respect for Sunak, if he had gone along with the Boris rule bending.
Its a shame she has lost out.
Blame Boris.
I would say definitely, no. But I've said that before. He's made people look like an idiot before
The thing is, there is no person on the Tories at present who looks even vaguely like a unity candidate. Perhaps being humiliated at by-elections, and (more importantly) a General Election will concentrate the mind.
They are all too busy trying to prove who is in charge-meanwhile, nothing gets done in relation to the massive problems faced by this country.
An Uncle has given us a present. Something we have wanted for years. And it has been taken away by the family. Just because they don't like the creepy Uncle.
Some unelected people on a Committee, who have all been given Peerages, decree that an elected person is not to be allowed to be ennobled. There has been a 9-month time lag between the list and the decision.
And if Sunak or Holac had explained what they considered to be the necessary steps in those 9 months, where's the proof?
This is not the fault of Boris. Unless you consider that his previous treatment of others means it is open season on anyone who was loyal to him?
He made a promise. And others took it away.
How a call from The Times triggered turmoil for Tories
By Steven Swinford, the reporter who informed Nadine Dorries that she had missed out on her peerage after all
The immediate events that precipitated Boris Johnson’s resignation as a Tory MP last week began with a phone call from The Times.
On Thursday evening this newspaper told Nadine Dorries, the former culture secretary, that her name was not on Johnson’s resignation honours list, which was due to be published the following day.
It was the first that Dorries had heard of it and her initial reaction was one of disbelief.
“I was totally stunned,” she said yesterday. “I thought that it was mischief-making from within No 10 in the last few minutes, that it was someone trying to cause trouble with a story that would discredit me.
“I spoke to Boris. He was in Egypt. He said it’s absolute ****, it’s not true. He said I’ve had assurances from Sunak, he wouldn’t lie to me.”
The genesis of last week’s events lies in the dying days of Johnson’s premiership when he began to consider his resignation honours list. Soon after he quit he discussed the matter with Simon Case, the cabinet secretary, who came up with an “elegant solution” regarding giving peerages to sitting MPs.
Under the plans those MPs would be conferred delayed peerages, which they would take up after the next general election. Dorries said Case spoke to her about the plan last autumn. She claimed: “He said there is a plan, we can have an asterisked system. There is precedent. We put an asterisk to your name that says holding until after the election. He said ‘I think that plan will work’.”
A source close to Case said it was untrue that he was behind the idea. The insider said the cabinet secretary had been asked if senior politicians could use the “model of deferred peerages”. He said it was a matter for the House of Lords Appointments Committee (Holac), which vets peerages.
Holac concluded that it would be constitutionally improper for an MP to stay on with a promise of a peerage. It advised that the delineation between the houses should be respected.
The committee later disclosed that it had advised against eight of Johnson’s nominations. They are understood to include the Tory MPs as well as David Ross, the co-founder of Carphone Warehouse, Stuart Marks, a former Tory treasurer, and Gerard Lyons, who advised Johnson in City Hall. The reason for the decisions was unclear.
The honours list was submitted to the Cabinet Office in February, shorn of those nominations. The political ramifications were explosive.
Johnson and his allies claim they repeatedly sought reassurances from the government but none were given. “No 10 deliberately withheld information,” Dorries said. “Nobody in No 10 spoke to me, Alok Sharma or Nigel Adams. We heard nothing. Something went seriously wrong in No 10.”
A Downing Street source said Johnson was aware the names had been removed. The insider said it was a “confidential process which must be free from outside influence” and the MPs would not have been informed.
When reports of Holac’s decision emerged last month, Dorries said she was reassured by a cabinet minister that she would not need to stand down as an MP to take a peerage. The minister suggested Case was working on an accommodation and their names would be on the list.
Johnson, however, was concerned enough to press James Forsyth, Sunak’s political secretary, for a meeting with the prime minister in his office more than a week ago. What was said in that 45-minute meeting remains a source of contention. Johnson claims he came to a “gentleman’s agreement” with Sunak that he would call off hostilities in return for his resignation honours list being waved through. He says that Sunak assured him the list he submitted, including the nominations for peerages, would be honoured. The MPs would be “re-vetted” by Holac and get their peerages at a later date and standing down. “It wasn’t a big deal in the meeting,” an ally of Johnson said. “The message from Sunak was ‘don’t worry, I will put your list through intact’.”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d1f33b82-089d-11ee-997e-7710367054a0?shareToken=ee3ca307dc455ccf91f9d11490a9561b
1. Note how the other rejected people are now being leaked-David Ross, Stuart Marks, Gerard Lyons. While reasons for rejection are not. The worst of both worlds-rejection, public shaming, no reason given
2. Is it not ridiculous that, 9 months after a list is made known, it is left to a newspaper to inform Dorries that she is not on the list?
3. The "I will put your list through intact." There is the sophistry. Sunak has made no changes to the approved list he has received. What he has not told Boris is that he has scratched 8 names off the "not approved" list.
Boris is not a very good liar. When he is lying, there tends to be a lot of bluster, a lot of harrumphing, and next to no facts.
Compare/contrast 2 things Boris has said. The "simple to re-vet" bit. Does not sound true. Whereas his meeting, his offer to stop making waves in return for his Honours List being approved-that all looks very true. As is the fact that Boris genuinely thought Sunak would not lie to him.
Two problems.
Simon Case denies this.
HOLAC have no knowledge of the plan.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/rishi-sunak-attacks-nadine-dorries-122056436.html