2007-02-04 11:36:27 · 12 answers · asked by Jason 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
He wasn't getting paid enough?
2007-02-04 11:40:01 · answer #1 · answered by Polo 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Normally he would get both. Only three hereditary peerages have been created outside the royal family since 1964 (two to men with no sons, and an earldom to Macmillan who declined his before 1964). Earldoms are no longer the prerogative of ex-PMs and Blair will only be offered a life peerage. If he was made an earl he would not be eligible to sit in the House of Lords, as even newly-created hereditary peerages no longer grant the holders a seat in parliament. And since he expelled the hereditaries from parliament in 1999, he would look silly taking a hereditary title himself. The Order of the Garter is in the gift of the Queen. It took 20 years for Edward Heath to get his, and I hope the warmonger Blair never gets one.
2016-05-24 07:54:58 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Class Hatred is the answer. However we do need an independent reviewing chamber in Britain. It stopped the more idiotic legislation getting onto the Statute books. This check has been lost - and hence the 3,000 + prohibitions and the other draconian, contradictory and downright silly laws we have.
It also explains why the Home office is a disaster area - legislatory overload.
It allowed Blair to build his personal unaccountable power to an obscene level. Thankfully he isn't Head of State - that's one hereditory peerage he hasn't attacked.
All achieved by the scholarship boy at Fettes!
2007-02-05 10:33:48 · answer #3 · answered by LongJohns 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
To stop people who simply by accident of birth have a right to make laws, whilst we have no right to get rid of them.
Tony Blair is apparently looking for a legacy , but his most significant legacy is the reform of the House of Lords a 1000 years of undemocratic law making have been swept away - kicking a few old duffers and their 'Tim nice but dim' spawn into the long grass isn't very sexy but its certainly history making and very worthwhile
2007-02-04 21:31:44 · answer #4 · answered by Paul H 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
He drastically reduced the number of hereditary peers in the House of Lords because he knew they couldn't be bought.
2007-02-05 08:01:39 · answer #5 · answered by Beau Brummell 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
He cant sell it.
Hereditary was a right & could not be sold.
2007-02-04 12:16:28 · answer #6 · answered by ANDREW H 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
So he can sell them to the highest bidder. If they are hereditary, they are free. get me?
2007-02-04 14:04:32 · answer #7 · answered by K. Marx iii 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
He hasn't, as far as I am aware - he has just stopped them sitting in the House of Lords
2007-02-04 11:47:25 · answer #8 · answered by Martin 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
so he could sell a few to bump up the labour party finances
2007-02-04 11:42:18 · answer #9 · answered by deltagremlin 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Because people voted him into power. People like voting people into power. People don't like it when people have power that they were born with.
2007-02-04 11:47:57 · answer #10 · answered by Jamin 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋