This week’s quiz questions. To add to the competitiveness, only the first reader to respond with the correct answers will be a prize winner. We already have one grand prize winner – Chris K. – who will be coming to tea at the Lords in October. Let’s see if we are about to have another reader who wins three of the quizzes.
Question 1
1. I was a Cabinet minister in the Thatcher Government.
2. My son is an MP and his wife is something of a political personality in her own right.
3. In the 2001 Conservative leadership contest, my son was a leading campaigner for Iain Duncan Smith; his wife supported Michael Portillo.
Who am I?
Question 2
1. I am a former politics lecturer and television presenter and producer.
2. I sat as an MP for a total of nineteen years.
3. I had a prominent role as a PPS in the Commons.
4. I served on the Government Front Bench in the Lords from 2001 to 2008.
Who am I?
1. Lord Jenkin of Roding (father of Bernard Jenkin MP)
2. Lord Grocott
Dear Lord Norton,
Peer One is Lord Jenkin of Roding.
Peer Two is Lord Grocott.
Howridiculous.
Question 3..
http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2009/09/baroness-scotland-faces-questions-on.html
What planet are these people living on ?
When will Baroness Scotland be paying her fine and resigning her job?
I suspect it may have been the first question that stumped a number of regular contributors. Congratulations to Jonathan and howridiculous for getting the correct answer to each question. Especial congratulations to Jonathan, who has now won three out of the past five quizzes and thus joins Chris K. as a grand prize winner. I will be in touch to arrange tea at the Lords.
Bedd Gelert and fidothedog: The complaints made against Baroness Scotland are not, as far as I am aware, related to her position as a peer, but rather relate to her position as a minister. Any allegations made against peers in respect of expenses claimed can be investigated by the House authorities or indeed by the police. The Senior Salaries Review Body will be reporting soon with recommendations on expenses. As I have made clear, I favour a single allowance, which ensures transparency and prevents the prospect of some allowances being incorrectly claimed. See my previous posts on the subject as well as my letter in The Times on 12 August. An alternative to a single allowance would be a choice of a single allowance (regardless of where one lives) or a lesser daily allowance plus hotel accommodation (paid directly by the Lords) for peers who do not have a home in London.
I was out for the weekend, #2 was guessable but I think #1 would have been a few cups of tea worth of time and head scratching to unpick. So well done to Jonathan & howridiculous
Presumably Baroness Scotland was involved in the scrutiny of this law, with her peer’s bonnet on, though? She is also under fire for claiming allowances
“…that she is entitled to…which is paid automatically to her by the department rather than being claimed as an expense, as legislation does not specify where the peer should live to qualify.” (The Telegraph, 20 Sept 09)
Automatically?
Her admission that she did nothing more than break the law is not grounds for sacking her in itself; it’s nigh on impossible to sack someone for something so trivial.
One of the problems shown in her case is discussed here: http://thelawwestofealingbroadway.blogspot.com/2009/09/scotland-0-home-office-5000.html (aka The Magistrate’s Blog)
and another is the flat fine, leading to employers in the smallest businesses pay proportionately more for the same misdemeanours. It is demonstrably unfair that an employer such as Tesco, with all its resources and in-house legal team, should pay similar fines to an employer of, say, a housekeeper.
Well her real problem is going to be the Bar Council.
Baristers have been struck off for smaller misdeanours. A 5,000 pound fine is far from small.
If she has not got a license to practice, she is out of a job because she can’t perform it.
The defense that the law is complex can’t apply in her case, she was instrumental in writting it.
However, I suspect that the bar council will delay proceedings until Labour is kicked out. That deals with an Attorney General who can’t practice.
There then is the question of her being a barrister who can’t practice.
Nick