That’s bad.

But I am still much more outraged about the existence of the unelected chamber of parliament itself.

I am unhappy about the Life Peers and the fact that the Hereditaries were replaced by these political non-entities.

But I am totally relaxed about the lobbyists. Why should anyone care?

Oh, we know why this has been rushed out by The G.

Because Guido is drawing attention to all those lobbyists for unions that have Commons passes.

This just demonstrates the need for better regulation of professional lobbyists. If you look at the APPC (the trade body/self-regulator for most lobbyists). Point 14 of their code of conduct says –

“Political consultants must not hold any pass conferring entitlement to access to the Palace of Westminster, to the premises of the Scottish Parliament or the National Assembly of Wales or the Northern Ireland Assembly or the Greater London Assembly or any department or agency of government.”

The trouble is that there are lobbyists who refuse to join, in particular law firms with lobbying sidelines who claim lawyer client privilege and refuse to divulge who they are working for.

It is always highly amusing that your typical tory butler troll thinks hereditary peers were not political.

If you look up how many times the Lords blocked bills on first reading, second reading,and third reading under 10 years of Thatcher,it was a fraction compared to the numerous blocks undsr blair. The hereditary peers were very political and tory to the core. That is why the tories loved the Lords.

“The trouble is that there are lobbyists who refuse to join, in particular law firms with lobbying sidelines who claim lawyer client privilege and refuse to divulge who they are working for.”

Who? I can only think of one or two law firms in the UK that have “lobbying sidelines.” Unless you’re thinking of the US?