Michelle Mone should be stripped of peerage

[nomas]

Following the announcement that Peter Mandelson has resigned his peerage under threat of it being stripped from him, why are the calls for Michelle Mone to be stripped of hers being ignored?

YANBU: Mone’s peerage to be stripped ASAP
YABU: She should be allowed to reman in the House of Lords

You've just proved yourself wrong. Nobody's views are "irrelevant" in a democracy.

Irrelevant in the scale of things.

So is yours, then.

They are if you vote for a losing candidate.

I suspect our definitions of democracy may not align. For me (as for many) democracy means more than the illusion of involvement.

Both are antiquated systems, if one can be overridden, so can another if there is will to do so.

Where did I say it wasn't ?

According to you again. Your opinion is just one opinion in a discussion. To say another's opinion is irrelevant is very narrow-minded.

Give recent history - and maybe not so recent - of peers’ dodgy behaviour, maybe it’s time for a fundamental change, then.

It did occur to me the other day that in former times, anyone passing sensitive government information to a foreign power, would be deemed a traitor, and in Tudor times would very likely be hung*, drawn and quartered.

Something perhaps for Peter Mandelson to reflect upon…

*before any pedant tells me, yes, I know it should be ‘hanged’, but that’s the usual expression, and there’s even a pub with that name not a million miles from the Tower of London.

Well my, possibly irrelevant, opinion is that it would be more usefu to discuss how things can be done in the system we have, not in the ones we may want.

And in the system we have, there is more nuance to "stripping someone of their peerage" than many people realise. Which is why the mechanism does not already exist. And will be more difficult to implement than Starmer is admitting.

The first system was not overridden. The monarch took away the titles that were in his gift. The system was not changed.

I looked around me before I said it.

Exactly! Look further!

If we are going to solve the democratic deficit in the UK, it's unlikely to be here and now.🤔

It wasn't the fact that Mandelson was photographed in his underpants that led to calls for the removal of his peerage, but that he passed confidential and financially sensitive Government information to someone (Epstein).

We were told that the removal of Andrew's title of Prince require an act of Parliament . See this Guardian article which said 'It would require an act of parliament, which the government does not intend to initiate unless requested by the palace. '

We were then told that King Charles personally took steps to strip all of Andrew’s titles, including his birth title of prince. Town and Country reported that “Until now, it has only been through an Act of Parliament that titles have been removed… The process for removing Andrew’s dukedom is unprecedented as the King used Royal Warrants to bypass the need for an Act of Parliament.”

So as I said, processes can be overridden where there is will to do so.

Why are you so adamant that this doesn't happen when it clearly does?

Why are you being like this? Just because we don't want to discuss something on your terms?

With the snide comments that you think are so clever 🙄 Do you think that we won't understand them? Or are you actually that rude?

But the system was not "overridden", just because it was misreported by journalists who don't understand it.

Just because something is "unprecedented", doesn't mean it wasn't allowed under the existing system. Which is what happened. No parliamentary act was required. AI quoting of Town and Country magazine (one of its favourite sources, that it seems to think has some legal bearing or expertise) does not make it so.

So what do you think happened? And what is your quotable source?

The King did what he was legally allowed to do. With no act of parliament to change the system necessary.

Mone is certainly someone to be dealt with in the future, once all the wrangling has been sorted. The company she's linked with didn't prove the gowns they supplied were sterilised when the legal instruction to came long after they'd filled the order and the government didn't raise concerns in a timely manner so it's not as easy as all that.

But for now, she's just a distraction from Mandelson and should be left on the back burner. I genuinely don't see the point of bringing her up, she's a non-issue in comparison. Hollow lol - if they're reading mumsnet (which they definitely are) we'll probably see Labour spokespeople banging on about her in the desperate hope it will distract from their current scandal.

Agree that Baroness Mone should lose her peerage. There should a law which at the very least covers the same grounds as would trigger a recall petition for an MP, as well as defined things such as imprisonment.

If appointed peers remain, I would require that they had not been in the Commons for a period of time too.

And here is the official, quotable source:

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/4992102

Agree entirely. I do have some sympathy as I believe she is being scapegoated for a flawed system in place during a crises. There is no comparison between her and her company, and the sleazy, treasonous actions of Mandleson.

Eh? That doesn't explain anything at all, that just announces the result.

Why can't you just accept that an unprecedented action was taken to remove Andrew's title?

I didn't deny it was unprecedented. I just pointed out that legally it did not require an act of parliament.

I specifically said that something being unprecedented does not mean it is not legal, or that it has "overridden" something.

Just because journalists all repeat themselves in getting something wrong, does not mean they are right, or that they understand the process.