No, that's not a rhetorical question. But I did think it was worth taking a look at what 'Ludalan' has been getting up to since he was given a peerage and tasked with being the Government's 'Enterprise Champion. What I wanted to know was, did this appointment really require Alan's elevation to the Lords, or was that just Brown giving an old chum a little gift and stimulating an otherwise dull story?
The answer can be found in two facts. First of all, according to Public Whip, Lord Sugar has never voted in the House of Lords. He doesn't feature on this list of current peers, and the only reason for that has to be because he's never voted. And secondly, I was only able to find three instances in Hansard of Lord Sugar speaking; and one of them was his maiden speech in November 2009 - the gap between him taking his seat in July and then is explained by the massive summer recess.
No doubt Sugar would explain this away claiming, as he originally did when accepting the peerage, that his role is politically neutral and that he wasn't joining the Government. Unfortunately, the House of Lords website seems to think differently.
Inequality of power versus inequality of income
4 hours ago