House of lords

chabal said:
No - it is largely ineffectual.

We need a second chamber, elected via PR.
Click to expand...
Then the Tories would never pass anything when elected.

Which is why you’d be a fan I suppose.

Better to get rid entirely and have one chamber.
 
blue cigar said:
Its reported this morning that Lord Hiskill and Viscount Thurso have claimed over 43k and 32k despite not making one speech, asking one question and not sitting on any committees for over 12 months.
Obviously within the rules but morally dubious to say the least. I am sure there are many more but how can this happen when we are being told that austerity is needed?
Is it time to reform or abolish the house or should tradition be honoured and we leave things as they are?
Click to expand...

You seem to be a little preoccupied about expenses claims.

What were these claims for exactly? If they were for genuine expenses incurred, then I really do not see what the problem is. The House of Lords exists as a moderating body and people are appointed to it for a variety of reasons. Being required to give speeches or table questions is not a requirement on the job spec and it would therefore be wrong to criticise people for not doing this. So long as they turn up some of the time, listen to the debates and vote, then what's the problem?

Unless you think everyone in the UK should be £29,965 per year full stop, irrespective of age, experience, qualifications or anything else. Which might seem to be where you are headed with your earlier complaining about 97p expense claimed for harpic or whatever it was.
 
smudgedj said:
Disband it. Or revert back to the 90 (or whatever it was) hereditary peers if you really must have a second house.
Click to expand...
I think you mean revert to the 90...

Sorry to be an arse, it's just "revert back" is a particular annoyance of mine ;-)
 
Makes sense to have some sense checking on government activity. I'd have it like jury duty though where you get paid the Lords expenses to go and do the job for a 4 week rotation. Ensures that the country is reasonably equally represented.
 
blue cigar said:
Its reported this morning that Lord Hiskill and Viscount Thurso have claimed over 43k and 32k despite not making one speech, asking one question and not sitting on any committees for over 12 months.
Obviously within the rules but morally dubious to say the least. I am sure there are many more but how can this happen when we are being told that austerity is needed?
Is it time to reform or abolish the house or should tradition be honoured and we leave things as they are?
Click to expand...

They were perfectly aware of the need for austerity, that's why the fine upstanding aristos didn't claim even more!
 
Chippy_boy said:
You seem to be a little preoccupied about expenses claims.

What were these claims for exactly? If they were for genuine expenses incurred, then I really do not see what the problem is. The House of Lords exists as a moderating body and people are appointed to it for a variety of reasons. Being required to give speeches or table questions is not a requirement on the job spec and it would therefore be wrong to criticise people for not doing this. So long as they turn up some of the time, listen to the debates and vote, then what's the problem?

Unless you think everyone in the UK should be £29,965 per year full stop, irrespective of age, experience, qualifications or anything else. Which might seem to be where you are headed with your earlier complaining about 97p expense claimed for harpic or whatever it was.
Click to expand...
The headline article stated they have contributed precisely nothing aside from attending..they are of course then allowed to claim a daily attendance allowance and all expenses. Would be nice to be paid when you feel like turning up, paid your accomodation and travel, use a subsidised restaurant and do the square root of fuck all workwise. This is why i question the current system and if it is still fit for purpose, a fair question? Im sure if the article is untrue then the viscount and the lord will sue.
 
Dave Ewing's Back 'eader said:
They were perfectly aware of the need for austerity, that's why the fine upstanding aristos didn't claim even more!
Click to expand...
The greedy fuckers probably claimed up to the max. Still, so long as they turn up and vote now n then thats fine according to some muppets. Austerity? What the devil is that old boy...
 
This isn't entirely true.
Thurso has voted an average once a week (obviously these are in clusters rather than literally 1 a week), and presumably much of the expenses is travel. Don't know about committees, as that is applied to Kirkhill (who I assume is meant by Hiskill).
Kirkhill is the other, and is 85. He says he's intervened on some matters, but doesn't speak due to his age. Travel will again be a large amount of the costs, I assume.

The £300 daily allowance includes accommodation payment but not travel.
 
blue cigar said:
The headline article stated they have contributed precisely nothing aside from attending..they are of course then allowed to claim a daily attendance allowance and all expenses. Would be nice to be paid when you feel like turning up, paid your accomodation and travel, use a subsidised restaurant and do the square root of fuck all workwise. This is why i question the current system and if it is still fit for purpose, a fair question? Im sure if the article is untrue then the viscount and the lord will sue.
Click to expand...
You do not have to table motions or even speak in order to contribute. The debates do result in votes you know. People listen, make up their minds and vote. That is contributing.
 
Chippy_boy said:
You do not have to table motions or even speak in order to contribute. The debates do result in votes you know. People listen, make up their minds and vote. That is contributing.
Click to expand...
All voting records are in the public domain and in the case of the good lord and the viscount they are also pretty woeful! Some would say contributing, others would say stealing a living. Turn up when you like and just sit there, nice work if you can get it.
 
blue cigar said:
nice work if you can get it.
Click to expand...

Indeed, and I don't resent anyone for that.

Had the bloke been in some way synonymous with very hard work or made a play for a peerage based on some commitments he'd made and which he isn't doing, then maybe you'd have a point.

But as it stands, he's been made a peer, he follows the rules and takes his money. I wish I was so lucky, but I can hardly "blame" him for being lucky.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
This isn't entirely true.
Thurso has voted an average once a week (obviously these are in clusters rather than literally 1 a week), and presumably much of the expenses is travel. Don't know about committees, as that is applied to Kirkhill (who I assume is meant by Hiskill).
Kirkhill is the other, and is 85. He says he's intervened on some matters, but doesn't speak due to his age. Travel will again be a large amount of the costs, I assume.

The £300 daily allowance includes accommodation payment but not travel.
Click to expand...
The £300 per day is also tax free.
It seems there is about to be reform and that more scrutiny will be applied to the activities of the lords (about time). A practice known as gaming (turning up for a short time so you can claim the £300) will be reviewed following a media campaign to highlight this.
 
Chippy_boy said:
Indeed, and I don't resent anyone for that.

Had the bloke been in some way synonymous with very hard work or made a play for a peerage based on some commitments he'd made and which he isn't doing, then maybe you'd have a point.

But as it stands, he's been made a peer, he follows the rules and takes his money. I wish I was so lucky, but I can hardly "blame" him for being lucky.
Click to expand...
Hence the need for reform if the system is as loose as it appears?
The media have this in their sights and every lord can be scrutinised against their contributions which will surely result in changes to that system.
 
blue cigar said:
The £300 per day is also tax free.
It seems there is about to be reform and that more scrutiny will be applied to the activities of the lords (about time). A practice known as gaming (turning up for a short time so you can claim the £300) will be reviewed following a media campaign to highlight this.
Click to expand...

That's been chuntered about for a while, and if it's too lax, then tightening it makes sense.
What they don't want to do is prevent people who know what they're talking about having their say, and that's quite tricky.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
That's been chuntered about for a while, and if it's too lax, then tightening it makes sense.
What they don't want to do is prevent people who know what they're talking about having their say, and that's quite tricky.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. How to make sure we keep the ones that want to contribute? Why we have elderly people having to travel to London from places like Edinburgh, Cardiff or Newcastle is bizarre, why not have video links from such places which cuts costs and still allows them to speak or just to vote? It happens across other industries so why not politics.
 
blue cigar said:
Fair enough. How to make sure we keep the ones that want to contribute? Why we have elderly people having to travel to London from places like Edinburgh, Cardiff or Newcastle is bizarre, why not have video links from such places which cuts costs and still allows them to speak or just to vote? It happens across other industries so why not politics.
Click to expand...

Decent points.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top