Dally wrote:Started reading a book about the destruction of England and Blair'e new establishment this morning while away from home. One of the points was his whimsical removal of hereditary peers on the Lords without having thought through an alternative other than trying to stuff if full of politcal appointees, party donors, etc. Blow me I get the Sunday Times and as was predicted scandal, corruption, etc was alleged - and from Blait appontees too alegedly.

So, is this current over-bloated upper chamber really better? Does it really improve legislation? Does it really afford better protection to our democracy?

El Barbudo wrote:What is "whimsical" about getting rid of hereditary peers?
The scandals we are seeing are not a result of reforms, they are a result of greedy people being happy to use privilege to line their pockets... bear in mind that one of the accused is actually an elected MP.
Cameron highlighted lobbying three years ago and has done absolutely nothing about it ... and the Tories are closing ranks to try and blame the useless Clegg.
Specific and stringent rules are needed as well as equally stringent policing of those rules.
As for Lords reform, it has been stalled since the last election, indeed Cameron enthusiastically but quietly created more peers in his first year year than any PM ever (117 in one year), whilst promising to reduce the number of elected MPs !, which gives a picture of his strange idea of democracy.

Him wrote:Yep.
I'd increase the MP's salary from £65k to £100k
Cut the number of Lords from 760 to 350
Give the Lords a salary of £70k
Then stipulate an MP or Lord cannot have an income from any other source, and their and their spouse's bank accounts are open to monitoring by a Parliamentary body.
It probably would cost us more, but combined with elected Lords I think it'd be worth it.
The increase in MP's salary would cost a maximum of £22m, in reality it would be less since Ministers and Committee Chairs receive higher wages anyway
350 Lords @ £70k = £24.5m but Lords currently receive a daily allowance of £300 per day which probably costs around £10m currently.

El Barbudo wrote:I don't have a problem with them earning money from other sources, providing it's open and above board.
If an MP wants to write a book or moonlight on the tills at Asda, that's not an issue for me.
Other employment can mean a more rounded, experienced and grounded MP.
Where the problem can lie is in what the other employment entails.

Red John wrote:On the other hand, when do they do this extra work? If Patrick Mercer is taking on consultancy work for £1000 a day, when is he representing his constituents? Would anyone else be able to just not turn in one day and swan off doing a bit of paid consultancy elsewhere?

cod'ead wrote:The second chamber should be purely elected under the single transferable vote scheme. If any of the incumbents, including the Lords Spiritual want a seat, let them fight for it.

No appointed or hereditary members at all, bin the bloody lot of them.

As for an MP's claimable expenses etc. We should do a deal with one of the card providers to enable each MP to have a Westminster Credit Card to cover all allowable expenses. Then at the end of every month, each MP's statement is published on the web in full. This would result in far greater public scrutiny and we could slash the operating costs of IPSA