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?
Joined: Nov 23 2009 Posts: 12749 Location: The Hamptons of East Yorkshire
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?
He wasn't interested in that cr@p. He was too busy writing himself into history fighting his Christian crusades.
He's got a new fan in Tommy Robinson now, apparently.
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?
He wasn't interested in that cr@p. He was too busy writing himself into history fighting his Christian crusades.
He's got a new fan in Tommy Robinson now, apparently.
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?
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.
Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice. Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality.
Joined: Jun 19 2002 Posts: 14970 Location: Campaigning for a deep attacking line
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.
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.
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.
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.
Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice. Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality.
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.
On the other hand, when do they do this extra work? If Patrick Mercer is available to take 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?
Someday, somewhere, today’s empires are tomorrow’s ashes.
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?
Fair point. I don't know how you could regulate the proportion of time spent but, if other work was all open for scrutiny, at least voters could see when election time comes around again.
Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice. Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality.
Joined: May 25 2002 Posts: 37704 Location: Zummerzet, where the zoider apples grow
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
The older I get, the better I was
Advice is what we seek when we already know the answer - but wish we didn't
I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full-frontal lobotomy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ kirkstaller wrote: "All DNA shows is that we have a common creator."
cod'ead wrote: "I have just snotted weissbier all over my keyboard & screen"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin." - Aneurin Bevan
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
I have worked, away from home, in Westminster, not for HMG but in very similar circumstances to MPs, travelling to London and back and staying there during the week. I wasn't allowed to buy a second home or a duck house, my expenses had to be provable as necessary to do my job, to travel to that project, or as subsistence within the limits imposed by my employer and HMRC ... and always receipted. I wasn't out of pocket, nor did I gain financially from the expenses. All of which is straightforward and above board. If I could do it, why can't MPs ?
Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice. Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality.
Leaving aside people's objection on principle to hereditary peers, I am struggling to see how the current situation or paying members of the upper house or electing them would improve on what went before. In fact, aren't people of independent means, no axes to grind, and with long British family histories much better placed to look after the interests of our nation?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 136 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
