450 members £300 a day each = £135,000 per day = £675,000 a week = 2.7million a month = 32.4 million per year.
if my addy ups are right.
Then we have brussels. house of commons. local counciilors and you wonder where the money goes.
popgoestheweasel: I hope you are sitting down....because we have 8oo 'Lords' at the moment, so double your figures! :o
I know 4 that have always decried the Lords, one of which called it a place for 'sons of bas**ar*s' (or something similar but meaning the same). Mandelson, Prescott and the two Kinnocks...what hypocrites. ::)
OMG. >:(
We have 650 MPs i believe, you can treble the salary with their expenses total. Even that is a small amount when you look at the amount of civil servants there are to service them.
KD; The H of L has become a den of iniquity (similar to the H of C) because of the money grabbing, expense fiddling people being put in there, by money grabbing, expense fiddling M.Ps. >:(
It may have once been a 'checks & balance' house but now it is simply a place for over the hill M.Ps and ministers to continue their snout in the trough careers. :o
Dozens of them simply 'log in', collect their £380 and go back home again.
It is an anachronism that is long overdue close scrutiny....just like Parliament (and our so called 'legal system'...but that's another story).
It needs slimming down (like Parliament) and be made accountable. Will it ever happen? Not a hope in hell. It's like Turkeys voting for Xmas. (Sorry, the season of goodwill). 8)
The H. of L. has been debased by successive governments which have ennobled their yes men and women. Cameron has created about 120 lords in 2 years. Oddly enough not one of them are members of U.K.I.P.
UKIP what a bunch of spanners that lot are wannabe poititians that no other party would entertain.
If that was the case then that would be a strong recommendation to be made a lord.
OK - been a guest, time to comment.
EU legislation - whether it becomes British law or not - is debated and voted on by the European Parliament, not the Commission. The Commission may draft legislation for consideration, but it's the parliament that passes (or not) the laws themselves. The Commission's other role is to implement the legislation. Not so very different from our own arrangement; i.e. government drafts and proposes legislation (with the help of the civil service), MPs debate and pass or reject the laws, the civil service implements thereafter. And Ministers then make a half-witted attempt to explain what they've just done...
But my point is this - we have directly elected representatives to the European Parliament. Their votes and their influence are important. If we don't interact with them and don't take them seriously, it's really our collective fault if we feel disempowered and distant from the processes in Brussels.
Well, strictly speaking I'm right that it's not the EU Commission that enact laws - it's the European Parliament. But no matter. I think you're taking the whole set of European institutions 'as a piece' - a mistake in my view, but a common enough stance. The broader point is that democracy works through a range of bodies: our own House of Lords is unelected, but we think it's an important part of our democratic system. You can add the judiciary, the media, trade unions, voluntary organisations, professional associations, lobbyists, and all manner or othMonkeyer organisations into the mix - they all form part of the matrix of democracy, even if votes are absent or peripheral. I just think you are trying to impose a very simple (simplistic?) model on how the country members of the European Union should reach agreement with each other. It's easy to take that line when in opposition, but I'm willing to bet that UKIP would change its tune quickly if they had even a sniff of responsibility.
The Liberal Democrat case: - After more than a hundred years of debates, cross-party talks, Green Papers, White Papers, Command Papers and a Royal Commission a historic Bill to reform the House of Lords has finally been introduced into Parliament.
Liberal Democrat Peers have worked tirelessly in this Parliament and over many years for the country and the party. These reforms do not challenge the work or talent of the dedicated individuals in the House of Lords, but challenge a tainted system. That is not a controversial belief, it was a promise made by all three political parties at the last election.
As Nick Clegg said: "There's a very simple principle at stake, which most people will agree with and Liberal Democrats have campaigned long and hard for; that the people who make the laws of the land should be elected by the people who have to obey the laws of the land."• The most common previous occupation for people in the House of Lords is now 'Member of Parliament'.
• As well as Britain, just fifteen countries worldwide don't elect people to the upper chamber, including Jordan, Belize, Trinidad and Tobago, and Burkino Faso. The only other country in the world where the hereditary element still exists is Lesotho.
• At the current rate of appointment the House of Lords will expand to more than 1,000 members. Only the Chinese National People's Congress is bigger.
• In location, age and gender, the system is highly unrepresentative of the UK; there are 10 times more Peers from London than the North East; four times as many members are over 90 as under 40; more than half are over 70; and men out number women more than three to one.
The House of Lords has many fine qualities that are worth preserving. We value the ability of Peers to take the long view, to provide an alternative perspective and to ensure legislation is of the highest standard. Our reforms will ensure that we keep what is good while allowing the people, not the parties, to decide who gets to act in their name.
Tim Gordon
Chief Executive, Liberal Democrats
I disagree with just about all of that.
I see this piece of legislation as producing something even worse than we now have and the reason I think that can be found in something that hasn't quite happened yet - the election of Police commissioners. It's one of those ideas that sounds reasonable enough but quickly goes pear-shaped when put into practice.
Left as a single-purpose election, I fully expect the turn-out for the Police Commissioner elections to be abysmal though we might do rather better in Hartlepool if the Mayoral referendum takes place on the same day.
The reason is simple enough in that people are being asked to vote for people they have no knowledge of - you could say the same for the European elections. In both cases, the process has been hijacked by the existing political parties nominating their own people; any independent candidates are swamped by the resources of the party machines.
In the US, for example, the elections to the second chamber have now been reduced to the role of little more than a giant opinion poll on the incumbent President and his administration. The two houses are more often than not is run on partisan lines which often renders the sitting President as politically impotent.
An elected House of Lords will no doubt go the same way. Candidates will be nominated by the existing parties in elections which will also quickly be viewed as nothing more than massive opinion polls by the media and all based on pathetically low turnouts which should embarass anyone seriously interested in democracy.
It's not the lack of elections which worries people. The elecorate is now so turned off by the antics of politicians that much of the population doesn't even bother to vote any more - the whole process has been hijacked by the established political groups only interested in promoting their own position and influence.
The offer for us all to have to suffer yet more of this corrupt process will not engage anyone. `
One thing the HOL currently provides is the ability to appoint people who bring expertise to the process. That's not going to happen if things are changed to where the political parties nominate candidates for election. The HOC is gradually filling up with Oxbridge graduates who follow the graduate/political researcher/candidate route and who have no experience of the real world whatsoever.
Quote from: kipperdip on July 07, 2012, 11: PM
The laws are made by the European Commission - a wholly UNACCOUNTABLE, UNDEMOCRATIC body that can not receive any sanction from any electorate.
Now slightly reworded:
The laws are made by the House Of Lords- a wholly UNACCOUNTABLE, UNDEMOCRATIC body that can not receive any sanction from any electorateStill better our superior WASP 'British ' system than all that 'tanned Deigo' malarkey eh?
Quote from: kipperdip on July 07, 2012, 11: PM
However, the LD case falls apart when you consider that the Liberal Democrats are joined at the hip to the EU and owe them their first and only allegiance.
What a load of garbage. the Liberal Democrats first allegiance is to the British people, if that means supporting the UK's largest market so be it
I think Perseus has a point KD. The thread is entitled 'House of Lords' and listening to the news this morning there would seem to be enought to talk about on that subject without drifting into the EU.
Beginning to think KD is off his rocker -
How can anyone think that reforming the House of Lords is part of the Liberal Democrats "ongoing objective of destroying our constitutional democracy" when reform was a promise made by all three political parties at the last election.
KD, you are like a mad dog with a bone, I for one and I bet everyone on this site is sick to death of hearing about your views on the EU on 'Local Issues and Matters'
I agree with KD point on the Lib Dems having two points of view, on the same principle.
They want the H of L to be accountable to the electors of the UK but are quite content to let the unelected EU produce 3/4 of the laws we HAVE TO FOLLOW. :(
Should it be in this 'local issues' aspect? Well, every law the EU dictates has an effect on us here in Hartlepool, one way or another. :o
In my view, the H 0f L needs a clean sweep of mandelson, the kinnock's, prescott and all of the other toadies parachuted into the place, purely for political or reward reasons.
How long before we see dennis skinner wearing ermine and collecting his £380 a day reward? :o
Those that wish to serve in the H of L should have to be voted for by the general public, after they have canvassed and shown their abilities and past commitment to us. 8)
And, as now, they do not produce laws. They simply revise and pass comments back to the H of C for clarification and/or 'adjustment'.
Politicians should be on a VERY short leash, as they have consistently proved to us that they are self-serving and, in a large amount of cases, rogues. >:(
I think that Kipperdips' comparison of the workings of the unelected H.of L. and the unelected E.U.Commission is a good one. He has clarified the role of the H.of L. and shown that it does not make our laws,but checks them before they become law, often weeding out weak legislation. On the other hand the E.U.Commission makes many of our laws but who checks them? The E.U. Parliament? National governments ? Nobody? I am not saying that every E.U. Directive is a bad one but there are a large number of them that should have been scrutinised before becoming law.
Sorry Perseus, promise, last words on this....
Is the EU undemocratic?
Election of representatives
European Council - Prime Minister or equivalent of each EU member state is automatically a member, thus indirectly elected by the public
EU Parliament - MEPs elected by public vote
Council of the EU - Relevant ministers automatically appointed from each EU member state, thus democratic accountability varies
House of Commons- MPs elected by public vote
House of Lords - Lords selected by leaders of parties, or by pre-conferred "right" to sit in the House
'Banging on'?
If you consider being concerned about our country being further eroded by unelected faceless wonders from Europe 'banging on', then I'll 'bang on' forever more. ::)
However, as most reasonable and more erudite people on here will realise, we are not 'banging on' about the EU per se. We are talking about the H of L and the principles behind it.
The EU aspect is NOT the point.....accountability of the H of L is.
But hey, carry on twisting it to suit yourself....you are simply showing your immaturity. :P
UKIP? I'm 'Putting Hartlepool First' locally and I vote Conservative nationally.
That's part of your hang up; anyone that tries to put the UK first must belong to UKIP.
DOH.
Breaking news on Conservative Home website re the Lords Debate.
What is being missed here is the backwoodsmen who stopped the Bill are the minority.
If the Labour Party vote as they believe rather than just trying to wreck the coalition then the Bill is certain to be voted through.
In other words the wreckers do not represent the majority and if you watched Cameron today he is going down the route of getting Labour on board.
I will also state the obvious. Cameron is using the Libs to emasculate his own right wing. With Clegg in tow Cameron can ignore the far right nutters.
Kipperdip wrote
QuoteGoing back to my first point - if, (God forbid) these plans succeed, and when ALL three parties collude again to betray your interests, (AND THEY WILL), who are you gonna call?
Ghostbusters?
Just to remind you all, the bill was voted through by a +300 majority
KD's fear of the Liberal Democrats is fascinating and in a way very funny.
KD; I don't understand your fear of change, 'because they will put in people that will obey commands'.
That is what we have at the moment...just take a look at who has been placed in there by labour....kinnocks, mandelson, prescott...all willing participants in whatever labour ask of them.
Likewise, you have the other parties cooperative numpties on their £380 a day.
As mentioned previously, they ought to be voted in but by US, and NOT the party hierarchy.
Let US look at the proposed applicants and WE decide, from their past performance if they are suitable.
Like I said Kipper the bill was voted through, you really should pay more attention dear
quote Kipperdip:
The H of L is far from perfect, but it works, it holds many checks and balances for our protection. A lot (possibly all) of this protection would disappear.
The Lib Dems are the main ones pushing for these reforms that should be enough of a warning for anyone.
Anyone who thinks this is a great leap forward should study hard and rememember the old sayings'.
1) "If it aint broke don't fix it"
2) "Be careful what you wish for"
Well in the end, someone didn`t wish hard enough.
quote Nick Robinson, BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19157007
"The House of Lords lies empty today but its grand chamber echoes with promises of parliamentary reform which have ended upgetting precisely nowhere.
So far, so unsurprising.
What is of more consequence is the impact on a coalition which only a few weeks ago insisted that - despite a massive parliamentary rebellion - reform would proceed."
quote:
Rabbit - As of yesterday the proposed 'reforms' were canned.
Yes, KD that`s why I put my post in.