Are these people a special case

[Eric]

Originally Posted by andrewb

I don't think we should have a hereditary system by no means. Who your parents are does not represent the scrutiny skills you can bring to the House of Lords. It's an interesting point you make about MPs moving to the upper house and therefore politicising it. When they first move this is indeed what they try and do, but they soon become socialised into a less partisan, less punch and judy way of scrutinising.

I can see where you come from. I don't think the public want another tier of paid government though, just at a time when so many people are struggling. It would mean taxpayer wages for Lords which they don't currently receive, and would mean wages for staff which they cannot currently hire. I agree with the current system, yes old, but tested. It's worked well for a very long time. I don't question alterations, I simply question complete reform. Taken as a whole within our parliamentary system, I do feel, as I have said previously, the core principle of our democracy is that we can throw out a government for its wrongdoings, whichever party it may be. This principle of accountability would be made incredibly difficult if we chose to blur responsibility among two chambers with two different electoral systems.

This makes sense. And we are having the same debate over here about our Senate.

[garinda]

In refererence to 'another paid tier of government', if the current hereditary/crony filled House of Lords was abolished in favour of a more democratic, elected body, we are already paying for it now.

It isn't 'free'.

It costs £152,500,000.00 per annum....and that doesn't include all the fiddling that's been going on, by the 'noble' Lords.

Cost of the House of Lords – Lords of the Blog

[garinda]

'A Labour peer was today ordered to make a personal apology to the House of Lords for filing a false expenses claim.
The subcommittee on Lords' interests said Lord Clarke of Hampstead must make a personal statement in parliament after he admitted claiming overnight allowances for staying in London when he had actually been at his home in St Albans.
The admission last May, which followed a Sunday Times investigation into his affairs, prompted a police inquiry.
The Crown Prosecution Service concluded in February that it had "insufficient evidence" to bring charges against him.'
Labour's Lord Clarke ordered to apologise over false expenses claim | Politics | guardian.co.uk

Sadly even an admission of guilt isn't deemed sufficent evidence to bring about a prosecution.

Apparently he cried when he was forced to apologise to his fellow peers, but since he choose to do it on the day the General Election was called, it mainly went unreported.

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by garinda

In refererence to 'another paid tier of government', if the current hereditary/crony filled House of Lords was abolished in favour of a more democratic, elected body, we are already paying for it now.

It isn't 'free'.

It costs £152,500,000.00 per annum....and that doesn't include all the fiddling that's been going on, by the 'noble' Lords.

Cost of the House of Lords – Lords of the Blog

The total annual cost of the Lords is roughly a third of the cost of the Commons. In the 2006-07 financial year, the cost per member was £108,000 in the Lords and £682,000 in the Commons.

Far cheaper than the Commons. An elected body of course, it would cost taxpayers more, and would not necessarily be 'more democratic' as we, the people, would find it far more difficult to hold government accountable for its actions and throw it out.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by andrewb

Far cheaper than the Commons. An elected body of course, it would cost taxpayers more, and would not necessarily be 'more democratic' as we, the people, would find it far more difficult to hold government accountable for its actions and throw it out.

When it comes down to what's right and wrong, as has been pointed out before, somethings are more importants than costs.

The current system is unjust, antiquated, flawed, and wrong, and is already a 'paid tier of government'. The myth that it is somehow costless, is plainly incorrect.

Besides the many examples of succesful, wholly elected two-tiered governments, countries like Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Israel, New Zealand, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, have unicameral parliaments, and don't have an upper chamber at all, and seem to work perfectly well. Though personally I favour a totally elected upper House.

[garinda]

Members of the House of Lords cost taxpayers more than £18 million in expenses and allowances last year - with some peers claiming £60,000 each in tax-free perks

Lords' expenses claims top £18 million - Telegraph

...and we now know just how low many of these people will sink to, in order to be 'paid'.

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by cashman

Thought was always means tested in some way?

That was always my thoughs too cashy, wasn't it to do with a green form or something

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by garinda

Members of the House of Lords cost taxpayers more than £18 million in expenses and allowances last year - with some peers claiming £60,000 each in tax-free perks

Lords' expenses claims top £18 million - Telegraph

...and we now know just how low many of these people will sink to, in order to be 'paid'.

Think I have to agree with you on this one Garinda, I could never understand how any of the Noble Lords could just sign in then sod of to the other Lords to watch the Test Match

[DaveinGermany]

Just to re-ignite the fires & ardor about certain folk in certain positions !

MPs' expenses: key files missing - Telegraph

Oh dear, why am I not surprised ? Some right bright spark (probably the Char Lady) has made the statement below, talk about stating the obvious ...............


"Commons officials are concerned over the public fallout from their failure to properly account for millions of pounds of public money "

Incredible, absolutely incredible !

[jaysay]

There were 3 MPs in the high court yesterday, trying to win the right for there case to be dealt with by commons authorities and not the criminal court

[garinda]

Sadly the criminal cases against the dodgy peers failed. Mainly because of the self protection clauses, voted for by themselves.

Happily some of the money stolen as expenses will have to be repaid. Although rather than a two year ban, the thieving cow, Uddin, should be stripped of her peerage, and never allowed near the House of Lords again.

Baroness Uddin faces 2 year Lords ban over £125,000 dodgy expenses - mirror.co.uk

Unsuprisingly all three thieving Lords were flunkies ennobled by Blair.

The sooner we get to vote for who we think are fit to sit in the upper chamber, the better.

[Alan Varrechia]

Originally Posted by jaysay

There were 3 MPs in the high court yesterday, trying to win the right for there case to be dealt with by commons authorities and not the criminal court

One would think that if they are as innocent as they say they are, then they would be quite happy to go to any court even criminal just to see themselves exhonerated. ( If tey have nothing to hide).

[JCB]

Originally Posted by garinda

The sooner we get to vote for who we think are fit to sit in the upper chamber, the better.

Do we need a second chamber ? I'm all for giving it the cut , and giving more power to back-bench MPs to serve on select committees that have some teeth .

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by Alan Varrechia

One would think that if they are as innocent as they say they are, then they would be quite happy to go to any court even criminal just to see themselves exhonerated. ( If tey have nothing to hide).

Exactly Alan

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by JCB

Do we need a second chamber ? I'm all for giving it the cut , and giving more power to back-bench MPs to serve on select committees that have some teeth .

I think we do need a second chamber JCB, but I think a fully elected house would be more acceptable in this day and age