Peers reject catering plans over champagne

MrMoonX said:
I think the issue is that both lords and MPs only serve their own or their mates interests, perhaps breaking the current rich Oxbridge standard that has developed would help, take the money out of politics to encourage true lay people!

£15 is very cheap, but we shouldn't be paying for it in the first place. £5k on drink for rich people or a foster placement for a vulnerable child, puts it right into perspective, none of the tax payers money should be going on food and drink for the rich when others are going without in a modern democratic country
Click to expand...


The point you miss in constantly trying to get salaries etc down, is that by doing so you're stopping people like us from ordinary backgrounds having a look in.

Take one of my sisters for example. She went to Oxford but comes from a very modest background. If she wanted to become a MP she wouldn't be able to afford it, and thus would be priced out. The sort of person you dislike however, would be supported by family/existing wealth.

This is why to an extent they are remunerated. Now whether it actually works effectively is another matter, and I'm sure it can sometimes be abused.

I know myself however, that I would much rather work for my company in London on far more money than take a public facing role such as an MP.
 
while I think we should perhaps have fewer of them and could perhaps achieve that by getting them appointed for fixed terms only I don't have a huge problem with them

pointing at token sums spent on champers etc... really is just bitter nonsense... it costs nothing in the grand scheme of things yet the amounts we splash out on benefits etc.. is huge and needs to come down
 
AGD said:
Why do they even get champagne at all? Doctors/teachers etc don't get champagne, why should lords?
Click to expand...
It's outrageous, the Lords should make law while standing in rags in a barren woodland drinking rainwater.
Kronos said:
Cost of unelected peers has surged 17% since the Coalition came to power up by £42m they earn on average £73,470 each – more than a backbench MP. The latest figures show that the operating costs for each peer – which includes their daily allowance and staff wages – increased from £97,725 to £114,721 between 2010 and this year.

But hey we are all in this together, right?
Click to expand...
Did you just incorrectly quote this article? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-fire-cost-running-House-Lords-leaps-42m.html

The £73,470 is for 'spads', not Lords. Lords have a daily allowance and that's it, no salary. The operating costs for Lords are far less than for Commons members.

Have you ever considered that your prejudice may blind you to facts?
 
Last edited:
It's important to recognise that we are not politicians. These are their jobs, and they choose the peers, I believe, on merit. We are not politicians...who are we to judge them even further? They are professionals who have chosen the top professionals as far as they're concerned to be the peers.
 
dirtychinchilla said:
It's important to recognise that we are not politicians. These are their jobs, and they choose the peers, I believe, on merit. We are not politicians...who are we to judge them even further? They are professionals who have chosen the top professionals as far as they're concerned to be the peers.
Click to expand...
While that is the intention there's certainly a risk of 'cronyism' and appointing your mates. That said, most Lords do have considerable experience in their fields and add to the quality of law.
 
Amp34 said:
Disagreed!

While I don't believe the system works at the moment I don't think having more politically elected members of parliament is the way to go. The lords is there to scrutinise acts and laws so there need to be people who know what they are talking about.... Maybe there should be some kind of independent (ie non MP or party affiliated) commission set up to "elect" members of the House of Lords based on their success and work/activity history. We need more people who have spent 40 years in industry, not more people that have spent 40 years campaigning for election from Oxbridge.

The house should be filled with people who have spent 40 years as doctors, engineers, police, scientists and teachers that actually have an idea how the real world works.
Click to expand...

what qualities to some of the current lords have to scrutinise legislation anyway? most of them have just made rather large donations to the three main parties and got a peerage out of it.

I agree we need an independent appointment, but who better than the electorate. This country will never be a true democracy until we become a republic anyway.
 
They made Ian Paisley a lord. That should give you some inclination of the types there to scrutinise laws and acts. The man was a raging homophobe and xenophobe.
 
I really think something should be done about the house or lords and the free bars that all politicans have access to.... its scandalous when today in the news there are lots of people having to use food banks.
 
PMKeates said:
Limited truth in that.
Click to expand...

not really the monarchy in essence has absolute power, just no authority. We already have a massive scandal of Charles influencing law making outside of the democratic process. Its absurd that in a modern so called democratic society, our elective representatives have to run legislation by an unelected birth rite nobody.

When those letters get published we will see the true level of royal interference in the state. Hopefully kick start the beginning of the end for the lot of them
 
MrMoonX said:
not really the monarchy in essence has absolute power, just no authority. We already have a massive scandal of Charles influencing law making outside of the democratic process. Its absurd that in a modern so called democratic society, our elective representatives have to run legislation by an unelected birth rite nobody.
Click to expand...
lol, you have that completely the wrong way round - the monarch has absolute authority, but no power. There are some formal processes involving the monarch but we have full democratic control over the state. Parliament is sovereign, the elected chamber can bring in to law any legislation it wishes (the House of Lords cannot indefinitely block legislation).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom