Lord Brookman, who never spoke in Lords last year claims £50,000 expenses

Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
@The_Abyss I'm really not sure how what I said is confusing you so much. I believe I've been perfectly clear. If you have no confidence in the system of course you will question the amounts. That the amounts are so large merely draws attention to the system. Which I personally distrust.

I have no intention of replying to you any further. I hate these bickering sessions (which is all they ever amount to).
 
Soldato
Joined
15 May 2007
Posts
12,804
Location
Ipswich / Bodham
You're unable to distinguish between the expenses policy - that HOL members can claim for - and the controls around that policy to make sure that they cannot claim more than they are entitled to.

You've been given the opportunity to distinguish between these two points on multiple occasions now, and have failed to do so. In your own words, you've no intention of doing so, as you see bickering as uncomfortable as you do large amounts. I'm not confused in that I've addressed the few points that you've raised, but I am slightly confused that you continue to choose to ignore those that I've raised in response. But I do understand that you have chosen not to continue the debate. Probably for the best - if you believe that you've been perfectly clear then it will spare you from further embarrassment.
 
Caporegime
Joined
30 Jul 2013
Posts
28,822
Nobody has mentioned that house of lords peers are not salaried

Do you expect them to carry out their roles totally free of charge?

I personally don't have a issue with somebody claiming £50,000 if they voted every time they were able.

The OP mentions £25,000 in expenses for somebody who never voted. I'd argue this is more troubling despite only taking half the amount.
 
Permabanned
Joined
23 Apr 2014
Posts
23,553
Location
Hertfordshire
Have you heard the one about that MEP that barely ever turned up, never did anything for his country, got a wacking great salary and expenses, cushy pension, dossed around for years........they reelected him. :eek:
 
Soldato
Joined
21 Apr 2007
Posts
6,590
then you don't really have a credible position as it risks just sounding like 'that's a lot more money than other people have'. Relevant, given your previous posting history on similar matters.

Lol....ok bro.

@The_Abyss I'm really not sure how what I said is confusing you so much. I believe I've been perfectly clear. If you have no confidence in the system of course you will question the amounts. That the amounts are so large merely draws attention to the system. Which I personally distrust.

I have no intention of replying to you any further. I hate these bickering sessions (which is all they ever amount to).

Don't bother.

Too busy licking them boots. These cretins have been lambasted in the past for their egregious expenses claims. I remember one guy some 5 years ago claimed 2k (Or something could probably google it) on a out door duck house on the tax payer.....
 
Man of Honour
Joined
24 Sep 2005
Posts
35,487
Somewhat strange outrage. I mean, he attended and voted. Speaking is not a requirement.

*shrug*

Actually, I do take it back somewhat as the quantum of expenses is quite absurd.
 

NVP

NVP

Soldato
Joined
6 Sep 2007
Posts
12,649
Too busy licking them boots. These cretins have been lambasted in the past for their egregious expenses claims. I remember one guy some 5 years ago claimed 2k (Or something could probably google it) on a out door duck house on the tax payer.....
@The_Abyss I bet this part really cut the most
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
25 Jun 2011
Posts
5,468
Location
Yorkshire and proud of it!
We need two houses in government. One a body of elected officials, the other an assembly of engineers.

The elected body proposes and creates legislation, the assembly of engineers sends back anything that is redundant, contradictory or otherwise just doesn't make sense.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
14,660
Have you heard the one about that MEP that barely ever turned up, never did anything for his country, got a whacking great salary and expenses, cushy pension, dossed around for years........they reelected him. :eek:
:D ;)

Well we could get rid of all the hereditary ones for a start, cull the elderly ones above some point and introduce limited terms for the rest along with some minimum attendance and voting requirements if they want to keep the position.

Could really do with reducing the numbers to about a third of the current size at most.
I agree with most of this, except the age restrictions (as per @The_Abyss' post).

We definitely need a second house that can balance some of the excesses of the Commons, but any system that replaced the Lords would need careful consideration.

I would like to see Lords elected with a fixed term limit (maybe two parliamentary terms) and they can only sit once.

The criticism of elected Lords is that it will lead to the same campaign lies and hypocrisy that we see from other elected officials. It would also promote undesirable incentives in the sense that the elected Lords would feel obliged to speak and vote on behalf of those that helped them get elected.

I appreciate that this second point can happen under the current system but without the threat of losing their seat, Lords currently have more flexibility to be free agents and vote with their conscience rather than down party lines every time.

This is what I'm trying to replicate in my vision for the system — by having a fixed term that spans two parliamentary terms, you avoid the short-termism we see from MPs and by only allowing them to sit once, they don't have to worry about being re-elected so they can continue to vote with their conscience. I guess this may lead to the unintended consequence that they actually vote with their conscience less.

Another issue with electing Lords is how and when you run the elections — say we disbanded the House tomorrow and every seat was up for election using my system — the house could easily end up being packed with hardcore Brexiteers and we'd be stuck with them for 10 years… I pick Brexiteers as an obvious example right now, but the issue is the same for any party — at the moment the house is fairly evenly distributed amongst Con/Lab/Crossbench (195/179/151 for reference). Under an electoral system, the Lords could end up heavily weighted towards a single party and stay that way for a decade… It would need to be some form of Proportional Representation but then the question is which one?

There are no easy answers, which is probably why Lords reform is such a slow-moving beast.

We need two houses in government. One a body of elected officials, the other an assembly of engineers.

The elected body proposes and creates legislation, the assembly of engineers sends back anything that is redundant, contradictory or otherwise just doesn't make sense.

I like the concept, but how would the engineers be put in-post? If they aren't elected you get the same-old issues of "unelected bureaucrats… etc." Are you assuming that because they are engineers, they will be impartial or is this not important?
 
Soldato
Joined
5 Mar 2010
Posts
12,305
introduce a capability test - don't deem an older person automatically less capable then a younger one.

Not that i'm disagreeing, but i'm sure that suggestion would go down well with the elder members.

"Excuse me sir, would you like to step this way for your capability test, we just want to be sure that you haven't gone all doolally"
 
Caporegime
Joined
30 Jul 2013
Posts
28,822
how TF do you rack up double my yearly wage just in expenses? How far was he travelling? was a private jet involved?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salar...arliament#Salary_and_benefits:_House_of_Lords

Members of the House of Lords are not salaried. They can opt to receive a £305 per day attendance allowance, plus travel expenses and subsidised restaurant facilities. Peers may also choose to receive a reduced attendance allowance of £150 per day instead

£150 a day is £54,750 a year, if you attended every day.

Obviously they don't sit on every day of the year, but there you have it.
 
Soldato
Joined
10 May 2012
Posts
10,054
Location
Leeds
You seem preoccupied with how other people are doing financially @stockhausen, yesterday it was the Russians owning property and today it's Lords earning money for turning up to their job. Why not just focus on yourself and stop trying to play the politics of envy?
 
Caporegime
Joined
30 Jul 2013
Posts
28,822
Clearly there's a lot of properties that Russian criminals (and other countries) use to launder money in London though, so that's a genuine concern, not "the politics of envy"
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Jul 2007
Posts
7,865
Location
Stoke/Norfolk
While I believe that the House of Lords should be reworked, as I think having "something" overseeing the Government is a good idea, I'm not sure what the best version of a rework would look like.
 
Capodecina
Soldato
OP
Joined
30 Jul 2006
Posts
12,129
I certainly agree that there should be a second chamber to oversee the MPs who seem to be increasingly self-interested. I don't see any reason why it should still be called "The Lords" or why some places should be "Heredity" or reserved for CoE Bishops. Where I think a real difficulty lies is in deciding who should elect the members of the second chamber in order to ensure that they aren't just a reflection of Parliament or placemen for the wealthy.

As to expenses, I suspect that a certain number of "Lords" use the place as a Gentleman's Club or a base to allow them to have a remunerative job as a Director somewhere. I can't see why their expenses should not be based on the time they actually spend in the Chamber and audited expenses on trips outside the Chamber - with the security surrounding the Houses of Parliament this could easily be achieved.

As to "Lords" who sit in the Chamber but don't actually get involved other than voting as they are told to do, they should be "Recalled" and encouraged to spend their time elsewhere - without funding by the taxpayer.
 
Soldato
Joined
10 May 2012
Posts
10,054
Location
Leeds
While I believe that the House of Lords should be reworked, as I think having "something" overseeing the Government is a good idea, I'm not sure what the best version of a rework would look like.

I don't dislike the Lords because of how much they earn, but the oversight is supposed to come from the voters having the power to vote them out if they do a bad job, the Lords is a stupid concept.

Clearly there's a lot of properties that Russian criminals (and other countries) use to launder money in London though, so that's a genuine concern, not "the politics of envy"

It's wasted energy worrying about or being jealous of other people's earnings, just focus on yourself. It's the same as poor people complaining about how much footballers earn then trying to justify it morally by comparing their earnings to a soldier or a nurse, the reality is they're just jealous of the footballers earnings compared to their own. What they should be doing is asking themselves how they're going to earn more rather than worrying about Wayne Rooney or Pogba
 
Back
Top Bottom