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

Capodecina
Soldato
OP
Joined
30 Jul 2006
Posts
12,129
. . . It's wasted energy worrying about or being jealous of other people's earnings, just focus on yourself. . . .
You do realise that these people's "Earnings" come out of your pocket and mine, don't you?
I guess that you are not in the habit of "shopping around" in order to obtain "value for money"?
 
Man of Honour
Joined
27 Sep 2004
Posts
25,821
Location
Glasgow
Lords voting can't by definition be democratic, because they are not elected.

I am for the abolition of the Lords. I don't find it to have any place in modern society.

If we don't have the Lords to provide some form of checks and balances on the elected chamber then what would you propose? Regardless of what you think of any given parliament (i.e. whether you agree with them or not) the second chamber has an important role in providing oversight, to do away with it entirely would mean that the system was more open to abuse. You may not be advocating the removal of a second chamber but if you are not then there's issues with any, and every, other type of second chamber approach - some might be better than others but essentially the system that developed in the UK may not be the ideal one if you were starting from scratch but I'd argue that historically it's done a decent job of preventing the worst excesses of the Commons. Like a lot of things about the UK's political system you wouldn't necessarily start from here if you were trying to design a perfect system but it's evolved this way and lasted because it basically works.

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.

Having an elected second chamber would, in all likelihood, just lead to an even bigger sway to populism because they then become reliant on the people for their continued existence in the role. Your views about how big an issue that is may vary from mine and unquestionably a non-elected body with very limited scope to recall those who vote in a (subjectively) awful way regularly isn't democratic and may lead to some poor propositions in its own right but equally a lot of the Lords are in there because they're experts in their field and one of the notable features of the Lords is that they often work across party lines in order to scrutinise legislation and try to knock it into shape. They can do this not least because they aren't beholden to the whims of voters nor of their parties in quite the same way as the Commons. The lack of elections means that, somewhat like the judiciary, they have a certain degree of independence - they aren't completely immune to public opinion (and nor should they be) but they are insulated from it to a degree and that can help temper some of the more reactionary positions that get taken. I won't argue that terrible decisions don't sometimes come out of the Lords (nor that they actually fulfil their remit at all times) or the judiciary but I'd suggest that the failings are more often in spite of their non-elected nature than because of it.
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Jun 2011
Posts
5,468
Location
Yorkshire and proud of it!
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?

Personality profiling. We design deep questionnaires and assessments that select for intelligence, awkwardness and a tendency to self-sabotage themselves by prioritising correctness over ingratiating behaviour. Basically select for those people who are indispensable in a company because their technical skills are really strong but are prevented from going any higher by their compulsion to correct their boss. I'd also suggest a polygraph test measuring for stress spikes whenever someone uses the phrase "could care less".

You do realise that these people's "Earnings" come out of your pocket and mine, don't you?
I guess that you are not in the habit of "shopping around" in order to obtain "value for money"?

Heh - see, even Stockhausen can resort to capitalist reasoning for the occasional riposte. ;) :D
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
9 May 2004
Posts
28,551
Location
Leafy outskirts of London
I don't have a problem with the HoL, but then I grew up in a country where there is no second-line of defence from populist politics, and have a look at how well the South African government is looking after the country...
 
Soldato
Joined
28 Oct 2006
Posts
12,456
Location
Sufferlandria
So he attended and voted but didn't speak or ask written questions...doesn't that mean he's probably one of the ones who's not taking back-handers to promote changes in the interest of those giving the money?
 
Soldato
Joined
10 May 2012
Posts
10,054
Location
Leeds
You do realise that these people's "Earnings" come out of your pocket and mine, don't you?
I guess that you are not in the habit of "shopping around" in order to obtain "value for money"?

If I'm worried about the UK tax payers money, £50k to a Lord is probably at the bottom of my list. The fact the article mentions how much he earned is playing envy politics, clearly most people don't earn £50k a year, where as he does simply from turning up. The energy spent being angry about him is more wisely invested into bettering yourself and improving your own earnings prospects. This isn't a personal attack on you either, just a general statement.
 
Caporegime
Joined
12 Mar 2004
Posts
29,913
Location
England
I don't have a problem with the HoL, but then I grew up in a country where there is no second-line of defence from populist politics, and have a look at how well the South African government is looking after the country...

What 2nd line of defence against polulist policies? There are loads of such policies in the UK. If anything the HOL affirms them.
 
Soldato
Joined
30 Jan 2009
Posts
17,175
Location
Aquilonem Londinensi
If I'm worried about the UK tax payers money, £50k to a Lord is probably at the bottom of my list. The fact the article mentions how much he earned is playing envy politics, clearly most people don't earn £50k a year, where as he does simply from turning up. The energy spent being angry about him is more wisely invested into bettering yourself and improving your own earnings prospects. This isn't a personal attack on you either, just a general statement.

Hear, hear.

Or as the lords would put it "EEEERRRAGHEERR"
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Jun 2011
Posts
5,468
Location
Yorkshire and proud of it!
In South Africa, anything the government wants goes ahead unopposed, there is no House of Lords/Senate/other things that also need to agree before things are done.

A written constitution delineating inalienable rights would go some way (I don't argue at all it would go all the way) towards filling the role that supposedly our second house provides. In the USA the Supreme Court can strike down legislation that is in conflict with the Constitution and I think that might be worth considering for the UK.

Not sure what the practicalities in achieving such a thing would be, though.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,899
I agree on most, but not on age discrimination as that insinuates incapability. If that's the concern, then introduce a capability test - don't deem an older person automatically less capable then a younger one.

I was mostly just proposing it as a crude means of culling the numbers initially but yeah perhaps some mandatory annual testing beyond say the age of 75 might work too.

:D ;)


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.

Just to clarify, I'm not actually proposing an age restriction per say but just a means of culling the current numbers initially. I think that a fixed term that lasts longer than 5 years and that overlaps general election periods would be good to see. I don't have an issue with people being reappointed necessarily but am more interested in there being a massive reduction in overall numbers.

Perhaps they get appointed in proportion to the current make up of the house of commons which perhaps introduces a sort of lag effect - get a swing in another direction at the next general election and you've still got an upper house acting as a sort of check etc..
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,899
I don't have a problem with the HoL, but then I grew up in a country where there is no second-line of defence from populist politics, and have a look at how well the South African government is looking after the country...

ONOURABLE MEMBA, ONOURABLE MEMBA....

Fnqomi8
 
Soldato
Joined
2 Aug 2012
Posts
7,809
Lords voting can't by definition be democratic, because they are not elected.

I am for the abolition of the Lords. I don't find it to have any place in modern society.


Actually, I quite like the idea of a (Part) of the system of government that is not bound by the requirement to meet whatever populist agenda happens to be the rage at the time every 4-5 years or so.

Now, what role it should play and who should qualify for the position is a matter of further debate. But I am not in principle against the idea and I do think that we are currently better off with the Lords than we would be without it, even as it is!
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Mar 2008
Posts
32,742
If we don't have the Lords to provide some form of checks and balances on the elected chamber then what would you propose? Regardless of what you think of any given parliament (i.e. whether you agree with them or not) the second chamber has an important role in providing oversight, to do away with it entirely would mean that the system was more open to abuse. You may not be advocating the removal of a second chamber but if you are not then there's issues with any, and every, other type of second chamber approach - some might be better than others but essentially the system that developed in the UK may not be the ideal one if you were starting from scratch but I'd argue that historically it's done a decent job of preventing the worst excesses of the Commons. Like a lot of things about the UK's political system you wouldn't necessarily start from here if you were trying to design a perfect system but it's evolved this way and lasted because it basically works.



Having an elected second chamber would, in all likelihood, just lead to an even bigger sway to populism because they then become reliant on the people for their continued existence in the role. Your views about how big an issue that is may vary from mine and unquestionably a non-elected body with very limited scope to recall those who vote in a (subjectively) awful way regularly isn't democratic and may lead to some poor propositions in its own right but equally a lot of the Lords are in there because they're experts in their field and one of the notable features of the Lords is that they often work across party lines in order to scrutinise legislation and try to knock it into shape. They can do this not least because they aren't beholden to the whims of voters nor of their parties in quite the same way as the Commons. The lack of elections means that, somewhat like the judiciary, they have a certain degree of independence - they aren't completely immune to public opinion (and nor should they be) but they are insulated from it to a degree and that can help temper some of the more reactionary positions that get taken. I won't argue that terrible decisions don't sometimes come out of the Lords (nor that they actually fulfil their remit at all times) or the judiciary but I'd suggest that the failings are more often in spite of their non-elected nature than because of it.

Lordships should be by field, years of experience and rarely of political appointment. It would run far better than hereditary/religious/political grounds it currently stands on.

It should be neutral to regions and constituencies, and an independent commission that should select them for service much like Jury duty, but with more checks/limits. The best scientists, engineers, doctors, physicians, analysts, educators and so forth should be selected and it should be an honour to do so.
 
Capodecina
Soldato
OP
Joined
30 Jul 2006
Posts
12,129
. . . This story is an agenda led nonsense. . . .
I am quite sure that the story is "agenda led" but that doesn't make it "nonsense" any more than the Telegraph story about MP's expenses abuse was nonsense.
One in five members of the House of Lords are working as consultants or advisers to private businesses at the same time as serving in parliament, the Guardian can reveal.

An analysis of the Register of Lords’ Interests shows 169 peers reported working as advisers earlier this year, with more than a dozen registering that they were also paid by foreign governments on top of the expenses they are entitled to as peers.

The consultancies range from a former Conservative MP advising the company of a Romanian businessman facing extradition, through to a former chief of defence staff who advises the government of Bahrain.

The worlds of finance, energy, mining and defence are extensively represented among peers’ clients. Unlike MPs, peers are considered part-time public servants, which allows them to pursue other business.

Peers are permitted to work as advisers for private interests, as long as they are properly declared.

The findings include:
  • A leading Labour peer, Lord Levy, has apologised after admitting failing to register three private interests connecting him to a billionaire Russian businessman.
  • Fifteen peers are working for or advising foreign governments, including a former coalition government cabinet minister and a former chief of defence staff.
  • Thirty-eight peers indicated they provide public affairs or strategic advice, an area of particular sensitivity because such work can easily stray into lobbying.
  • Eighty-three peers have declared an interest in finance or banking, with HSBC, Santander and Royal Bank of Scotland among those to have provided paid roles as directors or paid advisers to peers.
  • Twenty-seven have declared an interest in energy firms, with the same number reporting an interest in companies working in the defence or security sectors.(LINK)
To my mind he issue here is one of the independence, impartiality and integrity of the "2nd House".
 
Back
Top Bottom