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

[stockhausen]

A Labour peer claimed almost £50,000 in attendance and travel expenses covering every single day the House of Lords was sitting last year, despite never speaking or asking any written questions - though he did regularly vote, a Guardian investigation reveals.
. . .

• Eighty-eight peers – about one in nine - never spoke, held a government post or participated in a committee at all.
  
  
• Forty-six peers did not register a single vote, including on Brexit, sit on a committee or hold a post. One peer claimed £25,000 without voting, while another claimed £41,000 but only voted once.
  
  
• More than 270 peers claimed more than £40,000 in allowances, with two claiming more than £70,000.

And people wonder why there is so little respect for (alleged) Politicians

How would the denizens of GD advocate reforming the "Lords" - or would they?

 

[iamdjdz]

But then voting is the main part of democracy so he did technically do his bit...

 

[BDEE]

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.

 

[d_brennen]

But then voting is the main part of democracy so he did technically do his bit...

Also abstaining from voting

The system is a bit broken, has been forever. Want you going to do about it though?

 

[mmj_uk]

I was on about this somewhat earlier, people are increasingly homeless or depend on food banks because they've been hit by austerity and yet you've got politicians on hefty wages, making money from renting property whilst claiming £50 day on breakfasts/dinner and whatever else they happen to want but not pay for themselves. It's a disgrace really.

 

[The_Abyss]

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

Lord Brockman, who regularly attended the House of Lords and voted claimed the expenses he was entitled to. In other news, another pointless agenda-led thread in GD was created off the back of an unquoted news article about Lord Brookman's legitimate expenses and regular attendance record.

 

[FoxEye]

Doesn't this happen literally every year? It's a regular, annual story. Easy work for the Guardian. Copy and paste

Doesn't surprise me that it's a Labour Lord. Wouldn't surprise me if it had been Tory or any of the other parties either. All the same.

None of us can do anything about it. And those in power don't want to. Lords gonna Lord.

 

[FoxEye]

Lord Brockman, who regularly attended the House of Lords and voted claimed the expenses he was entitled to. In other news, another pointless agenda-led thread in GD was created off the back of an unquoted news article about Lord Brookman's legitimate expenses and regular attendance record.

The figures are pretty astounding regardless.

Those "expenses" are more than many people earn in gross annual salary.

And we all remember the "expenses" previous claimed, like a duck house for your duck pond. I'm sure they're all completely legitimate tho.

 

[The_Abyss]

The figures are pretty astounding regardless.

Those "expenses" are more than many people earn in gross annual salary.

And we all remember the "expenses" previous claimed, like a duck house for your duck pond. I'm sure they're all completely legitimate tho.

Are they astounding, given that most members of the HOL are not paid and only expensed for attendance and related expenses?

I think we're finally coming around to the point that the OP wanted but didn't make - HOL expenses. Lord Brookman was just a convenient example. So what he's actually complained about is the HOL expenses policy.

With that in mind, if the expense policy is robust and legitimate, do you have a problem that it may result in compensation higher than the amount that many people earn in gross annual salary?

 

[FoxEye]

I guess it depends how much you trust the system and the people running the system.

Whether you believe there are safeguards to prevent Lord Smith-Wattindon-Vickars from claiming the mortgage on his 2nd house in London (that he rents out for £5,000 a month) as an expense.

Can't say I trust any of them myself. Or the system. Or the safeguards.

 

[The_Abyss]

Those are two separate questions - one about the controls and one about the level of expenses. You've raised the first with an opinion that you can't trust them, but you haven't commented on the second, so the assumption is that the expenses policy is sound but the controls for it are not.

 

[FoxEye]

For the lols:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/poli...el-Gove-Graham-Brady-Maria-Miller-Hugh-Bayley

Not hard to see why there's no trust, eh... The system allows this.

 

[The_Abyss]

That's an article about MP's expenses. You've not answered the question for a second time, so once again the assumption is that you consider the HOL expenses policy to be sound but you have expressed reservations about the controls.

Or are you deflecting?

 

[FoxEye]

I'm not sure why you're trying to separate policy from controls.

Controls are part of the system. If you don't trust the controls you don't trust the system.

How can I say "I trust the system but not the controls." That doesn't make much sense to me.

The policy and the controls are the system. A fair policy with weak/no controls is as bad a system as a bad policy with strict controls.

e: The link was to highlight my lack of faith in politicians as individuals btw.

That they seek to find loopholes in the system that they can personally benefit from. These are not people I trust to seek first and foremost the interests of society. These are career politicians who do not think twice about gaming the system for personal benefit.

The Lords are similar, except as well as over-the-hill politicians they also have clergy.

 

[dowie]

How would the denizens of GD advocate reforming the "Lords" - or would they?

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.

 

[The_Abyss]

I'm not sure why you're trying to separate policy from controls.

Controls are part of the system. If you don't trust the controls you don't trust the system.

How can I say "I trust the system but not the controls." That doesn't make much sense to me.

The policy and the controls are the system. A fair policy with weak/no controls is as bad a system as a bad policy with strict controls.

I'm separating them because you separated them. You specifically commented on the level of expenses, indicating that you thought that they were unacceptable. Then you also stated that you though that the controls around the supervision of those expenses were not sufficiently robust.

If you're unable to distinguish between the two, and then conflate the issue further by posting an article about a separate expense policy for MPs, 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.

 

[The_Abyss]

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.

Finally, some sensible proposals on the actual system.

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.

 

[FoxEye]

I'm separating them because you separated them. You specifically commented on the level of expenses, indicating that you thought that they were unacceptable. Then you also stated that you though that the controls around the supervision of those expenses were not sufficiently robust.

If you're unable to distinguish between the two, and then conflate the issue further by posting an article about a separate expense policy for MPs, 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.

That's a lot of words to basically say "I don't agree".

And then to question my position as being one of jealousy. Nice.

So let me summarise your position then: you basically don't have any issue with multiple Lords claiming £50k+ in expenses, and you're sure none of them are being in any way dishonest or attempting to game the system. You're happy that they spent only as much as strictly necessary to get them to and from the house and related living expenses.

You trust them not to maximise their expenses claim beyond what is considered to be within the spirit of the rules. Either that or you don't consider there to be any "spirit of the rules", and that everything within the rules is acceptable by default. There can be no dishonesty whilst abiding within the system/rules. Even if you do claim for a new duck house.

In short, you trust the Lord and possibly also the politicians not to abuse the system. Because who would ever do that?

e: As previously stated, my actual position is that I don't trust any of them. I'm quite inclined to believe they are all happy to game the system as often as to the greatest extent possible, with no remorse whatsoever.

In my humble opinion, politicians and the Lords also are basically professional liars and schemers. People of extremely devious character. Clever of speech and quite often capable of being persuasive, but also evasive, manipulate and corrupt. Very often seeking to obscure their actions and prevent the full details from entering the public domain. It's no surprise that lobbying groups spend $$$ trying to get access to these people. They can be bought and we all know it.

I will continue to assume the absolute worst of all politicians and those with significant power in the political system. The never-ending stream of news stories highlighting "dubious" activities - expenses claims being just one aspect - only ever reaffirms my belief that they should be absolutely distrusted.

 

[The_Abyss]

No, you've misrepresented what I said.

You called the expenses claim 'astounding'. I asked if this was because you disagreed with the expenses policy. You had no comment (twice) on the expenses policy but were certain that the controls on it were insufficient.

So no, when you make claims such as:

you're sure none of them are being in any way dishonest or attempting to game the system. You're happy that they spent only as much as strictly necessary to get them to and from the house and related living expenses.

You trust them not to maximise their expenses claim beyond what is considered to be within the spirit of the rules. Either that or you don't consider there to be any "spirit of the rules", and that everything within the rules is acceptable by default. There can be no dishonesty whilst abiding within the system/rules. Even if you do claim for a new duck house.

I've made no such claim. You've assumed it. I asked about the fundamentals of the system and what's allowed to be claimed. You ignored this, and have once again ignored it for a third time, and instead have focussed on whether the controls on the system (that you haven't disagreed with three times) are sufficient.

I haven't passed opinion on whether the controls are adequate.

Oh, and btw, the duck house claim was for an MP, not a Lord.

In short, you trust the Lord and possibly also the politicians not to abuse the system. Because who would ever do that?

Show me where I've stated that.

And while I'm typing, I see you've decided to change your response, as below:

As previously stated, my actual position is that I don't trust any of them. I'm quite inclined to believe they are all happy to game the system as often as to the greatest extent possible, with no remorse whatsoever.

So, your actual position is that you don't have any trust in the control of the system. Once again, for a fourth time, you have not expressed any issue with the actual amount that members of the HOL are allowed to claim, just the controls around that system to prevent them gaming the system.

Finally, I'm not suggesting that you're jealous. I'm suggesting that your history has motivated you to respond to this thread.

 

[JAYZ303]

Great system.