davieG Posted 16 August 2015 Posted 16 August 2015 Time it was reformed but how? Expenses: Lords who do not vote claim £100k - report 8 hours ago From the section UK Politics House of Lords Members of the House of Lords who did not vote in the last parliamentary session claimed £100,000 in expenses, a report has found. From 2010-15 a total of £360,000 was claimed by 62 peers who did not vote, the Electoral Reform Society said. Members are not paid a salary but can claim a daily allowance of £300 if they attend a sitting. A spokesman for the campaign group said the statistics showed the House of Lords was "growing out of control". Darren Hughes, the group's deputy chief executive, added: "The prime minister said he regrets not reforming the second House in the last parliament. It's time for him to act and finally fix our broken upper chamber." 'Unrepresentative institution' The report - entitled House of Lords: Fact vs Fiction - also found that 10 peers were responsible for claiming £260,000 of the £360,000 from 2010-2015. The society estimates that if the prime minister forges ahead with plans to appoint 50 additional members of the Lords it will cost at least £1.3m per year. The report also says that more than a third of Lords previously worked in politics, and more than half were over 70 years old, while only two were younger than 39. Mr Hughes said: "This is not a chamber of experts - it's a chamber of professional politicians. "Our House of Lords looks nothing like the public whose decisions it impacts - almost half live in London or the South East, while there are just two peers under the age of 40. "This is a shockingly out of date and unrepresentative institution." Who's in the House of Lords? 783 peers currently eligible to vote in the House of Lords 670 Life peers 87 Hereditary peers 26 Bishops £300 daily expenses available to each peer for attending at Westminster Source: Parliament
Rincewind Posted 16 August 2015 Posted 16 August 2015 Free money from the taxpayer. Where have we heard that before?
Merging Cultures Posted 16 August 2015 Posted 16 August 2015 I don't want it to be representative of the nation, that's what the house of commons is for. If they are similar, they will clash, as the two chambers do in America.
davieG Posted 16 August 2015 Author Posted 16 August 2015 I don't want it to be representative of the nation, that's what the house of commons is for. If they are similar, they will clash, as the two chambers do in America. The Commons is not representative of the nation sure they're elected representatives but bear little or no resemblance to the nation We need people in the Lords that reflect the multitude of the population in terms different job skills, lifestyles, gender, age rtc and from a personal perspective secular. How that could be achieved I've no idea, maybe companies and organisations could compelled and compensated for allowing suitable people an annual sojourn to the Lords for a start. Not that I've thought it through but the current set up is horrendous and far removed from democracy.
Merging Cultures Posted 16 August 2015 Posted 16 August 2015 The Commons is not representative of the nation sure they're elected representatives but bear little or no resemblance to the nation We need people in the Lords that reflect the multitude of the population in terms different job skills, lifestyles, gender, age rtc and from a personal perspective secular. How that could be achieved I've no idea, maybe companies and organisations could compelled and compensated for allowing suitable people an annual sojourn to the Lords for a start. Not that I've thought it through but the current set up is horrendous and far removed from democracy. Democracy is an ideal. You can become an MP and represent your people.But there needs to be a balance against having 'popular' people in power, and for me the house of lords fulfill that nicely.
davieG Posted 16 August 2015 Author Posted 16 August 2015 Democracy is an ideal. You can become an MP and represent your people. But there needs to be a balance against having 'popular' people in power, and for me the house of lords fulfill that nicely. I don't see a shred of balance in the current Lords set up.
Merging Cultures Posted 16 August 2015 Posted 16 August 2015 I don't see a shred of balance in the current Lords set up.In what way?
Vacamion Posted 16 August 2015 Posted 16 August 2015 It cannot be right in 2015 that some people are able to influence legislation due to an accident of birth. At the very least, bin the hereditary Lords. At best, thin them out to 200 or so, get rid of the bishops, have all new Lords appointed by a cross party committee and ensure any who are so infirm that they fall asleep in the chamber or never show up are retired.
davieG Posted 16 August 2015 Author Posted 16 August 2015 In what way? Did you not read in the op what it's currently comprised of?
Merging Cultures Posted 17 August 2015 Posted 17 August 2015 Did you not read in the op what it's currently comprised of?I was interested in your opinion. In terms of what the article is complaining about, it doesn't mean it doesn't/can't balance parliament.The biggest problem I see is that in the main they are career politicians. Any sort of elected body will be politicians. I like the hereditary peers, their political interests and concerns will be more consistent over time and they can balance and because they are not elected they do not have to pander to politics or public opinion. However, Life peers are not totally bad, their appointment means subsequent governments will have to previous governments supporters in the Lords. Providing some balance. I say some balance because the fact that it doesn't have a load of power is actually a good thing. It means our politicians can get things done. Having lived in the states, I've seen how a more powerful, elected second chamber, can stifle good policies from become legislation. I much prefer our more reserved checks and balances that allow governments to get on with their job.
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 21 August 2015 Posted 21 August 2015 Probably archaic, and a burden to the tax payer, in this day and age
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 23 August 2015 Posted 23 August 2015 Nah. Worth every penny. I see a "porky pie", Ken.
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 23 August 2015 Posted 23 August 2015 What's the last bill the House of Lords effectively blocked? And can't the main house pretty much override a rejection by the Lords if it wants too? Don't really see the need to change things to something that wouldn't necessarily be any more useful than the current setup.
Webbo Posted 24 August 2015 Posted 24 August 2015 I want to be a lord!!!!! I thought you were already a time Lord?
Smudge Posted 24 August 2015 Posted 24 August 2015 It isn't an anachronism though is it? it's significantly different since life peers were introduced.
Sir Fynwy Posted 27 August 2015 Posted 27 August 2015 Good old Dave has gone and added 45 new peers to the already over manned house of lords today.
Rincewind Posted 27 August 2015 Posted 27 August 2015 Good old Dave has gone and added 45 new peers to the already over manned house of lords today. Saw also most are backers of the Tories as in funding.
Darkon84 Posted 27 August 2015 Posted 27 August 2015 Not as many Conservative Lords as this place would have you think. Conservative - 226 (out of 781) Labour - 212 Lib Dem - 101 Other Parties - 17 Non Affiliated - 20 Bishops - 26
Smudge Posted 27 August 2015 Posted 27 August 2015 Saw also most are backers of the Tories as in funding. What do you mean? Political Parties or those in the Lords?
Guest MattP Posted 27 August 2015 Posted 27 August 2015 Astounding people are attacking the Tories instead if the Lib Dems today on this. Although I shouldn't be surprised I suppose.
Mike Oxlong Posted 27 August 2015 Posted 27 August 2015 I had to look up anachronism. Couldn't you just have said "past it"
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.