<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Activity at the Despatch Box</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lordsoftheblog.net/2009/07/22/activity-at-the-despatch-box/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lordsoftheblog.net/2009/07/22/activity-at-the-despatch-box/</link>
	<description>Life and Work in the House of Lords</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 16:33:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick</title>
		<link>http://lordsoftheblog.net/2009/07/22/activity-at-the-despatch-box/comment-page-1/#comment-4900</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:12:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lordsoftheblog.net/?p=3223#comment-4900</guid>
		<description>Porker of the day.

Baroness Uddin, one of your colleagues. No doubt you know the details. The obvious question is why you didn&#039;t stop this odious woman from claiming for an empty property. Then claiming expenses to travel too and from it.

Just shows how much care Parliament and the Lords take when it comes to spending other people&#039;s money on themselves.

Just like Portcullis house.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Porker of the day.</p>
<p>Baroness Uddin, one of your colleagues. No doubt you know the details. The obvious question is why you didn&#8217;t stop this odious woman from claiming for an empty property. Then claiming expenses to travel too and from it.</p>
<p>Just shows how much care Parliament and the Lords take when it comes to spending other people&#8217;s money on themselves.</p>
<p>Just like Portcullis house.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick</title>
		<link>http://lordsoftheblog.net/2009/07/22/activity-at-the-despatch-box/comment-page-1/#comment-4899</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:08:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lordsoftheblog.net/?p=3223#comment-4899</guid>
		<description>200 years at zero percent interest. No why have you left that off? Are you that financially incompentent that you don&#039;t realise that the government had to borrow the cash to build the place?

So on the debt figures. Lets just do a litle calculation. Might be beyond you I know, because you didn&#039;t realise the Portcullis house comes with added interest.

The figure for the state employee pension liabilities in present value terms is 1.15 trillion. That is for 500,000 employees, most of whom the left tell me are poorly paid and won&#039;t be on high retirement incomes.

Now, we have another 60 million odd who are also due pensions or benefits if they don&#039;t earn enough. Its 5K a year for the state pension.

So lets say each of the poorly paid NHS workers gets 15K a year which would be more than many are paid, we can say 1.15 trillion would pay the state pensions of around 1.5 million of them.

The unfunded state pension system is going to screw the lot.

However, lets look in detail at the total cost of Portculis house with interest.

4.5%, 200 years, on 235 million.

10.58 million a year, total payments of 2.115 trillion pounds.

Your figures

Nick</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>200 years at zero percent interest. No why have you left that off? Are you that financially incompentent that you don&#8217;t realise that the government had to borrow the cash to build the place?</p>
<p>So on the debt figures. Lets just do a litle calculation. Might be beyond you I know, because you didn&#8217;t realise the Portcullis house comes with added interest.</p>
<p>The figure for the state employee pension liabilities in present value terms is 1.15 trillion. That is for 500,000 employees, most of whom the left tell me are poorly paid and won&#8217;t be on high retirement incomes.</p>
<p>Now, we have another 60 million odd who are also due pensions or benefits if they don&#8217;t earn enough. Its 5K a year for the state pension.</p>
<p>So lets say each of the poorly paid NHS workers gets 15K a year which would be more than many are paid, we can say 1.15 trillion would pay the state pensions of around 1.5 million of them.</p>
<p>The unfunded state pension system is going to screw the lot.</p>
<p>However, lets look in detail at the total cost of Portculis house with interest.</p>
<p>4.5%, 200 years, on 235 million.</p>
<p>10.58 million a year, total payments of 2.115 trillion pounds.</p>
<p>Your figures</p>
<p>Nick</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ladytizzy</title>
		<link>http://lordsoftheblog.net/2009/07/22/activity-at-the-despatch-box/comment-page-1/#comment-4898</link>
		<dc:creator>ladytizzy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:41:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lordsoftheblog.net/?p=3223#comment-4898</guid>
		<description>Nick, you invented this 8 trillion debt last year by some dubious reworkings of existing figures. http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/10/21/government-in-debt-now-at-18-trillion/
Note: the URL would have read 1.8 rather than 18 if it could!

John Redwood had already stated that pensions had been taken into account but you carried on making your own mythical assumptions, much as you are doing here. Since John Redwood didn&#039;t bother to correct you, perhaps you will do so now.

Else, by your own standards, the cost of Portcullis House divided by 200 years is c.£1.2m, divided by number of occupants (lets use 200 again to make the maths easier) brings us to a tad shy of £6K per person per year.

Quite cheap when you put it like that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nick, you invented this 8 trillion debt last year by some dubious reworkings of existing figures. <a href="http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/10/21/government-in-debt-now-at-18-trillion/" rel="nofollow">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/10/21/government-in-debt-now-at-18-trillion/</a><br />
Note: the URL would have read 1.8 rather than 18 if it could!</p>
<p>John Redwood had already stated that pensions had been taken into account but you carried on making your own mythical assumptions, much as you are doing here. Since John Redwood didn&#8217;t bother to correct you, perhaps you will do so now.</p>
<p>Else, by your own standards, the cost of Portcullis House divided by 200 years is c.£1.2m, divided by number of occupants (lets use 200 again to make the maths easier) brings us to a tad shy of £6K per person per year.</p>
<p>Quite cheap when you put it like that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick</title>
		<link>http://lordsoftheblog.net/2009/07/22/activity-at-the-despatch-box/comment-page-1/#comment-4897</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Jul 2009 23:45:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lordsoftheblog.net/?p=3223#comment-4897</guid>
		<description>You&#039;re wriggling like  billyo

Parliament makes the laws. First house of commons, then house of lords.

It&#039;s the heart of government. All decisions or the ability to make those decisions goes throught parliament.

The avidence on lining their own pockets is legion.

250 plus MPs have shown clear neopotism and employed their family.

Near enough all of the rest have submitted claims for expense that are illegal.

They have passed laws that give themselves special tax perks that others don&#039;t get .

Your support for these thieves and continued inability to say how the 8 trillion of debt is going to be repaid, if ever shows that you are part of the problem.

There are more that one type of unions. There are people like groups of IT contractors, fathers for justice, online groups such as pepipoo. All have the government as the opposition.

Times are a&#039;changing.

The government is bankrupt. That means they are goign to have to default. The question is then who carries the can for the default.

The reason for the debt is government largess, and you&#039;re one of the major reciepients of that largess.

Get used to it, you&#039;re going to lose. Time to perhaps get more external jobs not based on your membership of the club

Nick</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You&#8217;re wriggling like  billyo</p>
<p>Parliament makes the laws. First house of commons, then house of lords.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s the heart of government. All decisions or the ability to make those decisions goes throught parliament.</p>
<p>The avidence on lining their own pockets is legion.</p>
<p>250 plus MPs have shown clear neopotism and employed their family.</p>
<p>Near enough all of the rest have submitted claims for expense that are illegal.</p>
<p>They have passed laws that give themselves special tax perks that others don&#8217;t get .</p>
<p>Your support for these thieves and continued inability to say how the 8 trillion of debt is going to be repaid, if ever shows that you are part of the problem.</p>
<p>There are more that one type of unions. There are people like groups of IT contractors, fathers for justice, online groups such as pepipoo. All have the government as the opposition.</p>
<p>Times are a&#8217;changing.</p>
<p>The government is bankrupt. That means they are goign to have to default. The question is then who carries the can for the default.</p>
<p>The reason for the debt is government largess, and you&#8217;re one of the major reciepients of that largess.</p>
<p>Get used to it, you&#8217;re going to lose. Time to perhaps get more external jobs not based on your membership of the club</p>
<p>Nick</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: lordnorton</title>
		<link>http://lordsoftheblog.net/2009/07/22/activity-at-the-despatch-box/comment-page-1/#comment-4896</link>
		<dc:creator>lordnorton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Jul 2009 11:36:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lordsoftheblog.net/?p=3223#comment-4896</guid>
		<description>Nick: Parliament is not part of Government.  There is a rather fundamental difference.  You really need to do some serious research instead of regurgitating assertions which have little grounding in fact.  People, for example, are not unionising: the trend is substantially in the other direction.  The drop in union membership in the UK is quite notable.  Politicians are not lining their own pockets: some parliamentarians may have mis-used their allowances or made serious errors of judgement, but people appear willing to generalise about all on the basis of what a minority do.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nick: Parliament is not part of Government.  There is a rather fundamental difference.  You really need to do some serious research instead of regurgitating assertions which have little grounding in fact.  People, for example, are not unionising: the trend is substantially in the other direction.  The drop in union membership in the UK is quite notable.  Politicians are not lining their own pockets: some parliamentarians may have mis-used their allowances or made serious errors of judgement, but people appear willing to generalise about all on the basis of what a minority do.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick</title>
		<link>http://lordsoftheblog.net/2009/07/22/activity-at-the-despatch-box/comment-page-1/#comment-4895</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2009 19:32:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lordsoftheblog.net/?p=3223#comment-4895</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s not misdirected. You&#039;re part of the problem. You are part of the government of the UK.

The government of the UK has run up 8 trillion of debts, and you like most of the others are doing what an ostrich does.

The reason is pretty clear. You owe your living to the person who appointed or allowed you to stay in the Lords and lord it over the rest of us.

You are now trying to dodge the question of debts. Namely your expenses and costs are crippling this country. There is wide spread fraud in the Lords, and you know it. You&#039;re even going to allow lords who asked for bribes to change legistalation back into your midst. Likewise you haven&#039;t got rid of the criminals who are still sitting there.

Not answering questions about debt because you haven&#039;t got a clue and want the problem to be someone else&#039;s problem is plain daft.

You are contributing to the debt by insisting on large numbers of Lords to sit in their comfy club, have subsidised drinks not available to the rest of us, and get paid to do so.

The public has caught on.

The state faces a real problem.

1. People are unionising. All the current unions from the work based one like Unison, to groups like Fathers for Justice are citizen versus the state.

2. People are starting to record their interactions with the state, beit telephone to photographing the police

3. The availability of information shows what a crap job politicians are doing, and how you as a group are lining your own pockets at the expense of putting the rest of the public into debt. If you allocate the 8 trillion against the working population, they are in hock to the extent of 300K per worker, plus interest.

You&#039;re going to be repeatedly caught out as a result. Every crook that gets caught and let off makes it worse. Private prosecutions of crooks like Jacqui Smith are going to drive it home.

What you should be doing is addressing the debt, and only have 100 or even abolishing the entire upper house is one step on that process.

After all, your redundant. The government can just use Labour&#039;s enabling act and put all laws into force using dictate. Another one of those little laws you&#039;ve been working hard on

Nick</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s not misdirected. You&#8217;re part of the problem. You are part of the government of the UK.</p>
<p>The government of the UK has run up 8 trillion of debts, and you like most of the others are doing what an ostrich does.</p>
<p>The reason is pretty clear. You owe your living to the person who appointed or allowed you to stay in the Lords and lord it over the rest of us.</p>
<p>You are now trying to dodge the question of debts. Namely your expenses and costs are crippling this country. There is wide spread fraud in the Lords, and you know it. You&#8217;re even going to allow lords who asked for bribes to change legistalation back into your midst. Likewise you haven&#8217;t got rid of the criminals who are still sitting there.</p>
<p>Not answering questions about debt because you haven&#8217;t got a clue and want the problem to be someone else&#8217;s problem is plain daft.</p>
<p>You are contributing to the debt by insisting on large numbers of Lords to sit in their comfy club, have subsidised drinks not available to the rest of us, and get paid to do so.</p>
<p>The public has caught on.</p>
<p>The state faces a real problem.</p>
<p>1. People are unionising. All the current unions from the work based one like Unison, to groups like Fathers for Justice are citizen versus the state.</p>
<p>2. People are starting to record their interactions with the state, beit telephone to photographing the police</p>
<p>3. The availability of information shows what a crap job politicians are doing, and how you as a group are lining your own pockets at the expense of putting the rest of the public into debt. If you allocate the 8 trillion against the working population, they are in hock to the extent of 300K per worker, plus interest.</p>
<p>You&#8217;re going to be repeatedly caught out as a result. Every crook that gets caught and let off makes it worse. Private prosecutions of crooks like Jacqui Smith are going to drive it home.</p>
<p>What you should be doing is addressing the debt, and only have 100 or even abolishing the entire upper house is one step on that process.</p>
<p>After all, your redundant. The government can just use Labour&#8217;s enabling act and put all laws into force using dictate. Another one of those little laws you&#8217;ve been working hard on</p>
<p>Nick</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick</title>
		<link>http://lordsoftheblog.net/2009/07/22/activity-at-the-despatch-box/comment-page-1/#comment-4894</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2009 18:40:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lordsoftheblog.net/?p=3223#comment-4894</guid>
		<description>And that&#039;s an identical situation to the UK where the bulk of the legistlation is European.

Which part of that fact aren&#039;t you getting?

The UK is a mature democracy. Almost everything that really needs legislation has been legistlated for. It&#039;s a done and dusted deal.

So, come on 8 trilion in debts. How are you going to pay that off?

100 legislators in an upper house, 300 in a lower house goes some way to reducing the 500 million in costs that you as a politician are running up.

Cutting your expenses would be another. We know from the house of commons that over half are involved in fraud and nepotism.

Nick</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And that&#8217;s an identical situation to the UK where the bulk of the legistlation is European.</p>
<p>Which part of that fact aren&#8217;t you getting?</p>
<p>The UK is a mature democracy. Almost everything that really needs legislation has been legistlated for. It&#8217;s a done and dusted deal.</p>
<p>So, come on 8 trilion in debts. How are you going to pay that off?</p>
<p>100 legislators in an upper house, 300 in a lower house goes some way to reducing the 500 million in costs that you as a politician are running up.</p>
<p>Cutting your expenses would be another. We know from the house of commons that over half are involved in fraud and nepotism.</p>
<p>Nick</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: lordnorton</title>
		<link>http://lordsoftheblog.net/2009/07/22/activity-at-the-despatch-box/comment-page-1/#comment-4893</link>
		<dc:creator>lordnorton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2009 18:33:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lordsoftheblog.net/?p=3223#comment-4893</guid>
		<description>Nick: The population of the USA you refer to is represented by state legislatures.  The US Congress only deals with those matters enumerated in the Constitution.  All other matters are reserved to the states. And Senators have rather extensive support in fulfilling their functions.  You seem to have difficulty grasping these facts.  The amount of legislation dealt with in the UK is substantial.  Even EU directives require UK legislation. There is a substantial task in preventing the Government gold-plating the legislation.  Only regulations have directly binding effect. Your third point has no obvious relevance to the question posed.  Your final question is misdirected - ask the Government.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nick: The population of the USA you refer to is represented by state legislatures.  The US Congress only deals with those matters enumerated in the Constitution.  All other matters are reserved to the states. And Senators have rather extensive support in fulfilling their functions.  You seem to have difficulty grasping these facts.  The amount of legislation dealt with in the UK is substantial.  Even EU directives require UK legislation. There is a substantial task in preventing the Government gold-plating the legislation.  Only regulations have directly binding effect. Your third point has no obvious relevance to the question posed.  Your final question is misdirected &#8211; ask the Government.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick</title>
		<link>http://lordsoftheblog.net/2009/07/22/activity-at-the-despatch-box/comment-page-1/#comment-4892</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2009 18:05:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lordsoftheblog.net/?p=3223#comment-4892</guid>
		<description>What evidence have you that 100 would be sufficient to deal with the current volume of legislation?

===============

1. The US has 100 to deal with the legistlation for 5+ times the population of the UK

2. The majority of the UK legistlation comes from Brussels, and so is irrelevant for the HoL. They don&#039;t get to scrutinise that.

3. It&#039;s doesn&#039;t matter anyway. The money isn&#039;t there. You&#039;ve blown it.

How are you going to pay back the 8 trillion of debts with interest on top (pensions included) when you only have a tax base of 500 billion?

Future tax payer&#039;s might want some other services too such as education, health, defence, police, ..

Nick</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What evidence have you that 100 would be sufficient to deal with the current volume of legislation?</p>
<p>===============</p>
<p>1. The US has 100 to deal with the legistlation for 5+ times the population of the UK</p>
<p>2. The majority of the UK legistlation comes from Brussels, and so is irrelevant for the HoL. They don&#8217;t get to scrutinise that.</p>
<p>3. It&#8217;s doesn&#8217;t matter anyway. The money isn&#8217;t there. You&#8217;ve blown it.</p>
<p>How are you going to pay back the 8 trillion of debts with interest on top (pensions included) when you only have a tax base of 500 billion?</p>
<p>Future tax payer&#8217;s might want some other services too such as education, health, defence, police, ..</p>
<p>Nick</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: lordnorton</title>
		<link>http://lordsoftheblog.net/2009/07/22/activity-at-the-despatch-box/comment-page-1/#comment-4891</link>
		<dc:creator>lordnorton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2009 17:20:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lordsoftheblog.net/?p=3223#comment-4891</guid>
		<description>Nick: What evidence have you that 100 would be sufficient to deal with the current volume of legislation?  For reasons I have touched upon, there is no comparison with the US Senate, given the federal structure of the USA and the sheer scale of the support resources provided to Senators.  Simply asserting that 100 would be sufficient does not make it so.  You would be well advised to research the subject first.  The amount spent on the political process is in any event relatively small and you cannot save much money out of the existing cost of politicians, short of doing something like abolishing local councils.  The cost of the House of Lords is not only relatively small, but cost less this past financial year than in the previous year.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nick: What evidence have you that 100 would be sufficient to deal with the current volume of legislation?  For reasons I have touched upon, there is no comparison with the US Senate, given the federal structure of the USA and the sheer scale of the support resources provided to Senators.  Simply asserting that 100 would be sufficient does not make it so.  You would be well advised to research the subject first.  The amount spent on the political process is in any event relatively small and you cannot save much money out of the existing cost of politicians, short of doing something like abolishing local councils.  The cost of the House of Lords is not only relatively small, but cost less this past financial year than in the previous year.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

