Dire predictions?

Lord Tyler

On the day that the Chancellor performs his celebrated Scrooge act, with a very wintery “Autumn Statement”, I noticed that the cost of the House of Lords has risen by a record 38% to £109 million (up from £78m last year), for the most recent 12 month period. Allowances to members have risen by over 20% from £18.7m to £22.6m.

Before you comment that the House of Commons has risen by almost as much I am bound to point out that this figure is, according to the explanatory notes, distorted by an abnormally low figure in the previous year because of the absence of MPs from Westminster during the 2010 General Election period.

Any time now there are expected to be some 80 – 100 new Peers nominated. By definition they are likely to be more active and assiduous in their attendance, so there will be yet another hike in the cost. 

I predicted recently that without comprehensive reform, the cost of allowances to members would more than double in the next decade as they did in the last (from £8.41m in 2000/01 to £18.7m in 2010/11). In fact, if the costs increased by 20% again next year and the year after, it will only take until 2014/15 for the figure to reach £39m – double that of 2010/11. At the same rate of growth, the price of Peers’ allowances would rise to nearly £117m by 2020/21, more than six times the 2010/11 figure.

These numbers should at least cause those Labour and Conservative MPs who made dire predictions about the cost of a mainly elected House of 450 members to reconsider.

9 comments for “Dire predictions?

  1. Lord Blagger
    05/12/2012 at 3:05 pm

    You’ve left off depreciation from your costs.

    You’ve spent tens of millions on renovations, and yet you still want to move out for more spending.

    So time for a quiz.

    So what’s the daily cost to us of running one peer?

    [PS. Expenses are just what they take out. The cost to us isn't the same thing]

    http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171766_263808.pdf

    When you want to get your state pension, and the government says no, we’re bust, remember, that you’ve had all your pension contributions and more diverted to keep the Lords in the style to which they have become accustomed.

    Hence why they won’t discuss government debt and how they have ‘invested’ your retirement fund.

  2. Lord Blagger
    05/12/2012 at 3:36 pm

    80 new peers – 10% of the house.

    Reduce that for the dead.

    38% increase.

    The increase in numbers doesn’t wash as an excuse.

  3. MilesJSD
    05/12/2012 at 3:56 pm

    Direr overshadowings and underlurkings fester concealed, deliberately lcoked-out-of-sight and hearing;

    I give just two brief ‘indicators’:

    1) That the luxury-pocket-money cost of a failing Banker (e.g. RBS) balloon’s-out at £2million per year
    plus £1million bonus for being “the least bad of the competing banker-bunch”

    whilst the genuine accountable running-cost of a governance-peer actually doing the job is only £200,000
    (£100million divided by 500 peers)

    is a complexly gross imbalance;
    ———
    especially when the biggest bottom-line

    2) the more human-livings any individual draws/is given from the Common Purse
    a) the less personally-efficient at making-ends-meet they are in the Earth’s and Civilisation’s Lifeplace
    b) the more deluded they are as to their finitely-singular one-human-being status and identity.

  4. Rhodri Mawr
    05/12/2012 at 4:44 pm

    I predicted recently that without comprehensive reform, the cost of allowances to members would more than double in the next decade as they did in the last (from £8.41m in 2000/01 to £18.7m in 2010/11).

    To pay for members’ mortages on homes which increased by 300%.

    Only those who talked themselves in to it, got had-up for…. taking it twice.

  5. maude elwes
    05/12/2012 at 7:59 pm

    This was a dire prediction. What a pity the British didn’t see sense and moved as far away as they could have way back then. Today would have been very different had they held on to their sanity.

    Thatcher’s subservience made me feel physically sick.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0137tff

  6. Sharon
    06/12/2012 at 12:22 pm

    It’s disgusting that the government is so ready to call those in need scroungers when they’re spending so much on themselves.

  7. Dave Edwards
    07/12/2012 at 3:47 pm

    Lord Tyler, isn’t the lords also closed during the 2010 election break? If so the comparison with the Commons is valid. Have you forgotten where you were in April/May 2010 already?

  8. Michael Parker
    07/12/2012 at 9:16 pm

    Although it slightly undermines your story, the adjustments on the accounts were related to the pension fund and property values. If you exclude these, the annual increase is more like 5%. Inflation was about 3.5%, so all in all it’s not quite as bad as the 38% headline figure.

  9. Nazma FOURRE
    08/12/2012 at 12:16 am

    My Dear favourite lord Tyler,
    Elected members is not the right way and the appointment of lords is in the hands of Mr cameron. It is the parliament to decide about the budget to be allocated to lords and peers who are less priviledged than commoners.Hope one day, should I receive your blessing to be a lord we will sort out together the question of budget allocated to Lords.Hope to be among you very soon as an appointed lord.
    May God bless thee
    God save the United Kingdom and the beloved Lords. God bless the United Kingdom.
    Nazma FOURRE

Comments are closed.