The cost of the House

Lord Norton

_39082269_lordsstill_300Each year, a question is usually tabled to find out the annual total costs, and the cost per member, of the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the European Parliament.  At the end of last month, the Commercial Secretary to the Treasury gave the costs as follows:


Annual cost: £392m

Numer of members: 650

Expenditure per member:  £0.60m


Annual cost: £87m

Number of members:  813-821

Expenditure per member: £0.11m


Annual cost: (equivalent in pounds): £1,318m

Number of members: 736

Expenditure per member (equivalent in pounds): £1.79m

See Hansard: House of Lords, 30 October 2013, cols. WA 263-4.

10 comments for “The cost of the House

  1. LordBlagger
    16/11/2013 at 8:07 pm

    As usual for government the trick is to leave items off the books.

    For example, depreciation. Not accounted for

    Pensions? Where are the pensions debts?

    Ho hum. See section 1-5 of the 2006 fraud act for the offences committed in producing a set of false books.

  2. 17/11/2013 at 4:12 pm

    Presumably the European Parliament figure will be considerably reduced when it finally settles in a single chamber, instead of shuttling between Brussels and Strasbourg.

    • Gareth Howell
      18/11/2013 at 3:06 pm

      And when Frank Liitle is it likely to do that? A carve up of the cost of moving from one to the other and back again is bound to be available somewhere. And the possible savings by only having the one must be assessed somewhere.

  3. Gareth Howell
    17/11/2013 at 4:41 pm

    I should say that all those figures fairly reflect the value of each individual chamber or parliament.

    The numbers at the game of going through the turnstiles to earn their fee does not matter. I think the noble lord will agree that the “class” structure of their lordships house has changed considerably with the influx of the large rump of middle class post war bulge people, who replaced the hereditary elite.
    There ARE too many but there could be 1400-1500 all claiming their fees, and it would still not be the question of cost but the question of squeezing butts on seats,a question of organization for Lord speakers’ department which would take some solving, but not be insoluble.

    It would become even more middle class in structure with further increase in numbers.

  4. maude elwes
    19/11/2013 at 11:09 am

    Well this little overview lark is a game of hide and seek isn’t it?

    As Blagger addresses, what is this covering and what exactly is this supposed to suggest? It’s cheaper to have an appointed House of unelected has beens, politically correct yes men, and friends and relatives on the gravy train, than it is to have democratically elected tiers of government?

    A great deal more clarity and transparency needed here. As well as the added costs of how much it takes to prosecute the frauds and incarcerate them when found trousering tax payers largesse.

  5. LordBlagger
    19/11/2013 at 10:20 pm

    It’s far cheap to have direct democracy. Here’s how it would work.

    1. Sack the Lords. No compensation. No redundancy. They will winge, but its not a job. You can’t get compensation for no expenses. It’s not taxed, so its not a job either.

    2. Turn the building into a hotel or restaurant. Lots of cash.

    3. Add to the 100 million cost of voter registration one field, the name of an MP, any MP. Say 10 million.

    4. For votes on bills, its proxy votes cast by the MP that matter.

    Job done.

    All it takes is one MP to say, I’ll set up a website and you can cast your vote and I will vote as a true proxy. Then you have direct democracy with a saving of 500 million over a term (Remember they omitted lots of costs from their accounts)

    So if you have a thieving MP? Change your proxy. I would suggest that if an MP drops below a certain number of votes, they are automatically recalled.

    If MPs want to raise taxes, they need to get the votes. If they want new spending, they have to tell people how they will pay for it. At last the electorate will have MPs where they need to be.

    • maude elwes
      21/11/2013 at 12:51 pm

      I am a great believer in direct democracy, Blagger. However, your idea leaves a lot to be desired. It needs a lot of fleshing out.

      What I want is an accurate account of what my MP is going to back in his voting opportunities. And, why, if he dares to do so, he changes his view midstream and his vote to suit. What made him veer from the promised chosen path and deviate from the wishes of his proletariat backers.

      I also want him to be accountable for his actions. Lauded if he delivers on promises made to the electorate and forced to pay with his job and assets if he’s found with his fingers in the till. No get out clauses or back scratching from those ready with a nice bung. I want to be sure he isn’t working on behalf of foreigners looking for a pay off of some kind or lobbyists working on fat salaries against the best interests of me, without first having to divulge this fact loudly in plain speak and revealing what he is being asked to push for and by whom.

      The weedy, vague, blancmange, I am not in it to tell you what’s going on set and having an immediate recall by constituents re-voting. What bliss that would be.

      Then politics would be worthy of the name democracy in its real meaning. And the outcome being people having serious direct access to insure their rulers good behaviour.

      Additionally, being aware of ‘advisers’ and their ‘objectives.’ Who these people are supporting and who may be paying them on the side and for what? If a Minister needs an adviser, at £85,000 per annum, why is he/she chosen as a Minister in the first place? Or, is this to placate little girls without a shred of nous for the position they are placed in by politically correct policies, when they cry help me I’m out of my depth? And why are these advisers to have power over the minions that should me made to jump to tune by the one they are advising?

      This political game is becoming more ‘Alice in Wonderland’ by the day. Time to call ‘off with their heads.’

      • LordBlagger
        22/11/2013 at 12:25 pm

        1. On MPs reneging on their promises.

        Very simple, change your proxy.

        Under the current system, think Lib Dems and tuition fees. What are you going to do? Er, you’re stuck. Under referenda by proxy, you can do something and you can do it now.

        2. If a MP loses proxy votes below a threshold, they are recalled.

        So if the get caught looting, people move their proxies, and he’s recalled. Effectively that mean he’s out.

        There is no direct way of getting the cash back, unless the police/cps prosecute. However, by removing the crooks, and there are lots of them, you bias the house towards the more ethical. [Bit of a joke at the moment because we can see how the ethical coop was run]

        Don’t worry about their heads. They will drop off anyway. It’s back to the pension fraud. 6,500 bn of debt that not even the lords will discuss. [see past posts]

    • Gareth Howell
      23/11/2013 at 2:27 pm

      “Job done.

      All it takes is one MP to say, I’ll set up a website and you can cast your vote and I will vote as a true proxy.”

      The unions would approve of that; think how many proxy votes they have each! What is it? Three million per voter?

      Unite seems to be a union of all unions, so its a job for life with them, and if not, the cry goes up
      “Everybody out!”

      Like the practice nurse at a local GP;if she has not got a job for life, she shouts “everybody out!” and the Doctor has to wipe all the backsides. She will only return to work if he will do what he is told, and while she is at it, the Sneer are outside waiting to arrest him, for being rude to his wife.

Comments are closed.