It was embarrassing, to say the least, to read reports alleging that Baroness Dunn and Lords Bagri, Foster, McAlpine and Laidlaw had resigned their seats in the Lords rather than sacrifice their non-dom status and tax savings. The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 stipulated that a non-dom could not sit in the House of Lords unless he or she paid tax here on overseas income and assets. So 5 peers chose to avoid tax and leave the Lords, while Lord Ashcroft has reportedly opted to stay in the Lords and pay the required tax as a resident.
The reports have not been well received – and rightly so – because the peers who have resigned will keep their titles even though they will not be members of the House. Those titles are empty without the responsibility that goes with them, namely, participating in the governance of the country which has honoured the bearer. There are calls for the titles to be removed.
The overwhelming majority of peers would prefer to stay in the Lords and contribute, rather than any amount of tax savings. Will our descendants – and history – remember us for our active participation in government, or for the money we saved? Noblesse oblige.
Nope. You will be remembered for the cash you’ve spent and wasted.
That’s the hard truth of the matter.
930 billion of gilt debt.
1.2 trillion of civil service pensions.
1.6 trillion for the state pension [An underestimate of real bill because so many are still going to be on benefits]
And at the same time, you are still running up the bills and think its normal.
You cost us 2,000 plus pounds a day. There is no evidence that you’ve saved any money, just that you’ve cost us money.
ie. The burden of debt has increased along with taxation. You would need to show that taxation has been reduced, and that borrowing has gone down.
Instead, the spending in the Lords has increased over the last 10 years.
I’m sorry to be blunt, but you’re making it up, unless you can answer this question?
Where’s the evidence of any money being saved?
Has the net burden gone down?
Unfortunately it is the Commons in charge of finance, the Lords do not get a look in. Our expenses are very small compared with what they will be for an elected upper House. I know of no other legislature where not even secretarial help is provided, but has to be met by the member.
Why not put yourself forward for selection as a people’s peer? It is open to anyone to nominate or be nominated.
But as you say, Lady Dench, “To be a member of the Lords one needs a good pension or private income of one’s own to sustain the position.” I suppose that is as true of the “peoples’ peers” as of those inheriting the position?
As for the titles vs. the duties, I see no reason for the former to depend on the latter. Particularly IF I am correct that in the early 21st, having a non-royal title gives one about as much clout in itself as being a D-list celebrity.
If I’m wrong about that last, I hope that someone here will correct me.
“There are calls for their titles to be removed”.
How can i and others who wish to help make it so to let it be so?
keep on participating
I clicked “keep on participating” as a Reply to Keith McBurney above, not t be a (new) comment
=======
JSDM1053W1407)
It is of course a great shame to leave the House of Lords just to save a few extra Pounds, and as it is written the Love of Money i the Root of all Evil.
I don’t know were I stand upon the matter of revoking Titles, but I do think that those who shirk the Duties given them should be seen as what they are, a disgraceful display.
don’t know were I stand upon the matter of revoking Titles
Do Letters become “Letters Close” rather than “Letters Patent” as soon as they cease to be members of the noble house?
Do non-elected hereditary peers enjoy “Letters Patent” any more or just “Letters Close”?
“Will our descendants – and history – remember us for our active participation in government, or for the money we saved?”
1. Already today and yesterday we are remembering ‘you’ not for your ‘active participation in government’ but for your constructively-effective participation in legislating and constituting better democratic government;
and also
2. For the lifesupportive-resources and Public money you have and are saving us The People;
and lastly
3. For the huge personal monetary gains you have totally made and will doubtless continue to make out of both your office and your ‘private’ title.
———
We (both Top-Monarchy & Governance) and The People, need to get down to the serious lifesupports ‘bedrock’ of legislational and constitutional Reform; for the Big Equation of Economics and Budgetings increasingly shows that we are still increasingly extincting the renewable Web-of-Life, and eroding & destroying the non-renewable Lifesupports, of the Earth.
=============
(JSDM0904M120710)
I make absolutely no monetary gains out of membership and title – on the contrary, one has to spend one’s own money to keep going. To be a member of the Lords one needs a good pension or private income of one’s own to sustain the position.
My Lady, as Parliament is supposedly representative of the Nation it should be no surprise that the thieves and blaggards of our society also maybe represented.
As for titles, are they really what they were ? I mean in these times one could find a Lord or Lady chatting on the internet with mere commoners ! What`s more people are buying titles now in more ways than one….
http://www.regaltitles.com/
The title means little it`s the position and acceptance of responsibility that EARNS respect. You can dress a dog in ermine and call it King but it`s still a dog.
Well Lady Deech enough people did raise the idea of peers being able to resign their titles as well as their seats in the recent reform bill. Sadly the house itself seemed keen to kill such possibilities. This is by no means the worst stain on the house. The fact peers can be convicted of serious offences but retain their titles/seats (with certain limits) seriously damages the house but there seems precious little willpower to correct it.
Well said.
Incidentally, we’ve been discussing this very issue at:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.heraldry/browse_thread/thread/4331b67ecc3c37f6/30165dcea47f76f6#30165dcea47f76f6
Subjectively, as in the discussion, I feel that this is due to membership of the second chamber being both a (permanent) honour and a political appointment. Members are secure in the knowledge that even if they give up or perform sub-optimally on the political part, their honour is safe for life due to the tradition of never revoking nobiliary status for any act short of treason.
Best regards.
Raveem.
(The Coexistence Trust, Oxford University, etc.)
(Reply to Raveem)
Would the difference between a ‘political’ appointment (soon perhaps also a ‘popular-politically-elected’ appointment ?)and a ‘nobility’ appointment be a definite conflict in any way ? or a mere ‘contrast’ ?
Would Lord Low of Dalston’s crossbench speech to ‘Lords Reform’ (1645-1653 29Jun) recommending Expertise-Constituencies be a sufficient remedy for both the lack of accountability and the lack of lifesupportive-civilisation sustain-worthiness indicated by the ’empty honour title’ issue ?
—-
JSDM 1109W1407
Why has there been no similar call to remove the “empty” titles from hereditaries who found that, after several hundred years, they were no longer part of the legislative process because Tony decreed so?
The peerage-Lords link has already been broken. I don’t see why this is different. The last government seems to have been very successful in making a dog’s breakfast of the Constitution, just as it did on this occasion with this Act which was so obviously aimed (unsuccessfully) at Lord Ashcroft.
What I’m certain of is this: History will judge the last government for its financial and constitutional vandalism very harshly indeed.
Gone are the days when a 9th/10th Earl inherited an Earldom at his Post office bench in NZ or Oz and was not under any real obligation to be introduced, though with every right to attend when ever he felt like it.
Off on vacation to the UK to take my seat in the HofL Old boy! Back in three weeks!
It’s the same with expenses.
Since the Lords haven’t cleaned up the mess, the conclusion is they don’t want to.
That’s why the report is made a state secret.
There is no justification for it being kept secret bar the fact that more people than myself will find out just how bad the set up is in the Lords.
Lord Blagger
As Chris K says, this is no different from the position of hereditary peers excluded from the House under the 1999 Act.
The CR&G Act doesn’t really mention the issue of titles at all. Unlike a Writ of Summons, which only lasts for a parliament, a life peerage is for life, so I don’t see why it should be removed when a member is ineligible to sit in the House. In fact, I’m in favour of retaining life peerages for members of the upper house even if we moved to fixed-term appointments or elections. It would be no different from many countries where senators retain their titles after they retire.
One interesting point to note is that the Act has no provision for peers taking up their seats again should they decide to become domiciled. Under the Act, they give up their seats permanently, and a new peerage must be conferred in order for them to rejoin the House (except in the case of hereditary peers, who can stand for future by-elections).
“I’m in favour of retaining life peerages for members of the upper house even if we moved to fixed-term appointments or elections. ”
If you are a Member of the board of a public company, it can be rather difficult to stop saying, when asked, that you are a board member of so-an-so company, especially if you act on your prior knowledge of the business.
That does not require you to continue to be a board member, for the rest of your days whether you are, or are not one.
Call yourself what you like when you like, provided that you are working in the best interest, of the business, as far as you can possibly be aware, but also be aware that anything you say, has less and less value as time goes by! (in the words of the old song)
I make absolutely no monetary gains out of membership and title – on the contrary, one has to spend one’s own money to keep going. To be a member of the Lords one needs a good pension or private income of one’s own to sustain the position.
Various points arise.
Why is it what you take out of the system that’s the measure of what’s going on, not what you cost the rest of us? The impression you’re giving is that its what you get out of it that’s important and screw the rest of us.
For the last year we have expenses, you turned up on 72 days. At over 2K a day costs to us, that’s 144,000 pounds a year.
ie. 72 people on the poverty line (min wage) have to work for a year to pay your costs. Assuming of course they don’t use the NHS, roads, rail, buses, schooling, police, …
Could you look those 72 people directly in the face and say, thanks for the 2K? I doubt it.
Lord Blagger
Lord Blagger: yet more dodgy maths from you. Your often-quoted figure of £2000 per day per peer seems based on dividing the cost of the House by the number of peers. You can’t then multiply a peer’s attendance by £2000 to find their individual cost, as most of the costs are constant not dependent on how many peers attend.
Unfortunately it is the Commons in charge of finance, the Lords do not get a look in. Our expenses are very small compared with what they will be for an elected upper House. I know of no other legislature where not even secretarial help is provided, but has to be met by the member.
Again, its your expenses. Again, why is it what you get out that’s important, and the cost to others irrelevant.
8,138 was the cost of your office expenses for the last year. Not a minor amount.
I don’t know where these figures come from. The allowances are £86-50 per day, and £75 office costs (secretary, intern, computer supplies, subscriptions, telephone, internet). And I’ve paid my taxes over 44 years full time employment!
Again, you’re just approaching it from what you get out of the system.
For example, lets take Cameron. Are our (as taxpayers) only costs associated with the PM the cost of his salary? No, its the total package.
So last figure I have for the Lords is 115 million for the year.
On average 400 Lords turn up each day.
You sit for about 145 days.
So you do the maths as to what it costs us
And I’ve paid my taxes over 44 years full time employment!
Quite. You want your tax money back. What about all the rest of us?
ie. Again you are making the point, its what you get out of it that matters to you.
The rest of us have to suffer the cost, and the consequences.
For another example, where in your figures are the costs to us of a subisidised canteen and subsidised drinking?
Jonathon. On your argument, let me give an example.
Lets say you own two houses. You decide that you aren’t going to live in one of them.
Do you carry on paying all the costs and let it be empty?
Sell it?
Rent it out.
Use it for some other purpose.
ie. There are plenty of other uses for the Lord chamber. We can rent out Portcullis house and get a bit of cash back on that Holyrood house of a mess, and put some desks in the Lords chamber.
ie. The costs can be vastly reduced. After all the millions spent on renovations, it can be safely mothballed. No users means very little wear and tear. Lets say 5 million (a vast sum to run an empty room). That means 110 million of savings, per year.
Plus it also means that the Lords can do more of what Deech preaches. Go out and earn some more cash and pay exhorbitant taxes. Do something productive. If you’re fit enough to work in the Lords, your fit enough to go out and work. Why should we be providing a nice retirement home for failed political hacks?
Here is an unanswered question that’s up your street. Your area of expertise.
Freedom of Information.
There is a report into Lords expenses. The one done by the clerk of the lords who investigate his own management and Lords claims for expenses. He made it a state secret.
Why? It’s clearly not defence or any other secret. It’s been made secret because it blows the gaff on what’s going on. How about you asking for a copy and getting it published.
You’re not looking at the whole story. As well as the cost to us of the present arrangements, you should look at the cost to us of all the sensible alternatives, ranging from not having a second house to a fully elected second chamber run in the same way as the Commons.
I would put it to you that the hidden cost of not having a second chamber would turn out to be higher than the existing arrangements due to there being nothing to easily hold the Commons to account on a day-to-day basis.
I’ve been thinking further about this, and I still don’t see what the fuss is. The peers in question have done nothing wrong. They operated within the rules that were in place, and have done nothing dishonest. Many of them simply live abroad. We have been discussing how to reduce membership of the House on this blog recently, and the need to encourage members to retire, so surely this is the start of that? Some members decide to leave becasue of rules about tax, there’s nothing dishonourable about that. The next new rule may set a minimum attendance, and other peers may give up their seats as they want to spend more time with their families – nothing wrong with that, nor should they lose their titles.
Titles and seats have not necessarily gone together at many points in history. Only representative peers from Scotland could sit at one stage (not unlike elected hereditaries today). And until 1963, women who inherited titles couldn’t sit either. It didn’t mean they weren’t peers.
Perhaps you should concentrate on removing titles and seats from convicted criminals – of which there are several in the House – rather than from people who’ve done nothing wrong.
The silly season is upon us.
Many that blog here have wondered from time to time whether the title “Lord Blagger” is a fiction. Equally fictitious is that his line comes down to him from Baron Hardup of Sellsome. The Hardups in Victorian times were known for their parsimonious ways being particularly averse to spendthrifts. It is thought that the current title holder has a first class honours degree in car salesmanship from the now defunct Banger University. The family motto is “Publicus Sumo Quisquam”.
Baron Hardup is a distant relative of mine, one Diogenes of Sinope also known as Diogenes the Cynic. He too was known for his frugal ways often to be found begging on the streets rather than claiming on expenses. His philosophy gave rise to the Stoicism movement in ancient Athens. Lord Blaggers immediate forbear was often to be seen wandering the corridors of Parliament holding high an unlit paraffin lamp singing “Hev yew gorra loight boy” whilst purportedly searching for an honest man.
For readers unfamiliar with the song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TIFiaHyC9E
Enjoy!