Following on from my last blog post about Member’s Leaving the House, readers might like to read our debate about this on Tuesday. Reading people’s comments on my last post and considering the Working Group’s report further, led me to think again about whether there really should be any financial package at all offered to those who leave the House.
In fact, I wondered out loud as to whether those of us who want to see this House reformed as soon as possible ought to advocate for a very generous system of retirement benefits, in order to engorge public outrage at the way the present place runs. But that would be too mischievous even for me.
My speech – and the whole debate – is available here.
In fact, I wondered out loud as to whether those of us who want to see this House reformed as soon as possible ought to advocate for a very generous system of retirement benefits, in order to engorge public outrage at the way the present place runs. But that would be too mischievous even for me.
===============
It’s the name of the game. What can Lords extract from the public purse.
Posts like yours show that’s what’s going on.
From other Lords posts, like “I’m entitled to my expenses because I’ve paid tax” to outright theft.
If you want to reduce numbers its very simple. You can start. Just stop turning up.
If you think a reduction in numbers is good why haven’t you done your bit?
My noble Lord, everyone I think is in agreement the House needs reform and quickly, more quickly than the 100 years or so it has taken thus far.
The essential thing we get right is purpose and composition.
The House of Lords purpose should, in my view, be to hold Government to account in scrutiny of Bills. In whose name should they hold them to account ? The electorate of course which brings us onto composition.
The House has become too partisan, it doesn`t represent the electorate, it represents Parties and is even controlled by Parties. This is wrong purely and simply. Neither should the 700 or so be there to represent just themselves and their views, though their expertise should not be lost.
Now my noble Lord, Lord Tyler may think this is heading toward representation of the people by way of elections and feel vindicated. He is wrong. The people in terms of the electorate are mostly ignorant not only in terms of Parliamentary business but also in terms of most other business that will come through the House, so expertise and unbderstanding is necessary therefore precluding the “Commoner”.
As an ignorant commoner I may at times protest a Bill because I do not have a full understanding of an issue, therefore I need people I can trust and turn to for help. I cannot get this type of help from partisan people who will not give me an independent answer.
It is imperative that reform of the House includes the fact that it will be independent, that it will run independently of party bias, that it`s members will remain experts in our name to hold Government to account.
I have stated elsewhere that once a Government has been elected and starts doing thngs the people no longer wish there is only one place for the people to turn and that is this House. The Party in power won`t listen, the Opposition are already opposing which only leaves your Lordships House. It is of no use to turn to the House in desperation to find it made up, as a mirror, of the Commons.
The Lords has needed reform for many long years, the Commons intends to reform it but will do so with great bias. Gone will be the expertise, the Judges that the people need to give independent scrutiny and in will come more Partisan spirit until the people cry enough.
The people have no power now, the days of the strong Unions are long gone. Peaceful protest and petitions ignored, so who will listen to them 2-4 years after they mistakenly ticked the wrong box on the ballot paper ?
Governments may play with the system to try to fool the people into thinking they have more power but people are not stupid, they stop voting…there`s no point. How far will you allow what is happening to continue ? To the point of violent revolution ?
You have a chance to represent the electorate with wisdom and expertise, to listen to all views and to conclude that which is just and fair without partisan mind.
As for retirement benefits at the moment, sorry we`re out of cash but we still have good Welfare system should you get into trouble…just. What people deserve and what they need are two seperate things. As a self employed person, as are the Lords I know the benefits and pitfalls, I knew them when I started.
Lord Tyler’s contribution to the debate only goes to re-inforce the fact of HoL being the best London club where you are also expected to chip in from time to time with some ideas about what the government is doing with its right to make laws.
Compensation can be little different from the compensation won by members of the Garrick in the form of excellent wine from that club’s vineyards, or for share compensation from the RAC club when they sold off the roadside automobile business, from which Pall Mall members did very well.
Lord Walton does not for a moment deny that the HoL is a club. It was built and designed as one, nad has been used by most members as one ever since.
I cannot envisage a change to that order, especially with the vast numbers of NEW members in the last few months.
Lord Tyler’s efforts are worthy but will be fruitless except for encouraging the idea of compensation, for people who really do not need or deserve it.
Lord Tyler even though I disagree with you totally about any form of an elected lords, I think what the house needs is small reforms. Giving the Lords Speaker more power at questions and statements. Making sure that if peers do not turn up for a certain amount of days a year they are thrown out. Allowing Lords to retire from the Chamber if they are too old or frail, or simply cannot be bothered, if they do retire they should not be allowed back in or to carry on with their title. I think Baroness D’D’Souza made the best speech in the debate.
very generous system of retirement benefits, in order to engorge public outrage at the way the present place runs
Even the old Royal commonwealth Society members went on a fling some years ago, when the amateur board decided to redevelop. The finest asset of the Club was the common wealth library several thousand literay works dedicated to the former empire, some of them very valuable indeed. about ten years after the building had been demolished and rebuilt with a private hotel with a mere discount for RCS “members”, the question of the whereabouts of the books had still not been resolved, with accusations abounding that they were in the homes of former council members, which is where they would stay. Some found their way, allegedly to the Commonwealth Institute in Kesnington high St. but that story is most certainly apocryphal.
Another excellent example of the Club members ransacking the assets of the club.
Blagger is absoulutely spot on with his appraisal of the Lords and any imminent “sacking”!
That’s why they are in it, and that is how they would depart from it.