It is currently being argued that the abolition of appointed Lords and their replacement by elected Lords (“reform”) must go ahead because it was promised in the manifestos of all three major political parties at the last Election. The Tory manifesto said that the party would work to “build a consensus” on the topic. This is doubtful. The LibDem manifesto proposed a wholly elected House, now no longer on the cards. So did the Labour party, together with a referendum on the topic, which now also seems to have been abandoned. So there was no unanimity.
More sadly than that, however, readers of this blog ought to know that manifestos are not worth the paper they are written on. Not my view, but that of the High Court. In 2005 the Labour Party manifesto said: We will put [the EU Constitutional Treaty] to the British people in a referendum. They failed to do so, claiming that the Lisbon Treaty which was agreed to was not the same as the one that was in draft when the manifesto was written. This was doubted by most commentators, who thought that the two treaties were very similar, and certainly the meaning of the manifesto was that there would be a referendum on the next major EU Treaty. As we all know, we are still being denied any such referendum today. Mr. Stuart Wheeler brought a case against the government seeking the fulfilment of that promise of a referendum (Wheeler R (on the application of) v. Office of the Prime Minister & Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs [2008] EWHC 1409). He argued that the repeated promises to Parliament, in the press and in the party manifesto that there would be a referendum on the topic gave rise to a legitimate expectation that he, and the British people, would have an opportunity to vote in a referendum. He lost his case. The court’s judgment was that the promise of a referendum, or any other promise in a manifesto, could not be enforced. It was a matter of political judgment, not legal enforceability. Such matters were for Parliament to decide in the light of the politics of the day.
So much then for manifesto promises and for any expectation that pledges in them will be enforced. The same goes for the even more ambiguous statements about Lords “reform” in the manifestos of 2010. That argument about all-party agreement will not wash. Remember that next time you study the glossy party manifestos of the general election.
I expect many Lib Dem voters voted for the party due to their manifesto pledge to scrap tuition fees. Look what good that did them. I doubt the Lib Dems saying, “Never mind, tuition fees have actually increased, but we’re giving you Lords Reform instead.” will satisfy many of them.
In paragraph 40 the court declared that its concerns must reflect ‘public law’. No mention is made of constitutional law. An enabled court could have taken a view that an incoming government could have relied upon a manifesto pledge and a failure to enact that pledge represented a pretence proscribed by the Bill of Rights 1689. Its failure to do this, or to have the ability to do this, renders the judgement itself political?
The government it would seem is taking the constitutional position. Governments do their best to commit to manifesto pledges whenever they can. However, Parliament has placed the Supreme Court beyond its ability to deliver constitutional ‘judge made law’ because such law could leave the bench liable to a charge of ‘Contempt of Parliament’?
The Law Lords were placed within the sovereignty of Parliament to allow them to give a view on constitutional matters. Depending on what was said the HoL at its discretion could provide a remedy or strike a bill if necessary. The Parliament Acts are now a statement that the executive operates perfection in its governance and that constitutionally they are accountable only to God almighty.
This is of particular concern: a foreign power in pursuing its foreign agenda could compromise a government and thereby escape its own constitutional obligations. The complicit and compromised government could not be held accountable for its actions in any court?
Ref: Wheeler, R (on the application of) v Office of the Prime Minister
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2008/1409.html
@Senex:
I really do, as I wrote in another thread, enjoy your posts. And I am sure, I shall continue to do so.
However, this one is a bit too much in legal speak and therefore hard to clarify the point you are making.
Are you saying, because of the now Supreme Court havng absolute power over any other court in the land, they can override a ruling given by a lower court, even in the event that their stance is simply political rather than a requirement of law?
To take up the argument of a manifesto being a road map to the way a political party is planning to travel, and once in power, they vere completely from that direction, the Courts can then force them to return to their promise? Or, not? And should they do so, or, not, the Supreme Court can and will throw that ruling aside to maintain a political right to fraudulently, or not, mislead the people?
I am all at sea here. Will you help me out?
The High Court refused to take any steps to treat a manifesto pledge as binding, saying it was a political matter, to be left to politicians in Parliament. The Supreme Court has not pronounced on this as far as I know. In other words, whatever a party may promise in its election manifesto, there is no legal way to make them do it.
Bar voting them out.
Ah we can’t do that with you can we?
And you won’t enforce manifestos by refusing to pass any law not in a manifesto.
For 600 million over a term, the Lords achieve bugger all in this area.
Thank you for the clarification. Much appreciated.
However, I think this is a good time to review that policy and make a legal change to allow those who find such deviance unacceptable to sue on the grounds of fraud. How can it be democratic to lie to achieve elected right to govern? That makes a mockery of the entire system.
If the law does not correct this possibility, then any person or group who wants office can lawfully fib their way into that post and once elected, simply begin running the country as they secretly intend, without any expectation of standing by promises made to the voter. Rather as Hitler did in Germany. Although I think even he gave a clue to his true intentions.
The approach is well known.
Lie to get elected, then stick two fingers up to the electorate when it comes to manifestos.
At the same time implement all the things you kept secret.
That’s why direct democracy is the solution. It stops this sort of fraud.
manifestos are not worth the paper they are written on,
The manifest of a ship is what is actually on board at the time of sailing isn’t it?
They might have salted meat and it might well go off…..!
I am as dubious about party manifestos as I am about referend-ums. Neither of them is much good to … good government.
The fact that all 3 main parties agree on a load does not mean that the salted meat will not go bad on the way.
Maude, the house has a number of retired Law Lords that have warned in debate on a number of occasions not to move hastily into constitutional change because of the law of unintended consequences.
Accompany this with the fact that within Parliament members of each house ‘cannot’ present accredited competences in any understanding of the constitution. The result is that constitutional change is largely political requiring only a single vote in either house to effect change. The constitution should be the protector of the people not the play thing of political ambition.
What has happened is like stripping some complex mechanism down to its component parts and reassembling it only to find you have some bits left over. And, then sometime later when things have broken saying “Oh! I wondered what that was for.”
So where are these missing bits? Is Parliament not set by the side of a river?
@Senex:
I can understand the Law Lords desire for caution. As the unexpected, as well as the undesirable turn of events can be quite nasty. Take the changes to the laws on our freedom over the past fifteen years. Alarming and I am sure not always envisaged. How could it be with such a fast changing world.
However, this matter of offering one path for the future, in order to win the trust of the electorate and then, once in office, the
tremendous deviation from those promised policies, has lead to discontent in the voter, as no one can get a grasp of what they believed was a road map offered for the future.
In fact, since the Thatcher government, politicians have veered so far from what was laid out as their vision once elected, there is very ittle or no trust left in any of the main parties now.
If this is not corrected, we are going to see an end to democracy altogether. And who wants that?
There will then be no alternative to Direct Democracy at that point and every move government makes will have to be passed by referendum. Time consuming and costly in the extreme. Even though it appeals to me.
Since
neither the UK Constitution
nor any Legislation
requires there to be Participatory Democracy
(People-multi-way, and upwards-downwards governance enablements and empowerments, as distinct from ‘Directive’ governance which is very largely and overall-effectively One-Way Top-Down, agendas & informations cornered by The Topmost Billionaires and Oligarchic Elites)
nor do the Constitution and Legislation provide both Method III and Critical Thinking Skills for all levels of The People,
both are essential if there is to be true people-participative Democracy,
thus we have traditionally prevailing at best a Three-Party but in practical result a Two-Party-narrowing-down to a One-Party State Oligarchy
(again, which is not “democracy”
because The People have Nil or Insufficient skills of
Information-Sharing-&-Appreciation, Cooperative Discussion,
Cooperative Needs-&-Hows Recognition and Problem-Solving,
Governance Scrutiny;
Constructively-Competitive Polling;
Formal-Argumentation & Moral-Reasoning;
a Common Model for Sustainable Individual Human Development;
a Common Model for Environmental Conservation;
A longest-term Goal of sidestepping our Extinction by emigrating to a second ‘Planet Earth’ or suchlike)
and since such essentials are thereby prevented from coming-to-life in the traditional “appointed” and “directly” elected so-called “democratic” oligarchic channels;
then
(therefore)
it is the Constitution-&-Legislature-Itself, that is “not worth the paper It is written upon”
—————-
(so how could a “manifesto”
or any other sub-orderly piece of paper
be either trustworthy or sustainworthy ?)
I must take an exception to the claim that a manifesto is not worth the paper it is written on.
I undertook a study of the 1997-2010 Labour Government’s manifestos. I undertook to analyse them, list their pledges (whether these were ambiguous or specific and how measurable they were). I concluded that over 80% of manifesto pledges were met.
This is consistent with the findings of the Richard Rose in the 1970s.
This can be validated by Lord Norton, who marked my paper on this.
@Mr Miller:
Oh, please. Give me a break. You cannot be serious. If LN passed that paper then, all I can say is, he must have been drinking too heavily.
This is the 1997 Labour manifesto so many of the electorate fell for.
http://www.labour-party.org.uk/manifestos/1997/1997-labour-manifesto.shtml/
And you point out to me which of those pledges they kept. Especially the ones on education. It is so funny you could roll on the floor laughing.
And do you see anywhere in that manifesto where they inform the people they plan mass immigration in order to lower the wages and keep them low by having thousands of applicants for one position, the way they do in the US. Where they hire and fire on a regular weekly roll.
And they didn’t mention the plan to culturally change our countries ethnic and cultural make up did they? London is now a city that is unrecognisable to its once strong national emphasis. We are a split city of people with no go areas and crime we could never have envisaged on these shores. What they imported was a US style murder rate that is grwoing by the day.
Then the strong families, my goodness they really managed that didn’t they. And, of course, tried hard to follow that promise as they brought in more an more anti family policies of one sort and another.
Go on Miller, show us what you mean.
Lord Norton should have failed your paper, is all I can say. He must have been leading you up the garden path.
And here is one of their own telling it like it is, in part. Of course, he doesn’t go far enough, but, he wouldn’t would he. No profit in it for him.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/08/new-labour-generation-ed-miliband
And whilst we are at it. Lets see the Conservatives offer in 2010.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Vv2da-hEkCcJ:media.conservatives.s3.amazonaws.com/manifesto/cpmanifesto2010_easyread.pdf+conservative+party+manifesto+2010&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESj5RjVsIPdEhlD9kh1HqJbx5-568dKQG9NwjewIfS686kwJ0iyC5sHf0oeBpSbzxjJAeXsO1JVggOhPKRm45T_GK9Fo3oG_j-PZks4Rg3PNUExlU5OCPG8c7qlF_sMxoLf2N6-O&sig=AHIEtbTZnz2EYr7AKWiKGdV_hQJGR3ExAw
Really love the way it kicks off with money problems and how they ar going to fixe them. Takes the breath away, that.
Then it goes on to tell us it will fix the banks. Oh, please. They are all in it together, so how can they fix it? They will have to fix themselves first. You know, the taxes their friends manage to dodge in the off shore havens.
You make my blood boil.
And then we have the treasury.
They have two emails on the entire subject of how much they owe to people for their state pension contributions.
The contents of those two emails? How to deny that they owe people anything.
It’s a scam. Its a fraud. And Lords are in on it because they just let all legislation go through without scrutiny. No oversight on the Ponzi fraud.
@maude elwes:
Please forgive me, my figures were a little off (I did write the report over 2 years ago and I was not in possession of my paper when quoting – I have corrected myself below):
The average for the Labour government over the 13 years is over 60% complete fulfilment of the manifesto pledges. The manifesto pledges that were “part” or “mostly” completed increased this percentage to just below 80%. This article, by the BBC, suggests this figure may be higher: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1961522.stm
I must take exception at a number of your points:
Lowering wages: Which part of the following quote, from the 1997 manifesto (which was fully implemented), points to the idea that Labour intended to lower wages “There must be minimum standards for the individual at work, including a minimum wage”.
With regards to crime, violent crime fell under Labour – something which the Conservative party manifesto 2010 tried to suggest wasn’t the case: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/apr/27/conservatives-crime-figures-reality-check
Finally, your concerns with regards to the Conservative manifesto of 2010 may well be valid – I have not looked into this. I do feel, however, it would be unfair to judge the manifesto fulfilment against the actions of this government. You should instead check their policies against the Coalition’s Programme for Government: http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_187876.pdf
I do sincerely hope that your blood temperature has come down to a healthy level.
Your still ignoring all the things they enacted without it being in a manifesto.
For example did they say they were going to raise taxes? Nope.
Democratically bankrupt.
You’re being highly selective by ignoring the majority of legislation and implying they did what they said, ignoring the things they lied about.
@Miller:
You put up a pie chart offered by the ‘BBC,’that bastian of truth in political correctness, to add weight to your argument that Labour stuck to its 1997 manifesto and 80% was accomplished. What it accomplished was those enormous changes it lied by ommission from being honest about to the electorate. And rushed them through at a speed so fast it took the head off the nation. My God, it devastated this country in ways that is going to be hard or impossible to right..
Did you read the text with that chart you offered? Well it tells us the opposite of what you suggest.
Then you tell us his government brought in a minimum wage of what was it? £4.00 per hour?… How clever of them to take up the American Roosevelt idea enacted in ‘1938.’ Do read all about it. Do you think perhaps his friend and manipulator, Bush, could have given the Blair that idea? How to dupe the people into swallowing your line of caring.
http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/flsa1938.htm
The minimum wage introduced by the Blair regime was inadequate then and is grossly inadequate today, after how long of a Labour government prior to this lot we have now? And here is the true Blair showing his tax write offs and how he pays less than a man on minimum wage.
http://eoin-clarke.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/minimum-wage-worker-paid-333-more-tax.html
Then you cleverly tell us crime, expecially violent crime, dropped under Labour. Oh, really, try telling that to those families who suffered the most appalling spread of murder, rape and honour killings than we had ever previously seen in this country before. Here are some different statistics, those that cannot be massaged by the State, as they do here to so much government information.
http://wheelgun.blogspot.co.uk/2007/01/crime-in-uk-versus-crime-in-us.html
Look closer and see they are higher than they have ever been and low and behold, higher than the USA. It may interest you to look at the 1967 rate before mass immigration began.
Which brings us to this government.
The main aim of this government is to relieve the British people of the Human Rights Act under the guise of its all the fault of the Europeans we are in this mess. Greece did it, the Germans, they fixed the Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac shenanigans. And of course, the Euro threatened the Dollar, it had to be done for, so they were right to use sabotage. These Europeans are the ones who put us in this tailspin.
Then they cite the Human Rights Act, which was instigated by mainly UK lawyers and no European legislation has to be adopted by our government unless they choose to do so.
Have a little read.
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/uk-right-not-adopt-eu-justice-measure-lords-committee-says
And another.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8160808.stm
So far the Tory government has not lived up to its biggest commitment which was to reduce mass immigration into this country from outside Europe. Not only has it failed to do so, it has instead increased immigration since election. Pushed by the Lib Dems to do so.
And yes, it is designed to hold down salary or wages, except of course for the rich, who fourish uncontrollably. They pay little or no tax to date, and this government fears greatly they may not be able to ease around that little game as easily as all government have for the past twenty five years or more.
However, Labour and its duplicitous group are not into increasing the revenue via that route either. So once again, there is only one party in office at any given time. The three musketeers, all for one and one for all. Or, all in it together, however you wish to frame it.
I could go on about the NHS. The Tories did not suggest the cuts and the privatation they intended to enact. And this was deviant in the extreme. Show me where it tells us what they plan to do to it in their manifesto. Can you find it?
I don’t have time to write here all the devious inuendo and outright duplicity all three main parties have used to fool the voter.
However, time for you bring up some real back up, rather than play the ‘Sir Humphrey’ game of massage and manipulation. That is old hat and doesn’t work on here. Even if it gives you a pass with the Lords.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×697898
And here is Polly Toynbee spelling it out. Not that I care that much for all she has to write either. But in the main, she has this spot on.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/07/politicians-lie-david-cameron-mendacity-expenses
That’s half the story.
How many pieces of legislation were implemented that were not in the manifesto?
Realise
many peoples’ real-life predicaments, disadvantages, sufferings and needs
were omitted from the Manifesto;
and also from many pssibly from all Bills;
so the MrMiller-ProfNorton-claimed “80% met” may, in a proper greater democratic context, be as little as “1% met” or even lower.
Dear Baronness,
The manifesto is by no way a legal document and should not be a threat to the lords to bear its admission. Contesting the contents of this document in the name of the human convention rights in respect with the choice of the Lords to remain unelected might be a good solution.
God bless the United Kingdom. God save the Queen.
Nazma FOURRE
The manifesto is by no way a legal document
============
So what? It’s the means parties get elected. If they then stick two fingers up, why not save money, and cancel all elections.
Democracy means doing what you said, and not doing what you didn’t say.
Parties break that regularly, and the majority of those promises (or secrets) are broken.
Hence the electorate isn’t responsible for clearing up MPs and peers messes.
Time for them to be jailed for the fraud. If that’s delayed, there are sufficient nutters out there who when they find their entire pension has disappeared because of the fraud, will take things into their own hands.
@Lord Blagger:
If you are looking for fraudsters to be thrown out, hold onto your hat… For in this little article we see the biggest fraudster of all telling us he is on his way back. He must have fallen out of fashion with his powerful US friends. Of no office, of no use.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2172300/Tony-Blairs-job-UK-politics-leaving-Downing-Street–advising-Labour-policy-review.html
And to think Labour were making ground. They must be afraid of the prospect of government in reality. Or, it is a set up to enable the Tory party to remain in situ without the Lib Dems ‘holding them back.’
This man, who has the big ones to stand with his deranged looking face and alarmingly similar wife, after he took this country illegally into war, leading to the deaths of so many British soldiers, is unbelievable. But more unbelieveable is Milliband. Is he also deranged? Would have to be to put himself in the same room with this guy. The only other answer is, birds of a feather.
Another little back up for how they conveniently bypasss the manifesto.
http://witteringsfromwitney.com/tag/richard-north/
It really is time to elect a whole different group of indidvidual for both house. Bring on the independents en mass.
If the entire electorate came out in force and voted, in every seat, for some kind of alternative candidate, we would be free of the lot of them. Then, at last, we would see change. And more than that, due respect for the people who give them their trust.
Look at the proposals.
1. PR – That means party lists. It means independents won’t get a look in
2. Party lists means a handful of people in the UK select representatives, because they control the list. No democracy there.
3. The rest are appointees. No chance of getting them out.
So a thief who controls the party machine makes sure they are re-elected by putting themselves at the top of the list. No chance of getting rid of them.
@LB:
Agreed!
Dear Lord BLagger
A legal document is a like a contract , based on legal terms and signed by both parties. A manifesto is just a document showing the aims and objectives of the political party which is represented by a member of the parliament. It is only an electoral promise and not a convention.This promise has indeed no legal values but moral ones and unlike a legal document, it can or not be followed by the political party itself. However I find the obsession of of the political party weird to reform the House of Lords which is totally different from the House of commons.If the House of lords needs to be reformed it is only by the wish of all the Lords themselves and not the commoners.The greediness of a sole concentrated monopolistic power of the commoners still lies unfortunately.
God bless the Queen. God saves the United Kingdom.
Sealed with a Kind thought
Nazma FOURRE
And that’s the problem
It should be a contract.
Same with the Lords and MPs. If they lie, then they should be done for perjury.
The minimum wage introduced by the Blair regime was inadequate then and is grossly inadequate today
============
It is after you take tax off on top. Min wage – employment taxes come to 3K a year.
That’s the crime. People like the Lords taking money off poor people to live the life style to which they have become accustomed.
The Lords cost us 2,700 pounds a day.
ie. For each day one peer turns up, one British Standard Peasant has to work for a year on min wage, and consume no services.
That’s the crime. Peers don’t care about this, they just want their tax avoiding expenses and pay offs of tens of thousands if kicked out.
Dear Lord Blagger
I think that if an electoral promise had been a legal document, there would have been so much abuse of authority as any one hungry to be elected, can use this document sometimes at the detriment of the human conventions rights just as in the case of imposing elected lords without their prior agreement.Who are members of parliament to decide on behalf of the Lords?
I will tend to disagree with you, that lords cost money to British citizens for their expenses must have been included in a budget. United kingdom won’t be poorer in financing the deserved salaries of lords otherwise lords won’t be paid at such a rate.
I understand sometimes that any overburdened financial life of any citizen can lead to such a reasoning as he or she will always try to establish the guilt of institutions to appease his or her moral sufferings of having to pay taxes.Lords are not responsible for any financial problems of any citizen of the United Kingdom. Every citizen is liable to pay for the services being rendered by the society and taxes are one of them. So leave the “dear lords” out of any personal financial problems.They should be blessed as they have resisted for so many decades. despite the thirst of power of some commoners who still want them to be converted into lords- commoners. I invite all the lords to stand up and to say loudly” God save the lords” .The house of lords should remain as such, unmodified for the sake of its roots: the monarchy.
God save the Queen and the lords. God bless the United Kingdom.
Nazma FOURRE
@fourre:
This post of yours is utter nonsense. You clearly have no hold on the workings of government in this country or of its values.
I could have accepted that ignorance is bliss on your part, up to this point. But as you clearly intend to fill this blog with mindless contributions it is time you were asked to qualify your notions.
This post is so offensive it is time you began to join in by putting backing here for what you claim as advice. What references would you like us to mull over that support your theories in this matter.
Don’t keep us waiting as we hold our breath in expectation. Lay out your basis for belieivng your ideas will advance the British expectations of good government.
I think that if an electoral promise had been a legal document, there would have been so much abuse of authority as any one hungry to be elected, can use this document sometimes at the detriment of the human conventions rights just as in the case of imposing elected lords without their prior agreement.Who are members of parliament to decide on behalf of the Lords?
=============
No. You can’t implement anything that’s a human rights abuse, can you?
=============
I will tend to disagree with you, that lords cost money to British citizens for their expenses must have been included in a budget. United kingdom won’t be poorer in financing the deserved salaries of lords otherwise lords won’t be paid at such a rate.
============
They aren’t paid a salary, because its not a job. They are paid expenses, but they have done two things.
1. Exempt themselves from investigatation by the tax man. Nice perk
2. Exempted their ‘expenses’ from taxation. They have evaded tax.
Expenses are an irrelevance. What matters is what they cost the tax payer.
2,700 pounds a day. It takes one min wage earner a whole year of working to pay for the cost of one peer, for just one day.
Lords are not responsible for any financial problems of any citizen of the United Kingdom
Yes they are. The citizen has no say. None. The Lords do. They have a say on vast amount of legistlation that entails the spending of taxes. Vast numbers of them were in the Commons making those decisions. They are responsible along with MPs.
Given that they are involved in the largest fraud going, a Ponzi scheme on a massive scale, they are responsible.
The fraud is this.
1. Take money from people for the state pension.
2. Hide the resulting liability off the books.
3. Spend the cash.
Same as Bernie Maddoff, its a fraud.
Maud
As an ex journalist, I have the art of analysing political situation which you don’t have. Our world is different and I don’t think you understand my language. So better leave it that way.
Nazma FOURRE
Dear Lord Blagger,
Men are born free, and this freedom of movement, speech and actions are protected in the Human conventions rights. Regarding the Manifesto policy , as it has been revealed, it has been made by a commoner to oblige lords to be elected.The abuse of authority is that prior consultation among lords must have been established before obliging them to the policy of being elected. By the way of the stated facts, I am inclined to say that there is violation of the human conventions rights at this stage as lords cannot be obliged to reform the house of Lords through this manifesto which is not also a legal document.
Secondly Salary,is a regular income from an employer to an employee. From this analogy lords are having a salary since they are paid 300 pounds sterling a day or 150 pounds as being part time.Since their remuneration is calculated on the number of hours spent at the parliament, “salary” is the most appropriate term than “expenses”.
From this analogy since they are paid a regular income, as a salary they are considered to offer their services. They are doing a job, a real one as they are involved in the voting of laws.
Since their salary which you are refering as expenses is on a day to day basis,they cannot be forced to be taxed!!!!
The lords cannot be blamed for the cost amount of legislation taxes which were voted by the ex commoners in the House of Commons, as the house of lords does not rule the House of commons.As said this proverb “When you are in Rome, be a roman”. Laws regarding these expenses were voted in the House of commons by the ex commoners and the House of lords cannot be held responsible for this.They had to vote in the sense of the commoners. Since these ex commoners have joined the House of lords, a new page of their destiny has been drawn up and should not be haunted by their past votes. Any reminders of this kind could be interpreted as a moral harassment.They have not been the only ones in the House of commons to have voted for this law, so don’t make them shoulder the burdens of this law alone nor with the house of lords.
I totally disagree that lords are named “frauders”, because of the law voted by the ex commoners in the House of lords.
I am totally amused by your personal accusations especially regarding the presumed fraud of the lords in which you said “taking money for people from the state pension”. You cannot attribute the law which you qualified as being a fraudulous one to the House of lords.
Any way LB, I can guess you are so fond of the Lords that you cannot help yourself to be called “Lord Blagger”.So if you attribute lords as being “frauders”, I wonder why you you should name yourself as such.I don’t think if the image of the lords had been so negative, you would have called yourself “Lord Blagger”.I shall continue to name you as “Lord Blagger”,in the name of the freedom of speech, sensing that you want this title.Hope your day dreams be realities.
God bless the Queen. God save the United Kingdom.
Sealed with a kind thought
Nazma FOURRE
Men are born free,
============
Lets start there.
1. Women are enslaved?
2. In the UK, you are far from free. You are in debt servitude. You’ve got 230,000 pounds of government debt to pay off.
3. this manifesto which is not also a legal document.
So what? They are going to dictate anyway. That’s the problem. You want it two ways. First its not a legal document so they can do what they hell they want. Next, its not a legal document so they can’t use it to change the lords.
4. Secondly Salary,is a regular income from an employer to an employee. From this analogy lords are having a salary since they are paid 300 pounds sterling a day or 150 pounds as being part time.Since their remuneration is calculated on the number of hours spent at the parliament, “salary” is the most appropriate term than “expenses”.
They claim its expenses. The reason is that if they say its a salary, they are subject to taxation on it. They don’t want that.
You are rather naive.
5 The lords cannot be blamed for the cost amount of legislation taxes which were voted by the ex commoners in the House of Commons, as the house of lords does not rule the House of commons.
So what the hell are we paying 150 million a year for? Ah yes, a retirement home for failed politicians and the brown nosers.
Dear Lord Blagger,
LB, be patient one day you should bear your title, and be called “Lord”, that is my blessings as you are so much concerned about the salaries of the Lords without any concern of the high salaries and expenses of MPs.
I don’t think the day you will bear the title of the “Lord” as you are thirsting through your pseudo calling , you will inquire where comes your salary nor will you refuse to be paid on the thought that it might come from the taxes paid by any British Citizen.You will perhaps open your eyes on the real world of the House of lords and reach at last to the conclusion that all expenditures met by the United Kingdom are included in a budget.Salaries of the lords , the government and the MPS are found therein.
A budget contains the policy of taxes to be paid by citizens. I don’t think that the budget of the United Kingdom has specified that personal taxes go in the pockets of the lords.
Lords are paid on a day to day basis. They get a salary as they are compensated for their services rendered in terms of ruling the United Kingdom in the voting of laws.They are not entitled to pay taxes in respect to their day to day wages, according to law.
It is up to the lords to decide how to qualify their salary be it “expenses” or “salaries” as they are free as any human being to express themselves and not to be forced to follow any dictatorial manifesto.
A manifesto, is not a legal document as it does not bear any signature of any agreement. By this, it cannot legally oblige anybody to respect the terms of the document nor force the other party to follow the contents.Lords cannot be forced by commoners to comply with the aims of their electoral promise. The House of commons cannot rule the policy of the House of the lords, be it with a legal document or not.
I understand your anger regarding the high taxes and I don’t think if you had been a Lord, you would have voted for the abolishment of taxes on your own personal deduction, without any statistical proof that they go in your pocket as a lord.Taxes run the economic growth of a country and are chaired by the country.
It is a shame that some people do not want to pay for the services rendered by their country and put their frustration on institutions.
Lords are the blessed gifts of the British Nation. They have not asked anything from the population in terms of a high monthly compensation from the goverment nor did they want to be paid like MPs and receiving their expenses.They have resisted from commoners from the 17th Century. Let them breathe now. Don’t hammer their reputation just because they are stems of the Monarchy and they represent in the minds of some antimonarchists, “power and money”.
Their job is as important as that of MPS. They are the builders of the united kingdom ‘s policy. It is time to honour their good job and their resistence.
Hope one day, some day, you will bear the title of the “Lord” so that you could be fond of their real world.
God save the Queen. God bless the United Kingdom.
Nazma FOURRE
Lords are paid on a day to day basis. They get a salary as they are compensated for their services rendered in terms of ruling the United Kingdom in the voting of laws.They are not entitled to pay taxes in respect to their day to day wages, according to law.
=======
No. They are getting expenses. Read the legislation.
They have also exempted themselves from income tax on their expenses.
Now, that would normally mean, that the expenses have to be wholly necessary and genuine. That means that HMRC would be investigating, and they would be prosecuted.
Except they passed a law making their tax evasion legal.
Same as the law that exempts them from money laundering regulations.
Now why would Peers to need exempt themselves from tax and from money laundering regulations I wonder?
ope one day, some day, you will bear the title of the “Lord” so that you could be fond of their real world.
I would refuse, unless the purposes was to force through a vote abolishing the Lords. That would give me pleasure.
Dear Lord Blagger
The similarity between salary and expenses is that they are both money.Any person in the working class is deemed to be compensated in terms of money as we are far from the barter system’s period where services can be exchanged for services.So from that point of view each employee is giving his or her services to hopefully be paid.
Any employee is entitled to a contract defining the sum of money he or she would get by the end of the month or the week or be it at the end of the day.The money from this point of view defined in terms of services is legally known as a salary. From this analogy, I don’t think before the start of any activities as a lord, he or she will just join the house of the Lords without complying with the terms of the legal contract.I don’t think neither that Lords are appointed secretely with no legal frame.From this analogy they are receiving a salary but regarding their day to day basis salary, it is not prohibited that it might be called informally as being expenses.
Regarding the exemption of taxes by the Lords, as I said earlier, they are framed in their legal context. Lords are not bound legally to pay taxes because they are receiving a day to day salary regarded as expenses. If you strongly want to change this law which seems to disturb your peace of mind, I shall advise you to make a law proposal in that sense to the government though it is wrongly thought that your bill might be passed.If so, the bill must be on a two way side. It would be unfair to ask lords to pay for taxes if they are not getting fixed salaries plus extra salaries known as expenses just like Mps .I think that democracy should prevail on both sides in terms of taxes and salaries.
Lord Blagger,if abolishing the House of lords would give you pleasure, I wonder why you are using their “title” to be on this blog.
“Hate is a part of love”. From this personal deduction I can imagine that you are so fond of the lords that you cannot help hating them and using their title on this blog.
I trust you the day you will bear this title, you will make a big party inviting all the members of the hansard society , the participants on this blog,and the lords and this “love-hated” towards lords would be vanished in the air.
Good luck , I am sure you would bear proudly the title “Lord” one day to ease your frustration.
God save the Queen. God bless the United Kingdom.
Nazma FOURRE
Expenses – money paid to the employee where the employee has spent money on behalf of the employer.
Salary – money paid to the employee for the work they do.
That’s the difference, except if you are a Peer. There expenses are paid for the work they do, but because they have exempted their expenses from scrutiny and taxation, its just tax evasion.
I don’t think neither that Lords are appointed secretely
=========
Yes they are. The honours committee is exempt from FOI. It’s all secret.
Lord Blagger,if abolishing the House of lords would give you pleasure, I wonder why you are using their “title” to be on this blog.
======
I used to post with my real name, but the majority of my posts were censored/ended up in the spam bin.
So I post under the Blagger moniker, because it sums up the attitude of most of the Peers.
Dear Lord Blagger,
I am quite amused to see that you can make the difference between salaries and expenses when it comes to lords ,and you never dare to mention the high salaries together with the expenses of the MPS.I bet you must be very friendly to some MPS.
I shall rather say in that case, that Lords should be paid as much MPS so that no confusion can be made between salaries and expenses.
If lords were to be appointed secretely, there would be neither a selection process based on selecting criterias, nor would the application form be accompanied by the signature of two referees.Since publicity is made through the selection process, the proceedure itself cannot be regarded as being a secret one.
Regarding your past unpublished comments, I am sure that the monitors would be glad to answer to your queries.
Really, you are not forced to put the title “Lord”,in your comments to be published. It is likely you are fond of this title just like every one on earth is , knowingly that Lords are simply the best.
God save the Queen and the Lords. God Bless the United Kingdom .
Nazma FOURRE
What makes you think that because I’m against the lords and their frauds, that it must mean that I all in favour of fraud in the commons?
That’s just daft.
You said that appointments were not secret. I’ve pointed out to you that they are. So now you’re changing your mind and saying, hypothetically, if ….
Do you know what a blagger is?
Dear Lord Blagger,
It is obvious that your continuous malicious denonciation against lords, together with your obsession about their money obtained for their services rendered to the United Kingdom , and your failure to mention the high salaries and expenses of the Mps in the House of commons, can make even a two year old toddler think that you might have been paid by the House of commons to criticize the Lords.
Secondly, the application form regarding the appointment of the Lords is not a secret to the world as it is on the required site online. Internet is not a private domain but a public one and from this analogy there is no secret in the appointment of Lords.
From the first definition of a blagger such as your pseudo, it does imply a smooth talker or a persuasive person.
I admit you are one of them, a smooth talker when it comes to false and malicious denonciation towards lords. However you are not a persuasive person though I find your comments intellectual but not persuasive.
I admit that besides your intellectual and humouristic qualities, you have the charism to make any debate be filled with pleasure and excitement.
The second meaning of the word “Blagger” is that of a thief or robber. I don’t think you are one of them.Are you?
God save the Queen and the Lords. God bless the United Kingdom.
Nazma FOURRE