The bill for running the House of Lords has leapt by £42 million in the last three years undermining government promises to cut the cost of politics.
The number of peers has increased by 103 since 2010, taking the total number to nearly 800.
New figures show the amount EACH unelected peer costs the taxpayer, through daily allowances, has risen 17% from £97,725 to £114,721 in the same three years.
In the last year the amount of money required to staff the Lords increased by 6% to £24 million, making a mockery of the Prime Minister’s promise to cut the cost of politics.
The higher cost of the Upper House was revealed just weeks after it emerged that Lord Hanningfield had been turning up for a token short period each day in order to collect his £300 allowance.
It will further fuel concerns about the rising cost of politics, coming the same day as reports that the bill for politicians’ special advisors has leapt four-fold in just two decades.
The cost of the MPs’ so-called ‘Spads’ has risen from £1.5 million in the early 1990s to £7.2 million.
There are now 98 such advisors working within Whitehall compared to 76 in 2010, earning an average of £73,470 a year – more than the present basic MPs’ salary of £66,396.
The statistics were uncovered by Labour MP Tom Greatrex.
The Government had pledged to cut costs by reducing the number of MPs from 650 to 600 but the plan was scrapped when the coalition partners fell out over House of Lords reform.
You might want to check out this link which helps keep a trace on how much politicians are claiming in expenses..
The best chance to complete house of lords 'reform' is to abolish it via independence next year.ReplyDelete
We should also remember that if we don;t vote yes, there are plans from Mr Forsyth and his likes, to make a committee of the House of Lords a revising chamber for Scottish government legislation.
Imagine a chamber revising our laws, without one single representative of one of the major parties of the country (the SNP refuse to take peerages as they are utterly against a non elected house).
It is totally impracticable. If there was an SNP government nothing at all would ever get through!
Found this on my partner's Facebook page, thought it is quite apt. LOLReplyDelete
Tak wan n pass them oan back guys! LOL
LOL... Very funny.Delete
Thought you'd enjoy it!Delete
Still trying to write that constitutional article Tris. It's taking so long because I just can't seem to find a way to integrate the obviously essential concept of an unelected aristocratic, partially theocratic revising chamber into my otherwise obviously ridiculous pie in the sky radical democratic machinations.ReplyDelete
I will keep trying but without such a chamber, I can't see any of my ideas being taken seriously by any of the mature democracies around the world. I mean, on Governmental running costs alone, I am struggling to get the necessary Tax payers money spent, required to even begin to impress!
Take your time... develop your ideas...Delete
One of the many things wrong with this country and certainly one of the most disgusting. To have an unelected head of state and an unelected second chamber is wrong and anti-democratic it makes us look like a backward victorian nation stuck in class and privilege. It really does amaze me that many people can't see the things that are wrong with this country and this being one of the main ones. I often argue that people should never not vote but I swear if it's a no vote next year I will either spoil my paper at all Westminster elections or just not vote in them at all. I know spoiling your paper is a statement but I sometimes think that if the vote went down to say 10% then there would have to be changes very quickly so it maybe is a campaign against voting in westminster elections until they change the system, it's time we stood up to be counted.ReplyDelete
It's time we stood up to be[ing] counted! (wink)
I heard this morning, I think, that about 75% of people who don't vote, don't vote because they think politicians are a bunch of crooks.Delete
It's a shame because many of them are probably decent people trying to do a job.
Just like they say, all the people on benefits are cheats or scroungers... it's not true, but there are some, and they get the others the bad name.
We have to add to the unelected head of state and her ever growing family, the House of Lords again always expanding, the fact that Westminster is elected FPTP, which means that in many cases the MP is elected with far fewer than 50% of the vote; something like 60% of seats never change hands and in any case they are whipped to do what they are told, on pain of their wives being told about the rent boy on a Wednesday night and mistress on Thursday.
The only time they seem to deviate from this is when they bring their religious beliefs to the fore, having failed to mention that in their election addresses.
The whole thing needs sorting.