The global average (ie. nations with bicameral parliaments) is having an Upper House only 44% the size of the Lower House.
.
...
I am partly with you. My main objective is that any future HoL does not mirror the HoC politically. If we must have some elected members then they should not be more than 50% of its membership. Also no person who has been a MP should be allowed to be a member of the HoL.
I would put a minimum age of 40 and the appointed 50% should be experts in various areas and as you say be crossbenchers. Their main role would be as a revising chamber, but they could initiate/modify laws to be approved by the HoC. Am not sure how they would be remunerated.
The principal should be that, for the main, those that seek to govern us should be elected and broadly representative of the nation.
A minimum age of 40 is unwise. 18-40's are already hugely under represented in parliament. The reformed HoL should not consist of old white men of the "great and the good".
@JackW - do you mean Principle? I put an age limit on the HoL because it needs to have people of wide experience which is so lacking in most of the HoC and especially as its main function is as a revising chamber. Experience can give one the knowledge of what works and what does not as long as it is applied to the context of the present day and the future. For all the study of history, most people learn by experience.
How about the experience of being young in the contemporary world?
I do not think experience is the right word. Expertise .
But the HoL is a waste of space. There is no need for it. If we need one than irrespective of its powers or lack of them it should be elected. How we do that of course is where all the problems start. But fundamentally the HoL should be abolished. I have no problem with Constitutional Monarchs or proper 'Lords' as long as everyone pays their taxes and keeps their expensive Grade 1 listed home in order. I see no virtue in an appointed chamber, nor the granting of spurious Lords & Dames for simply being an actor or writer or scientist sportsman or some other philanthropist. But I believe we dole out far too many honours as it is.
That means you haven't got one and would like one.
Invariably party loyalists will support a new leader and this situation is hardly confined to Labour.
Conservatives and LibDems have at different times heaped huge praise on Hague, IDS, Howard and Ming when any reasoned analysis would indicate they'd lost before the cheers rang out from their acceptance speech.
And then behold down the line we here all along these very same loyalists knew all along the ever so recently feted leader was in fact a total dud.
Doesn't mean they shouldn't be called out on it though. Especially when we're in the middle of the electoral process. The sanctimony on here from some about exMPs is silly.
Oh, I'm under no illusions about NickP's personal stance. He blindly supports who is thinks is going to win, and will blindly support whoever does win, although he'll probably contest that perception! What I struggle with is his opinion that everyone else will do the same. When to do so would either undermine a large part of what they've ever fought for a large part of their political lives. And potentially destroy any hopes they might have had for the future.
There is a lot of talk that many in Labour oppose Corbyn because he is "unelectable". I suspect that many oppose him because they think his policies will be disastrous not just for Labour but for the country. And that if he is allowed to go into an election proposing them then they would rather he lost. So they may feel they can't take the chance of "waiting to see" how he does at various elections, and whether he can manage to turn himself into a vote winner.
I think that is a valid point. Many people who I know found it very difficult to vote for Ed Miliband. Some did out of loyalty and some didn't but even those who did were somewhat relieved that he lost (even if a Tory majority somewhat disappointed them) simply because they did not believe he was remotely capable of running the country.
And Ed was Marcus Aurelius compared to Corbyn. Labour are taking their centre left voters for granted and severely underestimating how many millions of them they could lose. Of course they may gain some from the Green/lefty fringe but this transaction is not going to develop to their advantage.
If the HoL is to have more powers, then age-skews become more undesirable. If it is purely revising, I see no problem.
For an example of unreflective, kneejerking, youth, see Mhairi Black desiring to make Westminster a "Proper Parliament". Year Zero, here they come.
Not sure about the No MP, No Lords principle. The problem surely is the appointment of too many Pygmy Politcians to get rid of them or as timeswever awards? Not mentioning names :-), but there's a certain former Minister who always sounded to me like a Sheep trying to speak Chinese.
Would you really want to lose the experience of eg Douglas Hurd, Lord Callaghan or (grits teeth) Betty Boothroyd? I'm sure there are former backbenchers there who are excellent.
But equally there is the execrable Michael Martin, who authorised the shredding of Tony Blair's expenses receipts.
Labour MP Cat Smith totally clueless on Newsnight.
But forthright. No big tents here.
"when the Christian Socialist Movement consulted and voted (by 67%, which I contest is not “huge” or “almost unanimous” as I read from some tweets) to change its name from “Christian Socialist Movement” to the wishy-washy “Christians on the Left” I will concede that is democracy and good luck to them. Although, I still don’t really know what “on the left” means; on the left of Thatcher or on the left of the SWP?" ... "So, no hard feelings as I cancel my membership to the Christian Socialist Movement as they move into the indefinable political category of “on the left”. CSM wasn’t ever one of the biggest socialist societies in the Labour Party, not because of the word Socialist, probably more because there aren’t that many Christians in the Labour Party. I hope they don’t ditch that word from their name too."
Not very sensible though, is she, or well-informed? 67% is a 'huge' margin - an outright majority under almost any system (some rare exceptions, such as the US Constitution, have a 75% threshold). Agreed, it's not 'almost unanimous', but it puts her in a not very large minority.
Also, there was a time when Christian Socialism was definitely a major force on the left - arguably the major force. Most of the Labour party was founded on the backs of Methodist organisations, although its leadership officially came from the unions. In the 1940s, its leader was the Archbishop of Canterbury, William Temple, and had he lived and moved it to the mainstream of Anglican opinion, British public opinion might have been very different in the 1950s. If Temple had even lived until October 1945, to be replaced in all likelihood by Bell rather than the arch-conservative Fisher, it might still have been different although Bell, whatever his strengths, was admittedly not considered a good leader.
As it was, the Labour party turned to the secularist and much more divisive approach of Bevan and Dalton (who ironically couldn't stand each other) with disastrous results for both its credibility and popular appeal.
To say it was 'never' one of the biggest societies is so historically illiterate it's painfully embarrassing. Admittedly it was a long time ago, but it was important once. Like the Labour party itself, it has however apparently dawned on them that the word 'socialism' is a turn-off for voters. Voters, however, like the motherhood and apple pie feeling of being 'left wing'. So rebrand yourself to meet them part way, and maybe they will listen again.
Or alternatively, you can elect Jeremy Corbyn and they will point and laugh.
Gosh- really exciting news that the Tories are extending the badger cull- at 4 grand a pop it is great value for money...bloody badgers, long nosed, stripy burrowers- worth 4k to kill each of them if you ask me. I say let's go for the lot, let's make the UK a badger free zone. In times of austerity 4k to kill a badger is great value for money.
Better value to cull the HoL at £165K a year per numpty saving mind you and the badgers could do a better job in Westminster.
Facts are awkward things.
Not not sure where that £165k comes from. Looks to be about 60% over the real figure including support services.
The Lords cost about 20-25% of the amount spent on the Commons.
Out of real interest, Malc - what are the Holyrood numbers?
Just for you Matt,
How much does it cost to run the Scottish Parliament?
For the financial year ending on 31 March 2014, the total revenue expenditure of the Scottish Parliament on staff, property and administration was £66.4 million. This figure is made up of:
administration and property running costs for the Parliament of £12.8 million parliamentary staff salaries of £22 million MSP salaries of £11.1 million Members' costs (which enable the MSPs to obtain staff and accommodation to help them carry out their parliamentary duties) of £12.4 million. funding for the salaries and running costs of the Commissioners and Ombudsman of £8.1 million.
So just over half a million pounds per MSP......
Just about 50% of the cost of a Westminster trougher and only 20% of the size so less scope for economy of scale savings.
It shows the gulf between motivating party members and motivating the (voting) public, which is why I think it's wrong for people to overly criticise Burnham and Cooper for failing to inspire during the campaign. Both would have been fine as party leader and a step up from Miliband.
You set a very low bar, both are complete donkeys and neither could run a bath.
Malcolm, surely that's a bit unfair? I've known some very reliable and sensible donkeys. True, they're not very good at running baths, but then they don't ever need to.
If Corbyn wins, as seems so likely, then the choice for the non-Corbyn factions is to either go into open rebellion, or to accommodate themselves to him. It seems Corbyn is not keen on whipping and would not enforce all his ideas on the party. It sounds to me like it will be a fairly incoherent mess, but we shall see.
The attraction of the trough will keep them in line, greed for sure will overcome any principles.
Alex " Five pensions " Salmond and Sturgeon use helicopters and chauffeured limousines. Corbyn uses his bicycle and trains. Scots will draw their own conclusions about who to trust with the proper use of their taxes.
Bitter JSA claimant unhappy that working people actually pay to have a pension and don't sponge.
Does that mean that six footers should all have 3" cut off the bottom of their legs?
You are asking the wrong question (imo).
Even for the House of Lords I draw the line at losing 3" (plenty to spare in all departments .... according to Mrs JackW).
The HoL should be reduced to 300. 250 elected at the General Election by PR and 50 independent/crossbench members to be agreed by the HoL.
Retain the name and some historical office holders and the heirs to throne ability to attend but not vote. Members to be called Lords of Parliament - LoP.
Commons retain primacy and the Salisbury convention enshrined.
I am partly with you. My main objective is that any future HoL does not mirror the HoC politically. If we must have some elected members then they should not be more than 50% of its membership. Also no person who has been a MP should be allowed to be a member of the HoL.
I would put a minimum age of 40 and the appointed 50% should be experts in various areas and as you say be crossbenchers. Their main role would be as a revising chamber, but they could initiate/modify laws to be approved by the HoC. Am not sure how they would be remunerated.
The principal should be that, for the main, those that seek to govern us should be elected and broadly representative of the nation.
A minimum age of 40 is unwise. 18-40's are already hugely under represented in parliament. The reformed HoL should not consist of old white men of the "great and the good".
@JackW - do you mean Principle? I put an age limit on the HoL because it needs to have people of wide experience which is so lacking in most of the HoC and especially as its main function is as a revising chamber. Experience can give one the knowledge of what works and what does not as long as it is applied to the context of the present day and the future. For all the study of history, most people learn by experience.
Does that mean that six footers should all have 3" cut off the bottom of their legs?
You are asking the wrong question (imo).
Even for the House of Lords I draw the line at losing 3" (plenty to spare in all departments .... according to Mrs JackW).
The HoL should be reduced to 300. 250 elected at the General Election by PR and 50 independent/crossbench members to be agreed by the HoL.
Retain the name and some historical office holders and the heirs to throne ability to attend but not vote. Members to be called Lords of Parliament - LoP.
Commons retain primacy and the Salisbury convention enshrined.
I am partly with you. My main objective is that any future HoL does not mirror the HoC politically. If we must have some elected members then they should not be more than 50% of its membership. Also no person who has been a MP should be allowed to be a member of the HoL.
I would put a minimum age of 40 and the appointed 50% should be experts in various areas and as you say be crossbenchers. Their main role would be as a revising chamber, but they could initiate/modify laws to be approved by the HoC. Am not sure how they would be remunerated.
The principal should be that, for the main, those that seek to govern us should be elected and broadly representative of the nation.
A minimum age of 40 is unwise. 18-40's are already hugely under represented in parliament. The reformed HoL should not consist of old white men of the "great and the good".
No no and thrice no. The principle is we should elect people with good judgement. If we employed parliamentary officials and lawyers with good judgement we would not really need a revising chamber. We have absolutely no need for anyone called a 'Lord' of any stripe to legislate for us.
Gosh- really exciting news that the Tories are extending the badger cull- at 4 grand a pop it is great value for money...bloody badgers, long nosed, stripy burrowers- worth 4k to kill each of them if you ask me. I say let's go for the lot, let's make the UK a badger free zone. In times of austerity 4k to kill a badger is great value for money.
Better value to cull the HoL at £165K a year per numpty saving mind you and the badgers could do a better job in Westminster.
Facts are awkward things.
Not not sure where that £165k comes from. Looks to be about 60% over the real figure including support services.
The Lords cost about 20-25% of the amount spent on the Commons.
Out of real interest, Malc - what are the Holyrood numbers?
Just for you Matt,
How much does it cost to run the Scottish Parliament?
For the financial year ending on 31 March 2014, the total revenue expenditure of the Scottish Parliament on staff, property and administration was £66.4 million. This figure is made up of:
administration and property running costs for the Parliament of £12.8 million parliamentary staff salaries of £22 million MSP salaries of £11.1 million Members' costs (which enable the MSPs to obtain staff and accommodation to help them carry out their parliamentary duties) of £12.4 million. funding for the salaries and running costs of the Commissioners and Ombudsman of £8.1 million.
So just over half a million pounds per MSP......
Just about 50% of the cost of a Westminster trougher and only 20% of the size so less scope for economy of scale savings.
But its only a 'wee parish council' - according to the SNP......
If Corbyn wins, as seems so likely, then the choice for the non-Corbyn factions is to either go into open rebellion, or to accommodate themselves to him. It seems Corbyn is not keen on whipping and would not enforce all his ideas on the party. It sounds to me like it will be a fairly incoherent mess, but we shall see.
The attraction of the trough will keep them in line, greed for sure will overcome any principles.
Alex " Five pensions " Salmond and Sturgeon use helicopters and chauffeured limousines. Corbyn uses his bicycle and trains. Scots will draw their own conclusions about who to trust with the proper use of their taxes.
Bitter JSA claimant unhappy that working people actually pay to have a pension and don't sponge.
The Salmonds and the Sturgeons, hardtroughing families.
If Corbyn wins, as seems so likely, then the choice for the non-Corbyn factions is to either go into open rebellion, or to accommodate themselves to him. It seems Corbyn is not keen on whipping and would not enforce all his ideas on the party. It sounds to me like it will be a fairly incoherent mess, but we shall see.
The attraction of the trough will keep them in line, greed for sure will overcome any principles.
Alex " Five pensions " Salmond and Sturgeon use helicopters and chauffeured limousines. Corbyn uses his bicycle and trains. Scots will draw their own conclusions about who to trust with the proper use of their taxes.
Bitter JSA claimant unhappy that working people actually pay to have a pension and don't sponge.
Paid from the public purse? Oh and... 'bitter'? Now there's a laugh.
I can't decide in my own mind whether this is a spoof, an affectionate homage to George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, a shameless plug for her new book (which, if this is a representative sample of her writing, is likely to be unoriginal and unimpressive) or - most terrifying of all - that she actually believes it.
Labour MP Cat Smith totally clueless on Newsnight.
But forthright. No big tents here.
"when the Christian Socialist Movement consulted and voted (by 67%, which I contest is not “huge” or “almost unanimous” as I read from some tweets) to change its name from “Christian Socialist Movement” to the wishy-washy “Christians on the Left” I will concede that is democracy and good luck to them. Although, I still don’t really know what “on the left” means; on the left of Thatcher or on the left of the SWP?" ... "So, no hard feelings as I cancel my membership to the Christian Socialist Movement as they move into the indefinable political category of “on the left”. CSM wasn’t ever one of the biggest socialist societies in the Labour Party, not because of the word Socialist, probably more because there aren’t that many Christians in the Labour Party. I hope they don’t ditch that word from their name too."
... Also, there was a time when Christian Socialism was definitely a major force on the left - arguably the major force. Most of the Labour party was founded on the backs of Methodist organisations, although its leadership officially came from the unions. ... As it was, the Labour party turned to the secularist and much more divisive approach of Bevan and Dalton (who ironically couldn't stand each other) with disastrous results for both its credibility and popular appeal. To say it was 'never' one of the biggest societies is so historically illiterate it's painfully embarrassing. .... Or alternatively, you can elect Jeremy Corbyn and they will point and laugh.
Gosh- really exciting news that the Tories are extending the badger cull- at 4 grand a pop it is great value for money...bloody badgers, long nosed, stripy burrowers- worth 4k to kill each of them if you ask me. I say let's go for the lot, let's make the UK a badger free zone. In times of austerity 4k to kill a badger is great value for money.
Better value to cull the HoL at £165K a year per numpty saving mind you and the badgers could do a better job in Westminster.
Gosh- really exciting news that the Tories are extending the badger cull- at 4 grand a pop it is great value for money...bloody badgers, long nosed, stripy burrowers- worth 4k to kill each of them if you ask me. I say let's go for the lot, let's make the UK a badger free zone. In times of austerity 4k to kill a badger is great value for money.
Better value to cull the HoL at £165K a year per numpty saving mind you and the badgers could do a better job in Westminster.
Facts are awkward things.
Not not sure where that £165k comes from. Looks to be about 60% over the real figure including support services.
The Lords cost about 20-25% of the amount spent on the Commons.
Out of real interest, Malc - what are the Holyrood numbers?
Just for you Matt,
How much does it cost to run the Scottish Parliament?
For the financial year ending on 31 March 2014, the total revenue expenditure of the Scottish Parliament on staff, property and administration was £66.4 million. This figure is made up of:
administration and property running costs for the Parliament of £12.8 million parliamentary staff salaries of £22 million MSP salaries of £11.1 million Members' costs (which enable the MSPs to obtain staff and accommodation to help them carry out their parliamentary duties) of £12.4 million. funding for the salaries and running costs of the Commissioners and Ombudsman of £8.1 million.
So just over half a million pounds per MSP......
Just about 50% of the cost of a Westminster trougher and only 20% of the size so less scope for economy of scale savings.
The global average (ie. nations with bicameral parliaments) is having an Upper House only 44% the size of the Lower House.
.
...
I am partly with you. My main objective is that any future HoL does not mirror the HoC politically. If we must have some elected members then they should not be more than 50% of its membership. Also no person who has been a MP should be allowed to be a member of the HoL.
I would put a minimum age of 40 and the appointed 50% should be experts in various areas and as you say be crossbenchers. Their main role would be as a revising chamber, but they could initiate/modify laws to be approved by the HoC. Am not sure how they would be remunerated.
The principal should be that, for the main, those that seek to govern us should be elected and broadly representative of the nation.
A minimum age of 40 is unwise. 18-40's are already hugely under represented in parliament. The reformed HoL should not consist of old white men of the "great and the good".
@JackW - do you mean Principle? I put an age limit on the HoL because it needs to have people of wide experience which is so lacking in most of the HoC and especially as its main function is as a revising chamber. Experience can give one the knowledge of what works and what does not as long as it is applied to the context of the present day and the future. For all the study of history, most people learn by experience.
How about the experience of being young in the contemporary world?
I do not think experience is the right word. Expertise .
But the HoL is a waste of space. There is no need for it. If we need one than irrespective of its powers or lack of them it should be elected. How we do that of course is where all the problems start. But fundamentally the HoL should be abolished. I have no problem with Constitutional Monarchs or proper 'Lords' as long as everyone pays their taxes and keeps their expensive Grade 1 listed home in order. I see no virtue in an appointed chamber, nor the granting of spurious Lords & Dames for simply being an actor or writer or scientist sportsman or some other philanthropist. But I believe we dole out far too many honours as it is.
That means you haven't got one and would like one.
Does that mean that six footers should all have 3" cut off the bottom of their legs?
You are asking the wrong question (imo).
Even for the House of Lords I draw the line at losing 3" (plenty to spare in all departments .... according to Mrs JackW).
The HoL should be reduced to 300. 250 elected at the General Election by PR and 50 independent/crossbench members to be agreed by the HoL.
Retain the name and some historical office holders and the heirs to throne ability to attend but not vote. Members to be called Lords of Parliament - LoP.
Commons retain primacy and the Salisbury convention enshrined.
I am partly with you. My main objective is that any future HoL does not mirror the HoC politically. If we must have some elected members then they should not be more than 50% of its membership. Also no person who has been a MP should be allowed to be a member of the HoL.
I would put a minimum age of 40 and the appointed 50% should be experts in various areas and as you say be crossbenchers. Their main role would be as a revising chamber, but they could initiate/modify laws to be approved by the HoC. Am not sure how they would be remunerated.
The principal should be that, for the main, those that seek to govern us should be elected and broadly representative of the nation.
A minimum age of 40 is unwise. 18-40's are already hugely under represented in parliament. The reformed HoL should not consist of old white men of the "great and the good".
No no and thrice no. The principle is we should elect people with good judgement. If we employed parliamentary officials and lawyers with good judgement we would not really need a revising chamber. We have absolutely no need for anyone called a 'Lord' of any stripe to legislate for us.
My view is that that just doesn't work wel enough to be relied on with no safety net, especially when we have an unwritten constitution.
Which is why we *do* need a second chamber.
I'd argue that the single chamber devolved administrations demonstrate the point perfectly.
A House of Druids would have saved the Welsh Assembly Government from itself repeatedly.
If Corbyn wins, as seems so likely, then the choice for the non-Corbyn factions is to either go into open rebellion, or to accommodate themselves to him. It seems Corbyn is not keen on whipping and would not enforce all his ideas on the party. It sounds to me like it will be a fairly incoherent mess, but we shall see.
The attraction of the trough will keep them in line, greed for sure will overcome any principles.
Alex " Five pensions " Salmond and Sturgeon use helicopters and chauffeured limousines. Corbyn uses his bicycle and trains. Scots will draw their own conclusions about who to trust with the proper use of their taxes.
Bitter JSA claimant unhappy that working people actually pay to have a pension and don't sponge.
If Monkica is a JSA claimant that is nothing to attack them over. I would leave it unsaid out of human decency and respect.
I can't decide in my own mind whether this is a spoof, an affectionate homage to George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, a shameless plug for her new book (which, if this is a representative sample of her writing, is likely to be unoriginal and unimpressive) or - most terrifying of all - that she actually believes it.
If Corbyn wins, as seems so likely, then the choice for the non-Corbyn factions is to either go into open rebellion, or to accommodate themselves to him. It seems Corbyn is not keen on whipping and would not enforce all his ideas on the party. It sounds to me like it will be a fairly incoherent mess, but we shall see.
The attraction of the trough will keep them in line, greed for sure will overcome any principles.
It seems that Mr G speaks with particular authority on this
If Corbyn wins, as seems so likely, then the choice for the non-Corbyn factions is to either go into open rebellion, or to accommodate themselves to him. It seems Corbyn is not keen on whipping and would not enforce all his ideas on the party. It sounds to me like it will be a fairly incoherent mess, but we shall see.
The attraction of the trough will keep them in line, greed for sure will overcome any principles.
Alex " Five pensions " Salmond and Sturgeon use helicopters and chauffeured limousines. Corbyn uses his bicycle and trains. Scots will draw their own conclusions about who to trust with the proper use of their taxes.
Bitter JSA claimant unhappy that working people actually pay to have a pension and don't sponge.
Paid from the public purse? Oh and... 'bitter'? Now there's a laugh.
So you think that people who work in any public organisation should not be allowed to have a pension then, what a dumpling.
If Corbyn wins, as seems so likely, then the choice for the non-Corbyn factions is to either go into open rebellion, or to accommodate themselves to him. It seems Corbyn is not keen on whipping and would not enforce all his ideas on the party. It sounds to me like it will be a fairly incoherent mess, but we shall see.
The attraction of the trough will keep them in line, greed for sure will overcome any principles.
Alex " Five pensions " Salmond and Sturgeon use helicopters and chauffeured limousines. Corbyn uses his bicycle and trains. Scots will draw their own conclusions about who to trust with the proper use of their taxes.
Bitter JSA claimant unhappy that working people actually pay to have a pension and don't sponge.
If Monkica is a JSA claimant that is nothing to attack them over. I would leave it unsaid out of human decency and respect.
Did you read the post , who knows if the idiot is on JSA but it all points that way given the drivel posted. However for the cretin to criticise someone who has paid for a pension and worked all their lives is a bit rich , even if on JSA , working or still in nappies.
Gosh- really exciting news that the Tories are extending the badger cull- at 4 grand a pop it is great value for money...bloody badgers, long nosed, stripy burrowers- worth 4k to kill each of them if you ask me. I say let's go for the lot, let's make the UK a badger free zone. In times of austerity 4k to kill a badger is great value for money.
Better value to cull the HoL at £165K a year per numpty saving mind you and the badgers could do a better job in Westminster.
Gosh- really exciting news that the Tories are extending the badger cull- at 4 grand a pop it is great value for money...bloody badgers, long nosed, stripy burrowers- worth 4k to kill each of them if you ask me. I say let's go for the lot, let's make the UK a badger free zone. In times of austerity 4k to kill a badger is great value for money.
Better value to cull the HoL at £165K a year per numpty saving mind you and the badgers could do a better job in Westminster.
Facts are awkward things.
Not not sure where that £165k comes from. Looks to be about 60% over the real figure including support services.
The Lords cost about 20-25% of the amount spent on the Commons.
Out of real interest, Malc - what are the Holyrood numbers?
Just for you Matt,
How much does it cost to run the Scottish Parliament?
For the financial year ending on 31 March 2014, the total revenue expenditure of the Scottish Parliament on staff, property and administration was £66.4 million. This figure is made up of:
administration and property running costs for the Parliament of £12.8 million parliamentary staff salaries of £22 million MSP salaries of £11.1 million Members' costs (which enable the MSPs to obtain staff and accommodation to help them carry out their parliamentary duties) of £12.4 million. funding for the salaries and running costs of the Commissioners and Ombudsman of £8.1 million.
So just over half a million pounds per MSP......
Just about 50% of the cost of a Westminster trougher and only 20% of the size so less scope for economy of scale savings.
I make it about 700k per MP.
looks higher to me Matt, budget well north of £600M , so looks nearer £1m to me without being accurate.
Comments
And Ed was Marcus Aurelius compared to Corbyn. Labour are taking their centre left voters for granted and severely underestimating how many millions of them they could lose. Of course they may gain some from the Green/lefty fringe but this transaction is not going to develop to their advantage.
For me it depends on the powers.
If the HoL is to have more powers, then age-skews become more undesirable. If it is purely revising, I see no problem.
For an example of unreflective, kneejerking, youth, see Mhairi Black desiring to make Westminster a "Proper Parliament". Year Zero, here they come.
Not sure about the No MP, No Lords principle. The problem surely is the appointment of too many Pygmy Politcians to get rid of them or as timeswever awards? Not mentioning names :-), but there's a certain former Minister who always sounded to me like a Sheep trying to speak Chinese.
Would you really want to lose the experience of eg Douglas Hurd, Lord Callaghan or (grits teeth) Betty Boothroyd? I'm sure there are former backbenchers there who are excellent.
But equally there is the execrable Michael Martin, who authorised the shredding of Tony Blair's expenses receipts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Q6I6_WK2d8
Also, there was a time when Christian Socialism was definitely a major force on the left - arguably the major force. Most of the Labour party was founded on the backs of Methodist organisations, although its leadership officially came from the unions. In the 1940s, its leader was the Archbishop of Canterbury, William Temple, and had he lived and moved it to the mainstream of Anglican opinion, British public opinion might have been very different in the 1950s. If Temple had even lived until October 1945, to be replaced in all likelihood by Bell rather than the arch-conservative Fisher, it might still have been different although Bell, whatever his strengths, was admittedly not considered a good leader.
As it was, the Labour party turned to the secularist and much more divisive approach of Bevan and Dalton (who ironically couldn't stand each other) with disastrous results for both its credibility and popular appeal.
To say it was 'never' one of the biggest societies is so historically illiterate it's painfully embarrassing. Admittedly it was a long time ago, but it was important once. Like the Labour party itself, it has however apparently dawned on them that the word 'socialism' is a turn-off for voters. Voters, however, like the motherhood and apple pie feeling of being 'left wing'. So rebrand yourself to meet them part way, and maybe they will listen again.
Or alternatively, you can elect Jeremy Corbyn and they will point and laugh.
If we employed parliamentary officials and lawyers with good judgement we would not really need a revising chamber. We have absolutely no need for anyone called a 'Lord' of any stripe to legislate for us.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/29/jeremy-corbyn-moment-bridget-christie
Any thoughts?
Which is why we *do* need a second chamber.
I'd argue that the single chamber devolved administrations demonstrate the point perfectly.
A House of Druids would have saved the Welsh Assembly Government from itself repeatedly.
Zoomers Who Stare at Goats
University Challenged
The (oil) Price is (not) Right!
Brechin Bad
The Big Bung Theory
Watch with Mother Your Named Person
The Borrowers
8 out of 10 Nats
Dr No Yes
CSI SNP (Westmonster is always the baddie)
Loathe They Neighbour
Last of the Summer Whine
Life on Mars Bars
Especially Watch With Your Named Person.