House of Lords not fit for purpose

Op-ed: The unelected House of Lords is back in the spotlight.

As they debated the triggering of Article 50 Monday unelected PM Theresa May took the unprecedented step to sit on the sidelines in a somewhat intimidating way.

The Lords is also in the news as a fly-on-the-wall documentary airs on BBC.

With one Lady already confirming what most of us suspected, that some Lords and Ladies claim their £300 a day for doing basically sod all, does the House of Lords represent value for money?

Is it even fit for purpose?

Take a look at our earlier report from late 2014:

"Times are tough in the UK, at least for we plebs.

Most people balance a fine financial line which could snap at any time.

Homelessness, use of food banks, poverty in general, fuel poverty and the rich poor divide are increasing.

But fear not, as David Cameron and his ministers would say, we are all in this together.

If you still believe that blatant lie consider news reports that the House of Lords, often called the best club in London, refused a budget cut as it would mean cheaper Champagne. The story dates back a couple of years but is only now making headline news. The gist of it is still pertinent.

Lords and Ladies of the House, and I use those terms very loosely, are provided with £260,000 worth of Champagne each year. These 'people' are against a budget cut not as it will stop the free flow of Champagne but because it might mean they have to endure a cheaper version!

Their arrogance is unbelievable. But in recent days we have experienced a fair few 'Let them eat cake' moments in the UK which suggest too many politicians, elected or not, are completely out of touch with the real world; a world they shape and expect others to play along with.

• Firstly there was the House of Lords hitting headlines following revelations that previously convicted Tory peer Lord Hanningfield claimed a £300 a day allowance for days he merely showed up, briefly
  
• Tory MP Stephen Dorrell was accused of a blatant conflict of interest but the PM still to act on that one.
• Tory Andrew Mitchell lost his PlebGate libel appeal but even the judge showed a touch or arrogance when he hinted the police officer involved was likely not bright enough to make up such a story, involving the word Pleb.
• Then there was the Sun publishing pictures of Nigel Mills, [Conservative Amber Valley MP, elected in 2010] playing the hit online game Candy Crush Saga during a meeting of the works and pensions committee, of which he is a member - Tory MP plays Candy Crush during DWP committee meeting.
• Also this week Conservative peer Baroness Jenkin of Kennington said "poor people don't know how to cook" at a press conference. The arrogant peer was speaking in Westminster as results of a parliamentary inquiry into the use of and increased need for foodbanks in the UK were released - Poor people cannot cook Tory Peer apologises.

​There have been too many tales of Tory MPs asking cash for access or abusing the parliamentary system.

Perhaps ChampagneGate will be the final straw for the general public.

Read details of the Lords abuse of the system at the Mirror. A portion is copied below:

The House of Lords has bought more than 17,000 bottles of bubbly in the last four years at a cost of more than £260,000 - enough for the 788 peers to have five bottles each a year.

But a cost-saving plan to share food and drink costs with the House of Commons was binned because they feared it would mean quaffing less luxurious brands.

The Lords refusal to downgrade was revealed by Sir Malcolm Jack, clerk of Commons between 2006 and 2011, as he gave evidence to a committee looking at how the palace of Westminster should be run.

Sir Jack told MPs: “The Lords feared that the quality of Champagne would not be as good if they chose a joint service.”

Committee chair Jack Straw was so gobsmacked, he asked Sir Malcolm: “Did you make that up? Is that true?”

Sir Malcolm replied: “Yes, it is true.”

http://www.thedrinksbusiness.com/2014/12/uk-lords-reject-champagne-budget-cut/