Originally Posted by cashman (Post 805876)

Thought was always means tested in some way?:confused:

Originally Posted by Wynonie Harris (Post 805877)

Yeah, I couldn't understand that, but I'm sure it's what they said on telly. If there was means testing, surely these three wouldn't have qualified with their MPs salaries? :confused:

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 805876)

Thought was always means tested in some way?:confused:

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 805887)

'Under means testing, anyone with a monthly disposable income of £283 or more and/or capital assets of more than £30,000 would be asked to contribute towards their defence. None of the three charged defendants are standing at the election and would normally be eligible of “resettlement allowances” of up to £65,000, which is frozen until a verdict is returned. The House of Commons Commission will decide what to do next once that verdict is known.'
'Expenses MPs' Elliot Morley, David Chaytor and Jim Devine get legal aid - Times Online

Ironically, it seems because their resetlement packages, due to 'retirement', have been frozen until after the trial, that this therefore makes them eligible for legal aid.

Outrageous.

I bet if I was allowed to have a good root through their personal effects, I could find evidence of monthly incomes greater than £283. per month, and proof of assets worth more than thirty thousand quid.

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 805890)

Would be very interesting to note, if the packages were unfrozen, would they use the money on these shameful appeals? i doubt it very much meself.:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 797415)

I don't think we should have a hereditary system by no means. Who your parents are does not represent the scrutiny skills you can bring to the House of Lords. It's an interesting point you make about MPs moving to the upper house and therefore politicising it. When they first move this is indeed what they try and do, but they soon become socialised into a less partisan, less punch and judy way of scrutinising.

I can see where you come from. I don't think the public want another tier of paid government though, just at a time when so many people are struggling. It would mean taxpayer wages for Lords which they don't currently receive, and would mean wages for staff which they cannot currently hire. I agree with the current system, yes old, but tested. It's worked well for a very long time. I don't question alterations, I simply question complete reform. Taken as a whole within our parliamentary system, I do feel, as I have said previously, the core principle of our democracy is that we can throw out a government for its wrongdoings, whichever party it may be. This principle of accountability would be made incredibly difficult if we chose to blur responsibility among two chambers with two different electoral systems.

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 805903)

In refererence to 'another paid tier of government', if the current hereditary/crony filled House of Lords was abolished in favour of a more democratic, elected body, we are already paying for it now.

It isn't 'free'.

It costs £152,500,000.00 per annum....and that doesn't include all the fiddling that's been going on, by the 'noble' Lords.

Cost of the House of Lords – Lords of the Blog

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 805906)

Far cheaper than the Commons. An elected body of course, it would cost taxpayers more, and would not necessarily be 'more democratic' as we, the people, would find it far more difficult to hold government accountable for its actions and throw it out.

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 805876)

Thought was always means tested in some way?:confused:

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 805910)

Members of the House of Lords cost taxpayers more than £18 million in expenses and allowances last year - with some peers claiming £60,000 each in tax-free perks

Lords' expenses claims top £18 million - Telegraph

...and we now know just how low many of these people will sink to, in order to be 'paid'.

Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 853202)

There were 3 MPs in the high court yesterday, trying to win the right for there case to be dealt with by commons authorities and not the criminal court:(

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 853234)

The sooner we get to vote for who we think are fit to sit in the upper chamber, the better.

Originally Posted by Alan Varrechia (Post 853241)

One would think that if they are as innocent as they say they are, then they would be quite happy to go to any court even criminal just to see themselves exhonerated. ( If tey have nothing to hide).:D

Originally Posted by JCB (Post 853242)

Do we need a second chamber ? I'm all for giving it the cut , and giving more power to back-bench MPs to serve on select committees that have some teeth .

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 853234)

Happily some of the money stolen as expenses will have to be repaid. Although rather than a two year ban, the thieving cow, Uddin, should be stripped of her peerage, and never allowed near the House of Lords again.

Originally Posted by Tealeaf (Post 853337)

This cow lives in Wapping; last night, one of the lads went and peezzed through her letterbox.

I hope that makes you a bit happier, Garinda.

Originally Posted by Mancie (Post 853357)

This bloke must be a "special case"... he robbed £40,000 from us but gets a slap... makes me wonder why some are investigated by the police when some are not.
David Laws resigns over expenses claim - Telegraph... seems to me there is a bit of the "old school tie" business going on here when it comes to prosecutions.