Best day care for the elderly! Peer’s amazing description of the Lords in BBC documentary that shows their pampered world. Peer living in 110-room home laments not being able to increase £300 allowance.
“A peer who lives in a 110-room mansion has lamented not being able to increase the £300 peers receive each day because of the ‘intolerable’ public outcry a pay rise would cause. Lord Palmer speaks out during a programme that has given a glimpse into the pampered world of the House of Lords. In the fly-on-the-wall documentary, another peer, Lord Tyler, calls the Lords the ‘best day care centre for the elderly in London’.
Members of the Lords get the £300 tax-free allowance each day just for turning up – even though some of them contribute nothing, according to claims in the BBC2 documentary. But Lord Palmer, who inherited his title 28 years ago and sits as a crossbench peer, said there would be an unwelcome backlash if they were paid more. The 65-year-old, whose stately home on the Scottish borders boasts a grand staircase fashioned from silver, told the programme: ‘If you think that today a high-powered accountant or lawyer is probably charging £600 an hour… but we get £300 a day. The Press outcry if we had a tiny rise would be just absolutely intolerable.’
The documentary, Meet The Lords, which begins next Monday, shows elderly peers snoozing on the red benches during a debate and drinking red wine at the ‘long table’ of their taxpayer-subsidised restaurant. Lib Dem Lord Tyler tells the programme: ‘It’s the best day care centre for the elderly in London. Families can drop in him or her and make sure that the staff will look after him very well – and he can have a snooze in the afternoon in the Chamber or in the library.’ Former Lords Speaker Baroness D’Souza says she once witnessed a peer leave a taxi waiting outside while he popped inside to ‘clock in’ and claim his tax-free £300 attendance allowance.
There are no checks on what a peer does after signing in, meaning unscrupulous members are free to leave immediately. Lady D’Souza’s intervention is all the more remarkable given that she came under fire in 2015 for charging £230 expenses for keeping her chauffeur-driven car waiting four hours while she went to the opera on official duty.”
Bollocks to this crap, I can’t read any more (all the above courtesy of the Daily Mail, which whilst not being the bastion of British journalism we might like has got this story pretty much right).
For the record I agree with the Lords, in PRINCIPLE. The idea of a second chamber which introduces checks and balances to our Parliamentary process seems like a pretty smart idea after all. We all know politicians are a bunch of mendacious, deceitful and manipulative chancers and schemers (well the vast majority of them, I do find myself warming to Theresa May somewhat now and Andrea Leadsom is kind of cool and sexy) that simply can’t be trusted to remain impartial, unbiased and act solely in the interests of the vox populi. Ergo, a second chamber of checks and balances = good idea. Right? Weeell, yes and no. First of all these people are not elected and a succession of dubious appointments to the Lords by dubious governments (mostly Labour) means the Lords is now at least partially populated by people more interested in their own agendas and wallet/purse than those who actually see the job as what it really is: PUBLIC SERVANT; yes peers, what you are supposed to be is a public servant, your job is a well paid and prestigious “civil service” role ultimately. The job description might not say “civil servant” but that’s what it amounts to in the long run.
But where it gets even more shitty is the moaning about the money and the lack of “doing something” useful. Peers turning up to sign in just for the £300 a day (tax free) then pissing off to Soho or the Diogenes club or whatever it is these people do for “leisure”. Some of them sign in, and then do NOTHING. There’s no checks to make sure they’re doing anything for their £300 a day, heck there’s not even a check to make sure they stay there, all they have to is “sign in”. In this day and age this beggars belief. Our “leaders” and people in elated positions of responsibility need to be held accountable and that includes those Lords who are nothing but a drain on the economy.
The ultimate insult though is this obnoxious old goat Lord Palmer. He’s 65 (why aren’t you living on a pension?) with a 110 bedroom mansion on the Scottish borders (and no doubt the income, shares, stocks and hedge funds to pay for it) moaning that £300 a day isn’t much and they need a rise; justifying it by saying lawyers etc charge £600 an hour. Well fuck you Palmer. My wife is retired and she gets £110 a week, yes a week, not even a day. Plus you forgot to mention that despite those £600 an hour lawyers (another bloody rip off in my opinion) most of the populace earns a damn sight less, heck I know plenty of people who’d like £300 a week (tax free as well would be nice) but your statement stinks of “fuck ’em, let them eat cake”. Well fuck you and all you stand for.
Why is it so hard to get “value for money” out of our establishment? Being a Lord is a bloody “gravy train” and they know it. So if there ever comes a point where is a referendum re: the abolishment of the Lords I will vote for “kick the bastards out” even though I generally agree that we should have such an establishment. I’m sick of this bullshit rhetoric from overpaid, pompous arseholes who don’t understand what’s going “down” in the rest of the country for the rest of the population.
For £300 a day I’ll do it and heck I’d actually WORK when I got there.
PS Here’s our “esteemed” Lord, if you meet him feel free to tell him what an obnoxious “out of touch” twat he is (or even give him a swift kick in the “round objects”):