Peer admits fiddling expenses

A fascinating admission from Lord Clarke of Hampstead:

A LABOUR peer and former chairman of the party has admitted that he “fiddled” his expenses to make up for not being paid a salary. He had even claimed for overnight stays in London when, in fact, he drove home.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead, who has apologised for his “terrible error”, is the first member of the House of Lords to concede that peers knowingly abuse their allowances to boost their income.
He said that he had claimed up to £18,000 a year for overnight subsistence when he had often stayed with friends for free in the capital or had even returned to his home in St Albans, about an hour from London.
While accepting personal responsibility, Clarke implied that the practice was common, saying: “I was given the impression – more than that – I was given a very clear steer that this was a way of getting remuneration in the absence of salary.”

..And there are further insights into the murky world of the Lords in the same article.

Elected second chamber - most of the answers can be found in the US

It is always entertaining when there is a debate about the House of Lords. We get all sorts of pompous fossils who legislate on our behalf, such as Lord Strathclyde and that funny bloke whose ancestor got drunk with Pitt, coming out of the woodwork. Lord Redesdale is an exception to this observation - what a marvellous man!

Lord Strathclyde said last night that, although he was in favour of a 80/20 elected second chamber, he thought the House of Lords would vote against the Commons' favoured option because it would mean voting themselves out of jobs.

If the House of Lords, starting a debate about its future, was a council, all the members would have to declare a pecuniary interest and withdraw from the chamber. Any member who didn't leave would be reported to the Standards Board.

And we are getting all the usual arguments wheeled out: an elected second chamber would cause impasses between the two houses, it would all be political hacks, it would be just like the Commons, not distinctive...etc etc

The answers to all these questions are: "Well, it seems to work pretty well in the USA."

However, there is one rather dodgy thing about the US Senate. As Shirley Williams once said, more or less exclusively, you need to be a millionaire to get elected to it. In fact, I once read (can't find the link) that a US Senator has to raise $100,000 every single week, from the day he or she is elected, to get re-elected. And they have six-year terms.

So, we need campaign finance reform in parallel with any second chamber reform.

Unbelievable - we've finally done it!

The news from the Commons today is still sinking in. 94 years after the 17th Amendment in the USA created a directly elected US Senate, we have followed our colonial off-spring. An elected Second Chamber. I can hardly believe I can type the words. It is unbelievable! 7th March 2007 has got to go down as a major day in British history.

Cue: Dancing in the streets!

Labour seeks to reform House of Lords - Episode 948

Jack Straw is having another go at getting some form of Lords reform through the Commons.

Thrill of all thrills, he is doing via a sort of PR-type preference vote.

How many stabs do Labour need at this? Already, the late Robin Cook worked long enough on this escapade to fill half a book of his memoirs.

If you believe in democracy, the answer is simple: have a fully elected second chamber.

It is not rocket science. Indeed, the founding fathers in the USA sorted it out in a few weeks over two hundred years ago. The US Senate has been a model of second chambers.

So why all the elongated ten-year kerfuffle by Labour? In simple terms, as a party, they don't believe in democracy. I am sure many of their politicians and members do. But you only have to look at Tony Blair to see someone who does not fully embrace democracy. If he did, there would have been a fully elected second chamber set up years ago.