political commentator * author * publisher * bookseller * radio presenter * blogger * Conservative candidate * former lobbyist * Jack Russell owner * West Ham United fanatic * Email iain AT iaindale DOT com
Sunday, January 25, 2009
A Brownie from Baroness Royall
On ITV News just now, Baroness Royall, Leader of the House of Lords said this...
"Peers don't get paid so they are free to do consultancy work."
Er, shurely shome mishtake. They get paid £330 just for turning up and signing in!
Somewhat depressing/revealing/disturbing is the apparent perception that being given £330 every time for turning up does not amount to 'pay' in some peoples eyes.
Presumably it has to be a traditional salary in the six figures, and not these piffling fiddly amounts that are seemingly regarded as just 'expenses'.
I think she's severely rattled. There was a lot of arse-covering on the Andrew Marr homage this morning, but she clearly was not prepared to comment about the prima facie evidence of corruption. Usual long grass stuff about holding inquiries etc, but of course the longer it goes on the worse it will be for her boss, G Brown. Expect Harman to come out with some similar claptrap very soon.
Remember Hain declaring himself exonerated? Didn't he have to grovel to Parliament subsequently? Oh, and while we're at it, did he actually hand back the cash?
The £330 is the maximum that can be claimed and includes the cost of staying in London overnight - so this amount only applies to those (a) who live outside London, (b) turn up, and (c) claim it. MPs, by contrast, can claim allowances which are massively greater, on top of their salary, and without turning up at all.
Mr Mr gets his figures wrong in that neither House sits for five days a week during sitting periods and neither sits for 52 weeks a year.
Why not mention those peers who do not claim the full allowances they are entitled to claim? Some claim only a fraction of what they are entitled to.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn, corrupt bagman for BAE Systems and his odious little friend Jack Straw - see Craig Murray's blog for some interesting facts if you have a strong stomach. http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2007/08/theres_good_mon.html#comments
It's up to £330 and the number of days opportunity to do that is much lower than Mr Mr used to calculate the slush total.
The thing to look at is the ones who sign in, pass go, collect £330 or similar, and then have lunch.
It is of course the Tory Lords who have far and away the worst record of attending even votes. Though I'd wager they're not the worst at drawing down their cash.
This story still has some legs, but it is staggering under an undue weight of expectations.
For some reason The Sunday Times didn't have the time or the will to reel anybody in and there is therefore no evidence that any of them would have taken the bait and stayed on the hook.
If there are prosecutions as Huhne wants the so-called "undercover reporters" from the ST will need to watch themselves.
Unlike MPs who get paid even if they don't turn up
ReplyDeleteI wish I could have been paid £330 just for turning up at the job centre to sign on when I was on the dole a few years back.
ReplyDeleteThey get paid £330 just for turning up and signing in!
ReplyDeleteCrikey do that 5 times a week and that is £1,650 a week, £6,600 a month and £79,200 a year!!!!
Not bad by any standard for working hard but for just turning up for work?
These people are taking the piss out of our society.
Somewhat depressing/revealing/disturbing is the apparent perception that being given £330 every time for turning up does not amount to 'pay' in some peoples eyes.
ReplyDeletePresumably it has to be a traditional salary in the six figures, and not these piffling fiddly amounts that are seemingly regarded as just 'expenses'.
How the acquisition of power/status corrupts.
Nothing changes.
I think she's severely rattled. There was a lot of arse-covering on the Andrew Marr homage this morning, but she clearly was not prepared to comment about the prima facie evidence of corruption. Usual long grass stuff about holding inquiries etc, but of course the longer it goes on the worse it will be for her boss, G Brown. Expect Harman to come out with some similar claptrap very soon.
ReplyDeleteRemember Hain declaring himself exonerated? Didn't he have to grovel to Parliament subsequently? Oh, and while we're at it, did he actually hand back the cash?
Iain.
ReplyDeleteShe is technically correct. The £330 are expenses. Not a salary!
So she is right they are not paid!
Check her Wikipedia page out, this champagne socialist has never been elected to any post.
ReplyDeleteHere is a link from the Daily Mail week ago. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-508963/Peers-claim-18m-year-tax-free-pay.html
ReplyDeleteYou know what she means - £330 that's not pay, just peanuts.
ReplyDeleteThe £330 is the maximum that can be claimed and includes the cost of staying in London overnight - so this amount only applies to those (a) who live outside London, (b) turn up, and (c) claim it. MPs, by contrast, can claim allowances which are massively greater, on top of their salary, and without turning up at all.
ReplyDeleteMr Mr gets his figures wrong in that neither House sits for five days a week during sitting periods and neither sits for 52 weeks a year.
Why not mention those peers who do not claim the full allowances they are entitled to claim? Some claim only a fraction of what they are entitled to.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn, corrupt bagman for BAE Systems and his odious little friend Jack Straw - see Craig Murray's blog for some interesting facts if you have a strong stomach.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2007/08/theres_good_mon.html#comments
The Penguin
It's up to £330 and the number of days opportunity to do that is much lower than Mr Mr used to calculate the slush total.
ReplyDeleteThe thing to look at is the ones who sign in, pass go, collect £330 or similar, and then have lunch.
It is of course the Tory Lords who have far and away the worst record of attending even votes. Though I'd wager they're not the worst at drawing down their cash.
This story still has some legs, but it is staggering under an undue weight of expectations.
For some reason The Sunday Times didn't have the time or the will to reel anybody in and there is therefore no evidence that any of them would have taken the bait and stayed on the hook.
If there are prosecutions as Huhne wants the so-called "undercover reporters" from the ST will need to watch themselves.