good evening and welcome to grumpy towers ..wipe your feet please.
while most of us are hit by austerity cuts the unelected toffs in the house of lords refuse to cut their budget in case they have to drink a more inferior brand of champers.
Toffs are provided with £260,000 worth of Champagne every year and feared budget cuts would mean having to quaff an inferior flute
Pampered peers refused to cut their catering budget because they feared it would mean drinking cheap Champagne.
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.
Former Commons clerk, Sir Robert Rogers, told the committee the Lords were “very possessive about their catering.
He said: “I am not going into the quality of the Champagne. People are very possessive about some services. Catering is an absolute classic.
Labour MP John Mann said in response: “The Lords are a bunch of unelected, out of touch toffs and money grabbers. It is time they were put out of their misery. Let them drink corporation pop.
The Lords has bought more than 17,000 bottles of Champagne since 2010 at a cost of £265,770.
Peers can buy Champagne at £27 a bottle and vintage Champagne for £34 from the Lords shop.
Former Commons Leader Peter Hain said: “Parliament can sometimes be a complete pantomime of itself and I am afraid this is a case in point. The case for continued reform is now overwhelming.
The Daily Mirror revealed last year taxpayers are forking out more than £60,000 a week so wealthy peers can feast on lavish three-course meals.
Restaurants, cafes and bars catering for the 788 Lords, bishops and baronesses receive £1.3million a year from the public purse, official figures revealed.
But the subsidy actually costs the taxpayer over £1million more as Lords authorities offset profits raked in from events and gift shop sales.
They deducted £1,033,118 from the total £2,361,437 subsidy in 2011/12. That breaks down to £63,823 for each of the 37 weeks the Lords were sitting.
A breakdown of the House of Lords catering subsidy showed the Barry Room got £246,307 in 2011/12.
The Peers’ Dining Room received £757,696, the River Restaurant £501,646 and the boozy Bishops’ Bar £43,971.
The Home Room got £185,694, the Lords Bar £326, the Millbank House Cafe £73,857 and the peers’ guest room £2,843.
“Central costs set taxpayers back another £549,179.
It is believed the Lords ‘negotiates’ a deal with a French champagne house and the bubbly is then labelled up.
Catering is overseen by the 13 peers who are appointed to the House of Lords refreshment committee.
It meets once a month and discussions on subsidies are normally held behind closed doors to keep them secret.
With the subsidy, peers have dined on “terrine of foie gras with toasted brioche, Amaretto jelly and a tomato and thyme dressing for just £7.50 a portion.
Other posh dishes on the menu have included “trompette mushroom risotto with truffles, champagne and double cream, for a mere £8.50.
A spokesman for the House of Lords said: “The House of Lords would not reject a merger of catering services with the House of Commons simply on the supply of Champagne.
“The House of Lords catering department and subsidy is significantly smaller than that of the House of Commons, and it is not clear that any merger would produce savings in the costs of the House of Lords. All alcohol sold in the House of Lords is sold at a profit.
Champagne in the House of Commons’s bars is MORE expensive than in the Lords at £30.15 a bottle and £40.85 for vintage.
AAG
so the next time you tuck into your pie and chips just spare a thought for those poor unelected toffs in the house of lords with their mushroom trump risottos truffles double cream and dont forget the old £40 a bottle champers and how they are feeling(sarky tonight arent we grumps ED )
while the tories tighten the noose with the hated bedroom tax , benefit cuts , austerity cuts and increased taxes oh yes and dont forget the cash they give to the EU as well as foreign aid how many bottles of bubbly and mushroom trumps would that pay for ?
amazingly theres even a refreshment comittee of 13 peers who meet behind closed doors to keep their budget and what they spend secret and away from the prying eyes of the public.
yet this winter more pensioners will sit in the cold more parents and children will go to bed hungry more homless will spend another christmas sleeping in a shop doorway but what do these rich self elected toads care
about the commoners to them our lives are expendable as long as they can enjoy their champers and do their mushroomy trumps in their leather chairs in their exclusive london clubs.
lords toffs refuse to quaff inferior champers..the AA grumpy column
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
lords toffs refuse to quaff inferior champers..the AA grumpy column
By Co-Incidence... I was In a Taxi In Blackpool last week and got chatting about the fact that Labour hadn't used Blackpool for Party Political Annual conferences for about ten years so I asked the driver If he knew why.
He told me that they bitterly complained every year at the lack of 5 Star Hotels and lack of Michelin-starred fine dining restaurants and complained It was ' too touristy'.
So I asked another driver If that was true and he said It was...
So there you go, working man In the street... Labour stopped going to Blackpool because It was too working class touristy. That's Labour, the same Labour borne out of the trade Union Movement to protect the working man.
He told me that they bitterly complained every year at the lack of 5 Star Hotels and lack of Michelin-starred fine dining restaurants and complained It was ' too touristy'.
So I asked another driver If that was true and he said It was...
So there you go, working man In the street... Labour stopped going to Blackpool because It was too working class touristy. That's Labour, the same Labour borne out of the trade Union Movement to protect the working man.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
lords toffs refuse to quaff inferior champers..the AA grumpy column
AA grumpy;1469044 wrote:
Toffs are provided with £260,000 worth of Champagne every year and feared budget cuts would mean having to quaff an inferior flute
Pampered peers refused to cut their catering budget because they feared it would mean drinking cheap Champagne.
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.
The figures prove that at least some of them must be nipping out to Tesco for their Champers, as the number work out to be about £15 / bottle.
The Lords has bought more than 17,000 bottles of Champagne since 2010 at a cost of £265,770.
Peers can buy Champagne at £27 a bottle and vintage Champagne for £34 from the Lords shop.
It's going up.
Mind you, even a cost of £265, 770 falls into insignificance at the BBC's budget of £350, 000 for tea & coffee & £210, 000 for biscuits - and that's something we are forced to pay for by way of the TV licence.
BBC bans biscuits | Media | The Guardian
Also, although not mentioned, it's also worthy of note that, unlike the Commons, the Lords aren't salaried.
Members of the Lords: allowances - UK Parliament
Toffs are provided with £260,000 worth of Champagne every year and feared budget cuts would mean having to quaff an inferior flute
Pampered peers refused to cut their catering budget because they feared it would mean drinking cheap Champagne.
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.
The figures prove that at least some of them must be nipping out to Tesco for their Champers, as the number work out to be about £15 / bottle.
The Lords has bought more than 17,000 bottles of Champagne since 2010 at a cost of £265,770.
Peers can buy Champagne at £27 a bottle and vintage Champagne for £34 from the Lords shop.
It's going up.
Mind you, even a cost of £265, 770 falls into insignificance at the BBC's budget of £350, 000 for tea & coffee & £210, 000 for biscuits - and that's something we are forced to pay for by way of the TV licence.
BBC bans biscuits | Media | The Guardian
Also, although not mentioned, it's also worthy of note that, unlike the Commons, the Lords aren't salaried.
Members of the Lords: allowances - UK Parliament
lords toffs refuse to quaff inferior champers..the AA grumpy column
Also, although not mentioned, it's also worthy of note that, unlike the Commons, the Lords aren't salaried.
They're also not elected. I think you need a second house and some hereditary and lifetime peers are useful tghey did save us from some of the excesses ofthe lower house which is after all what they are supposed to do. But the opresent set up needs reforming.
£150-£300 a day is more than some people in full time jobs earn in a week. 40hrs times minimum wage.
They're also not elected. I think you need a second house and some hereditary and lifetime peers are useful tghey did save us from some of the excesses ofthe lower house which is after all what they are supposed to do. But the opresent set up needs reforming.
£150-£300 a day is more than some people in full time jobs earn in a week. 40hrs times minimum wage.
lords toffs refuse to quaff inferior champers..the AA grumpy column
gmc;1469073 wrote: They're also not elected. I think you need a second house and some hereditary and lifetime peers are useful tghey did save us from some of the excesses ofthe lower house which is after all what they are supposed to do. But the opresent set up needs reforming.
£150-£300 a day is more than some people in full time jobs earn in a week. 40hrs times minimum wage.
Personally I'm of the school that favours hereditary peers, rather than the Old Boys Network by way of the Honours List, with the 'You Scratch My Back..." approach. The Lords should serve to act as an independant buffer ot protect the country from potential tyranny. Elected peers would simply make it a secondary House of Commons, based on Party Politics which invalidates the whole point of the 2nd House.
£150-£300 a day is more than some people in full time jobs earn in a week. 40hrs times minimum wage.
Personally I'm of the school that favours hereditary peers, rather than the Old Boys Network by way of the Honours List, with the 'You Scratch My Back..." approach. The Lords should serve to act as an independant buffer ot protect the country from potential tyranny. Elected peers would simply make it a secondary House of Commons, based on Party Politics which invalidates the whole point of the 2nd House.