Looking through what has been posted so far, though, there is one thing that has bothered me a little.

There are at least two posts on this blog where there is a potential conflict of interest, in that the writer has passed obliquely damaging comment about the actions of those opposed to the furtherance of an enterprise, where he receives paid employment from allied organisations in order to promote that enterprise

If this were a purely private blog, no issue would arise from this. I would just leave some suitably pointed comment, which might or might not get printed, depending on the level of integrity of the blogger. However those writing here qualify to do so by being members of the House of Lords and, as such, have a slightly different status from the general public.

The Lords’ Code of Conduct requires their Lordships to

‘declare when speaking in the House, or communicating with ministers, government departments or executive agencies, any interest which is a relevant interest in the context of the debate or the matter under discussion. This is necessary in order that their audience may form a balanced judgment of their arguments’,

where

‘The test of relevant interest is therefore not whether a Member’s actions in Parliament will be influenced by the interest, but whether the public might reasonably think that this might be the case’.

While their Lordships’ blog makes clear that ‘Views expressed by the authors or ‘bloggers’ are their own and do not represent the views of the House of Lords, its authorities or its other Members (including parties and other groups of Members) or the Hansard Society’, would it not seem reasonable that those writing here should at least give their public readership the same opportunity to understand what might be underlying their comments by, where relevant, declaring that they do have some interest and what it is?

In the particular case in point, there are pointers and clues to be found in the writer’s entry in the Register of Interests, but if the aim is to make this blog more accessible to the general public, it cannot necessarily be assumed that all of those who read it will be as acquainted with the means whereby wheat can be sorted from chaff

I wouldn’t want to see this type of issue make your blog deteriorate into a sterile formality. In fact, if done properly and with some style, making these personal interests clear could actually help engender a bit more humanity and passion into the proceedings.

A last point. I do hope that you will have the courage to post all comments, short of anything illegal. Avoiding the difficult issues is the coward’s way out, and if you take that, it will be known very quickly

Congratulations on starting the new blog.

I haven’t been on a blog where all the authors have a peerage. Be sure, I shall be a regular visitor… if I am allowed to be. . I enjoy visiting blogs on Friday evenings and I shall add your blog to my list of blogs to visit. I have taken the liberty, on the assumption that you wish to get readers from all backgrounds, including the law (although you may well find you have too many turbulent lawyers already in your bicameral isle) of adding your blog to my blogroll.

It may be that you will not be able to return the compliment … but, although I do not vote Lib-Dem, … like them… I speak my mind without ever having to worry that I will actually have to run anything.

But at least that will be an honest exercise and result in constructive feedback which you can use or discard as you see fit. We have been through a ten year period which has seen an awful lot of tinkering with institutions and the constitution – not all bad, of course – but now a period of reflection on whether more change is required, and if so, what, before rushing through a lot more ill-considered modernisation.

Don’t write about what you think we will find interesting. Write about what you find interesting. Your enthusiasm and passion for the subject will carry you forward. You’d be astonished at what takes off and what doesn’t. And don’t censor your language. If bicameral is a word you use, then use it. If people don’t know what that means, they can look it up without your help, or they can choose to maintain their ignorance.

And, speaking as a modern languages graduate, I think Brits should do much more to get along with our nearest neighbours. We’re amongst the few people on this planet who think it’s normal to only speak one language fluently. My fear is that our school system forces us to specialise much too soon. A person who does well in all their GCSEs is a polymath at 16 and a specialist at 18. If you pass a foreign language at GCSE your options are little more than specialise in it – at the expense of something else – or drop it entirely. Our A level system does not help our young people maintain broad interests, and all too often foreign languages are squeezed out.

But the unique thing about blogging is that it is you writing about yourself and not for an audience. It is not about writing what you think others might wish to hear. There are other ways to do that on the web. Like any of the better blogs I would like to hear the minutiae of the Lords, the nitty gritty things, the gossip & the random thoughts. These are all the things of a good blog and an audience develops once there is a discernible personality corporate or individual.

There are 81 counties/unitary areas in England, 22 in Wales, 32 in Scotland, and 11 in Northern Ireland.

This gives 146 areas. Adding 4 regions for London, gives a total of 150 areas. Each having 2 members would result in 300 member upper house. Which at half the size of the current lower house seems reasonable.

Each member would be given a 6 year term and elections would be staggered so no region has both it’s members up for election at any one time (similar to the arrangement for the US Senate).

Meer motals such as myself, don’t regulary include such words as ‘bicameral’ in general conversation. You might like to help us (we’re generally pretty lazy, see) and include links to definitions of such words in your blogs. Wikipedia is generally a good place to use.

I do agree with your comments on languages though, and the English reluctance to learn them. Maybe we should learn Spanish in schools instead of French? I would suggest that this is far more practical today.