Anybody got any leads?

Sorry for the late comment. protectthehuman.com have just launced a petition.

On your final point – I’m teetotal!

Ah, please forgive me that silliness. Radio 4 comedy has tainted my view of The Lords.

Unrelated, are you interested in hearing suggestions for the site? I’ve a couple of ideas, but will keep quiet if you’re already being advised/still finding your collective feet.

Wrongful holding of people for such serious charges would increase the alienation felt by those who already feel alienated.

I am so glad that the House of Lords exists to consider things in calmer light.

I believe in democracy and fear that this Government is hell-bent on destroying it.

On the question of whether the House of Lords should become the conscience of the nation, it rather depends on what you mean by conscience.

Sorry, it sounded like a good sound-bite, probably bad use of language.

I would not interpret it as meaning expounding the will of the majority but rather taking a stance on the basis of clearly articulated principles.

Exactly. Use your own, reasoned, intelligent views to inform the public. Extra kudos points for disagreeing/debating/questioning each other in public (this sort of thing, for example). Am not thinking of a propaganda tool here, but ways of helping the public overcome the fear and anger mongering of tabloid journalism. This blog, and the accompanying YouTube videos are the first step down this road, in my opinion. There’s lots more that could be done though, I expect the Lords probably know all this and I’m just preaching to the choir.

There are two other points about polls that don’t seem to have been mentioned:

The context of the question: with no context, ‘do you agree that terrorist suspects should be detained for 42 days in exceptional circumstances?’ Almost sounds reasonable (substitute that for whatever the question actually was). However, put this question in the context of the current government, whom very few people seem willing to trust, and there is an outpouring of anger against it. Maybe people believe the current government will abuse this power (as has happened with RIPA). Not sure that Have Your Say is entirely representative, however it does lead to a second point: consensus.
Consensus: if ~70% of people glibly answer ‘yes’ to a poll question (without really thinking it through and actually just wanting to get on with their shopping), yet ~20% of people have thought it through, and are vehemently opposed, should the bill still be passed? If the people were educated on the subject, and had proper guidance, would the answer still be ‘yes’?

They tend to utilise public opinion polls in rather the same way that drunks use lamp-posts: for support rather than illumination.

Fantastic analogy. Not trying to tell us something about your journey home last night are you, my lord?

wcobbet: My inclusion of the views of the police and the security services as one of the factors to be considered did not mean that if they were united in calling for 42 days detention that this would be decisive. It would, though, along with the other factors I listed, be something to be taken seriously. The same with public opinion. One should not slavishly follow either, but then again I would not simply brush either aside. One would need to know why they were taking that view and consider it in the light of the arguments against extending the period of detention. I agree with your point about political parties. They tend to utilise public opinion polls in rather the same way that drunks use lamp-posts: for support rather than illumination.

I think Alex Bennee, Jonathan Hogg and others make a valid point about the nature of the question. Much does depend on how you word it – which is why you have to be careful in checking the wording of survey questions (and indeed referendum questions). I think Jonathan Hogg makes the point well with his suggested question.

On the question of whether the House of Lords should become the conscience of the nation, it rather depends on what you mean by conscience. It strikes me that the argument here is premised on different definitions. I would not interpret it as meaning expounding the will of the majority but rather taking a stance on the basis of clearly articulated principles.

You said, speaking of my previous comment: “The way this is phrased implies that Public Opinion, Lobbyists and Party Politics are all somehow to be derided, and yet the word democracy is used. Tell me what democracy is without Public Opinion? Do you really mean that Public Opinion is not your own opinion and therefore it must be a ‘negative’ thing?”

Certainly lobbyists are to be derided. Paying representatives (through perks) to get a bill passed that favors them is cowardly and underhanded. Representatives need to listen to the people that they represent, not some big corporate entity. Lobbyists are exactly the reason why prescription drugs cost so much money in the United States (there was never any legislation passed to regulate it). Even though the representatives need to listen to the people, there are certainly times when the people are clueless about a certain bill because they have been misinformed by the media (which is the only way most people can know what is going on in politics). I know of several examples of this that has happened in the US where the media coverage causes people to believe certain things that are simply not true. There are also times when the people have been scared by some traumatic event (see: Sept. 11th, 2001) and due to hysteria are willing to give up their freedoms. In that instance, it takes a representative who can see past the hysteria and media antics and try to discern what the founders of the constitution originally had in mind when writing it. Finally, party politics will put pressure on representatives to vote a certain way to fit the party agenda rather than looking at the facts and weighing the consequences of passing the bill or not. For most of party politics, right or wrong is irrelevant to them; the only goal is to achieve the party’s agenda.

Obviously, the people are the source of democracy, but there are many times when the people as a whole become like that of a mob and are willing to just throw in the towel on freedoms. Should a representative allow their own countrymen to give up freedom that was fought and died for? I say certainly not.

For instance, and these are quite prevelant examples;

I think it is highly laudable that you, Lord Norton, can sit down and look at the facts without the lens of party politics, lobbyists, or public opinion. It seems that recently, the free world which champions our democracies and freedoms so much to the rest of the world has been giving them up, inch by inch, in the name of protection from terrorists.

The way this is phrased implies that Public Opinion, Lobbyists and Party Politics are all somehow to be derided, and yet the word democracy is used. Tell me what democracy is without Public Opinion? Do you really mean that Public Opinion is not your own opinion and therefore it must be a ‘negative’ thing?

I don’t mean to be offensive or berate here, but again in another thread above;

We’ve already seen some sensible discussion here about referendums; why should we consider polls to be a better gauge of public opinion?

Again, how are we to guage public opinion without polls? What is public opinion but someone asking another person a question. How does this discussion differ from the letters page or radio phone-ins, television discussions etc?

Of course the way a question can be phrased can mislead the questioner, but it is simply not good enough to ignore or disparage public opinion just because you don’t happen to agree. What is a referendum if not a poll of public opinion?

What irritates me is the inconsistency here from all parties (and to some extent the Lords), Public Opinion was that Fox Hunting should be banned yet it took the Parliament Act to push that through. Then we come to the ‘Europe, in or out’ question and again, Public Opinion (no matter how it is spun) was brought to the fore, yet here with the 42 day detention question, Public Opinion now seems to be irrelevant and has scorn poured over it.

Also, the comment about let’s see if 69% of the population vote for Labour at the next election is also rather missing the point. People won’t vote out Labour because of the 42 day issue, they will vote out Labout because of the economy – inflation, job losses, house prices and so on. Remember how everyone (look! Public Opinion again) was so against Iraq, and yet…yet Labour got voted back in.

I’m sorry to belabour the point, but we cannot simply disregard what the Public Opinion is, no matter where it comes from. Also, I would be interested to know what kind of ‘Lobbyists’ would be lobbying for 42 day detention?