A milestone for the blog. As of this evening, we have had 60,000 views since we went live. We appear to have built up a regular readership as well as some who visit once or occasionally, sometimes referred by other sites. On a normal weekday, we appear to get anywhere between 200 and 500 visitors, though the figure occasionally shoots up into four-figures.
We have another two months of the experiment to go. I suspect we may well continue beyond then. Do keep your comments coming in.
I hope you do keep going! I don’t always comment (okay, I commented once) but I read with interest every day.
Just this afternoon I was speculating on how many hits a day Lords of the Blog was getting, and my best guess was roughly ten times higher than the numbers you quoted. (Do those figures include an estimate for RSS feeds, do you know?) I’m saddened that people care so little about the business of the House of Lords, but glad that the experiment may well continue: it’s a pleasure to read.
Lord Norton,
Forgive me for slightly ‘raining on your parade’ but I believe if this blog means anything it means asking difficult, searching and even rather impertinent questions. Many ask ‘What is the House of Lords for?’
I thought I had a pretty good idea of that – but after reading the story below, I am not so sure – if legislation like that on Police / Criminal Records Bureau checks has appeared on the statute books in a way which leads to bizarre results like the story linked to below.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_east/7500376.stm – A mother, travelling with her own child, and no one else’s, is told by Merthyr council that she requires a CRB check before she can accompany her OWN SON on council transport.
This is the kind of nonsense alluded to by Prof Frank Furedi in the book ‘Licensed to Hug’, which I admit I have yet to read, but which has received considerable media publicity – there is also a blog hosted by the think tank Civitas on this topic.
http://www.civitas.org.uk/blog/2008/06/licensed_to_hug.html
I guess there are two issues here.
1/ Is such legislation required where the scenario would be that the lady was accompanying not only her own son, but some other children as well – Prof Furedi appears to think that this may be overkill.
2/ Even if one accepts that such legislation is required where the children involved are not the offspring of the adults on the bus – how on earth can legislation be so poorly drafted as to exclude the exceptions where only one parent and one child are involved ?
Clearly the child cannot be under greater risk there than the vast amount of time they already spend at home – and no-one is suggesting that all parents be CRB checked [yet!]. What happens if a child has been left at the playground since their parent has been delayed ?
Will other parents be concerned lest they offer a lift home to that child, to look after them until mum/dad has finished work, negotiated the traffic jam – whatever.
Where were the noble Lords when this sort of nonsense, which is putting Boy Scout troops / Girl Guiding / Football clubs at risk – and thereby make children more vulnerable in the long run, was being legislated ??
Congratulations! I certainly hope this blog will continue.
I feel very privileged to be one of those regular visitors and would like to thank all the Lords a Blogging for their various and varied contributions.
Lords of the Blog makes me feel connected to some part of the political process and positively ‘included’ in way that no Government initiative or intervention ever will.
There is a considered reality and humanity to your Lordships demeanour both in the real world and the blog world that is never reflected by anything that exudes, steaming from the Commons.
I sincerely hope that your suspicions of continuity are well founded Lord Norton.
Thank you.
Congratulations to all concerned – I, too, hope that the blog will continue well into the future (but appreciate that the pace may quite possibly slow a little).
I very much look forward to your post, Lord Norton, on the Supreme Court and the Law Lords (http://lordsoftheblog.wordpress.com/2008/07/09/counter-terrorism-bill/#comment-1440); if I may say so myself, there is an article on the topic in the June edition of the Web Journal of Current Legal Issues (http://webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/2008/contents3.html).
I should also be interested in any comments you may have on my comment 1318 to Baroness D’Souza’s post on reform(http://lordsoftheblog.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/and-nowhouse-of-lords-reform/#comment-1318).
All good wishes.
Thanks for the very positive comments. They are all very helpful and will help considerably. James Wallis: to some extent,it is all relative. Pessimists will be amazed that anyone reads what we write while optimists will be surprised to find that millions are not hanging on our very word. Given that we have not undertaken any massive publicity exercise – our main promotion has been through the Parliament website – the viewing figures are rather good; it may be that if the blog becomes permanent we will then consider ways of promoting it more widely. We have been impressed by the degree of interaction – we have had some good comments – and, of course, there is the issue of quality as well as that of quantity. We clearly have a quality readership.
handj: I think you will be pleased with my next posts on the blog!
I have found the writing and discussion on the blog very informative. As an example, I was convinced to change my mind about compulsory voting (from pro to anti). So please carry on once the experiment is done.
Well done on the milestone. I do hope you continue the blog, as it is a welcome move into the future of politics. If the pilot is ended and the ‘Lords of the Blog’ site ends up being taken down, will any of the contributors consider creating their own blog, independent of Hansard or the House? As one of the occasional readers (although I have begun following your RSS feed now, and this site has been in my blogroll ever since I started my own blog!) I should very much like to continue reading the public debates that happen here.
It is nice to have bloggers and commenters who have a level of gravitas which is so uncommon (and so sorely missed) in other internet discussions.
congratulations on the milestone!! I hope the experiment will last for a while – I really look forward to reading your posts….
Thanks for the further comments of support. Stu: I think it likely we will continue, but if not I may be persuaded to carry on. I am by vocation a teacher and to me this is a valuable tool of communication and debate.
Aww, I missed out on the initial support. Drat.
This is one of the most informative and intelligent blogs around, with a bit of fun here and there. It’s a pity that more peers don’t add their tuppence worth but at least I know who I’ll be voting for if there has to be an elected second house.
To the contributing peers, thank you for the hard work and long hours you put in on behalf of us, and then spend extra time here explaining what you’ve been up to.
Hansard and the backroom guys: thank you, too – don’t let us down, please.
I would really love if you kept this going. As a reader from the USA, I find it hugely encouraging and have greatly enjoyed reading all of the entries here. I continue to hope that our own governmental officials will begin something similar and I will be writing to my senators to direct them to this blog as a fine example of an excellent communication and public forum tool.
To all of the contributors, thank you for your time and effort on this blog.