Comments on: Experience and expertise

By: ladytizzy

ladytizzy — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:23:56 +0000

I feel suitably admonished! Thank you for the info; I hope Lord Vallance is as helpful.

By: lordnorton

lordnorton — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:15:27 +0000

Annexed: my interpretation is that the Lords is looked to for the purpose of responding to measures passed by the Commons for which there is not a clear case. The public often recognise that there is not a clear case and, indeed, the House may be more likely to pursue its stance if it does resonate with electors. I would not necessarily go along with your claim about the elected House. It could be argued that the Lords may find it easier to take a stance that has public support than the Commons, where the Members may find the demands of the party whips outweigh their reading of the opinion polls.

By: Annexed

Annexed — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 10:14:09 +0000

Lord Norton,

From the Constitution Unit research you cite, the public prioritise the upper chamber ‘making decisions in accordance with public opinion’, but not the ‘presence of elected members’.

While these two categories can be differentiated, there is surely an argument that the election of members is the most likely way to ensure that decisions are made in accordance with public opinion?

Of course the decisions of an elected chamber will not always reflect public opinion (as in the Commons), but they are much more likely to than an appointed chamber which has no requirement to consider public opinion at all.

How do you see an appointed chamber meeting the public’s stated priority of decisions reflecting their opinion? Are you satisfied that the existence of the Parliament Act sufficiently fulfills the demand (if only in the long-run – like on fox hunting)?

Your Leader’s Seminar contribution on this topic linked in your earlier post was stimulating by the way – whilst I probably still favour a mixed chamber, reading it certainly made me consider the debate in a different light.

By: lordnorton

lordnorton — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 09:51:07 +0000

ladytizzy: on your second point, I may be able to bring you back on-topic. BT is not a subject on which I am an expert. Indeed, it is not one on which I have much experience, in that I live in Hull where BT’s writ does not run. However, being the Lords, we do have people who are experts or have experience of BT and telecommunications. They include Lord Vallance, who is a former chairman of BT.

By: lordnorton

lordnorton — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 09:47:09 +0000

ladytizzy: we are not in the chamber, so I was not using parliamentary terminology. If I was employing it, I would have opened with ‘With all due respect’.

By: ladytizzy

ladytizzy — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 18:53:14 +0000

I’m disappointed with the opening words, given your post of April 23:

“‘The noble Lord makes an interesting point…’ (I have no idea what the answer is)”

You all know my position on this matter, so may I take this opportunity of asking an off-topic question: what leverage do you have in getting BT to carry out the necessary work on my internet/telephone line, work that should have been done over five years ago? Between me and my husband we must have spoken to every BT employee and have personally ensured BT stay in business. They have admitted the problem and…zilch.

Apologies. Needed to sound off.