There is also the problem of what to do about abstentions. If there is a three-line whip and a member abstains, then that is going against the party line. However, we have no means of knowing definitively who has abstained. Absence from a vote is not necessarily a conscious abstention. The whips in the Commons keep fairly accurate records, but that is not possible in the Lords. Peers may have other commitments or they may have decided to abstain. There have been some votes where a good many front-benchers have decided to be absent – accepting engagements in order to miss the vote. And there are some occasions where it is difficult to classify behaviour. On one occasion, I was delayed on the train and so missed a vote, but had I been present, I may well have abstained.

I like to think that I am someone who brings my mind to bear on issues. I think that is one of the great virtues of the Lords. I can think and give voice to my thoughts, and let my vote follow what I believe is the preferable path. I am not that unusual. When I chaired the Constitution Select Committee, I took the view that anyone sat in the public seating who tried to work out the party affiliation of committee members, based on their questions, would have been hard pressed to work out which members belonged to which party.

I must admit, though, that I am a teacher by vocation – and my subject is politics, especially Parliament – so I do tend to see my role, whether in university or the Lords – or on the public platform – as an educative one.

Of course it is possible that you are somewhat of a rebel! Since you’re not an ex-MP you haven’t had your brain removed and replaced by a blackberry, you’re not an ex-mandarin so haven’t been institutionalised to the machine.

Perhaps intentionally, I’m never quite sure, your posts here are far more obviously Professor Norton than Lord Norton the Tory peer. Indeed as others have mentioned I’m not sure how many people would guess your affiliation by reading your posted opinions.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6b/House_of_Lords_chamber_-_toward_throne.jpg

http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/uploads/images/House%20of%20Lords%231%23.jpg

I would hate to disagree but i am going to i bet you that the committee of the house chair in the picture has changed to an office chair on wheels. I want to know y as the one in the picture is much better than the one current office chair.

There are 1,381 seats in Parliament, Labour has 560.No majority.

The House of Lords in 2008 sat for 148 days for an average of 6.75 hours per session. 999 hours averages to 2.73 hours per day. 148 days at full allowances (as August 1 2008) = £48840 or £133.80 per day = £49.01 per hour. If all Lords sat on those days at full allowances the cost would be £34,481,040. The Government were defeated 25 times in 2008/9, that`s £1,379,241 per defeat.

It’s like the tale of the roadside merchant who was asked to explain how he could sell rabbit sandwiches so cheap. “Well” he explained, “I have to put some horse-meat in too. But I mix them 50:50. One horse, one rabbit.

A statistician is a person who draws a mathematically precise line from an unwarranted assumption to a foregone conclusion.

Whips

Bullying, cajoling, coercion has no place in our society let alone in our Law making democracy. If free thinking and free voting is not allowed in the Lords, our system is no longer a democracy and we may as well elect Stalin. How can we as a Nation chastise Iran on their political elections or Mugabe when we allow threats of some kind on our elected and non elected parliamentarians ?

The Houses of Parliament can no longer say it above the law and the law would forbid the practice of whips. It is not ethical when you are there to represent the people to instead represent the view of just one organisation that a small number (Labour at present 170,000) of people belong to.