Yesterday was something of a Lords of the Blog day in the Lords. Not surprisingly, the blog was mentioned in Lord Renton’s debate on the Information Committee’s report, Are the Lords Listening? It was also mentioned in debate on the Financial Services Bill.
The Information Committee report was debated in Grand Committee. Lord Renton mentioned that he had used the blog to seek comments on the subject of the debate. “I blogged two days ago about our meeting this afternoon and I received a number of comments, most of them polite. Sounding out the broader public on issues raised by legislation has been trialled informally-particularly by two Lords of the Blog with regard to home education. This aroused considerable interest and controversy. The fact that Lords of the Blog links directly to Peers is clearly valued by participants.”
Three of our regular bloggers took part in the debate – Baroness Deech, Lord Soley and Tyler – and the blog was singled out for comment by Lord Brabazon, the Chairman of Committees, in responding to the debate:
“Another valuable channel of communication has been the Lords of the Blog site. Not only is it a good way for noble Lords to keep readers abreast of developments and issues in your Lordships’ House, it also allows members of the public to feed back their views. I was particularly interested in the intensive exchange of views after the noble Lord, Lord Norton, who is a prolific blogger, asked for readers’ opinions on a controversial part of what is now the Policing and Crime Act 2009. More recently, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lord, Lord Soley, blogged about home education in advance of the Second Reading of the Children, Schools and Families Bill, and sparked a staggering number of comments from the public. I was very interested to hear the speeches of both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord on this subject. I appreciate that not all the comments were entirely complimentary: however, this kind of consultation and engagement may be a harbinger of things to come. I understand that research is under way to evaluate Lords of the Blog, and to identify potential new audiences and how best to reach them. In the mean time, I urge noble Lords to become bloggers on this site.”
It is good to see that the blog is being read and noticed, not least the comments of our readers. However, comment was not confined to the debate in Grand Committee. During debate in committee on the Financial Services Bill, some peers were concerned that scrutiny would not be complete before the end of the session and they pressed the minister, Lord Myners, as to what happened in a wash-up period. In responding, he said: “I am a regular reader of the excellent website Lords of the Blog, where the noble Lord, Lord Norton, regularly informs me on this and on other matters. While I note what my noble friend says, I have nothing further to add.”
I think the comments are valuable in reflecting the value the blog as a means – albeit, as the debate in Grand Committee showed, only one means – of facilitating exchange between parliamentarians and public. It is not just a case of readers’ comments being seen by the blogging peer, but also being read by a wider parliamentary audience. We have a diverse and growing readership. The more we can do to develop that the better.
I`d like to say I really do appreciate the time and effort of the few Lords members who make this blog possible. I fully realise that your time is extremely valuable and your consideration in reading our posts indicates that you value our input.
I do feel other members of the House should join you and perhaps in that way allow some of the pressures the blog must exert to be taken away.
I am extremely glad to see your hard work, and we can be, is being recognised by the House.
Thank you.
Well I’m landscaping and renovating a garden, but I would rather be up in town really, even for a parliamentary debate, and then the opera, or the cinema, and dinner before or afterwards!
Roll on the general election, which looks like being a damp squib.
Carl.H: Many thanks.
“I appreciate that not all the comments were entirely complimentary”
Not at all complimentary I hope; home-educators justly do not appreciate ignorance from those in positions of power and rightly so.
Playing the man (or woman!) not the ball is not an effective tactic to try to move your persuade others of your argument
The Lordoftheblogs is a useful tool to communicate with those in a position to influence legislation as it is debated and put through committee stages.
The reality is that there is a lot of business which goes through the upper house, which is not reported in the media, and unless you are a devotee of Hansard of the Parliament Programme, you might not hear of it.
The comments about more Lords becoming involved are valid as it is helpful to read a number of different opinions on different business areas. Keeping the public informed and interaction to keep themselves informed.
Having spent 43 years in the Armed Forces I know how easy it is to become insular and isolated from what is going on around you, concentrating on what is important to you, your job and your family perhaps.
We hear so many detrimental, critical things about Parliament, it is refreshing to know that some Peers care and take the time to communicate.
I still think that giving working Peers an affiliation to a local parliamentary constituency would help, as an additional representative, where MP’s for whatever reason are either to busy to help, or are unwilling to take an interest in a local issue (until Election time).
Ernest: Many thanks for your helpful and encouraging comments. They are much appreciated. On your last point, you may find considerable opposition to it – principally from MPs, who are very keen usually to protect their territory.
I second everything that Carl.H said.
Thank you for your time in maintaining this blog, its been very informative.
The Lords was always (and, to be honest, still is) something of an egnima in my understanding of politics, but posts from your Lordships have been illuminating.
I’ld like to say that Carl is a sycofant, but ok it stirs my grey cells a little as well.
But you have to admit I`m good at it ! 😉
Twm O’r Nant: Leave Carl H – and Troika21 – alone. They can be as sycophantic as they wish.
Trokia21: Many thanks.
Ok Lord Norton May they be sycofantastic!
About time too! This really is by far the best blog on the internet, and that’s not just the free teacake talking.
Do you sense any more of your colleagues signing-up any time soon?
It really speaks volumes that your Lordships are much more effective at engaging with the public than those who seek our votes are. No wonder they want rid of the HoL – you’re showing them up!
It also makes what Lord Tebbit pointed out (albeit jovially) on his blog* yesterday all the more depressing:
“With all three parties committed to getting rid of people like me from the House of Lords to make way for party clones who could be relied on to vote without asking questions, I might be looking for some other occupation.”
*the second best on the internet!
While I may be a cad to impune your avowal here I cannot help but wonder how you might advocate for your native and ancestral constitution if Lord Norton could have secure you soup,a bit of beef and dessert served by a waiter in de rigeur style. But perhaps you are not merely a mercenary, one never knows…
Chris K: Many thanks. I do know of at least one senior peer keen to contribute a guest blog, and we are working on others.
I think Lord Myners just outed himself as the previously un-named minister who reads the blog!
As to the wash-up, it’s starting to become rather comical, people keep disclaiming knowledge of it, how it works or whose in charge! If Lord Myners (hello if you’re reading!) ever gets a full and detailed explanation of how it all works perhaps he could tell us and clearly some of his fellow peers 😀
The Information Committee’s report debate was quite good actually, almost all the speeches on topic and not sidetracked into Lords reform. Having read it through the thing that I’m still not clear about, perhaps Lord Renton will tell us at some point, is roughly what of his recommendations have the house authorities agreed to implement immediately, at some given time frame, and some time frame to be agreed or refused outright. Though I could pick up some obvious agreement on some points it was pretty hard to keep track!
Croft: I merely observe that there are more than 120 ministers, so it is quite possible that we have a number of ministers among our keen readership. Could I add my greetings to Lord Myners?
I agree with you about the debate on the Information Committee report. It was extremely useful, though as you indicate we need to see which recommendations get implemented now and which have to be pursued. I was sorry not to be able to participate. The debate was scheduled at relatively short notice and I was committed to being with my students who were attending Westminster for a fairly intense programme of activities that day.
One minister down 119 to guess from!
I think perhaps committees need, rather like post legislative scrutiny, some very basic progress update system for their reports as other than follow up reports which often quote prior hearings there seems no formal way to chart progress.
Nice to see a periodic outbreak of praise, which I happy add my agreement, even if I somehow doubt it quite makes up for some of the collateral exasperation directed at the lotb by us all over expenses! (in both houses)
As ever, thanks for the blog. Certainly, the most Lords involved the better. It’s my favorite political blog by far.
http://www.governing-principles.com
governing principles should name himself on his own site. He likes to have a cookie on my gadget, so it would be polite.
Reading somebody’s opinions without having the least idea of his identity is Naff.
I don’t do it, and yet his site is well organised, and may have some ideas on it.
I shan’t look further though, and I shall delete the cookie!
TON: “Reading somebody’s opinions without having the least idea of his identity is Naff.” Little people have nothing to fear from the state because they have little to say. How tall are you! It is never the messenger but the message that is important. However, one must acknowledge that it has been histories want to shoot the messenger purely out of spite.
Dear Twm O’r Nant,
I’m afraid my identity is not available because in the world of blogging people have a habit of playing the person, not the ball. This decision is in line with the example set by The Economist.
I am trying to avoid the day when someone says “Well, you would say that because…” (Went to Public School? Were once a Communist? You work in the Civil Service? You work in the Secret Service? You are a Somali Pirate? You are Blackbeard?)
Unless necessary, all you are getting is:
About: http://governing-principles.com/about/
What you can get from my details: http://governing-principles.com/author/londonnyc/
I’m fairly certain that I’m not hard to find, if someone is really desperate to know who I am. I am also interested by your “likes to have a cookie on my gadget” remark; is WordPress handing out cookies on my behalf? I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised.
http://www.governing-principles.com
Even now, this doesn’t work perfectly. A few weeks back, I was arguing on a US forum and someone went back to my site. Suddenly, “Well, you would say that, you’re a Brit” before beginning a torrent of personal/off-topic abuse.
Nothing is perfect, I suppose.
http://www.governing-principles.com
About 30 seconds Governing Principle just because you set challenge.
governing principles: Many thanks. It is extremely encouraging that you rate us so highly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sycophancy
Talking of the word “sycophancy” wikipedia has an interesting selection of synonyms!
The one used to the US Senate foreign affairs
Hearing by George of the Scottish county, was one that I had not heard until then and would certainly not apply to anybody here… I hope! “Lick spittle!” Dreadful word, but in the context of US Senate FAc highly amusing and accurate!
Carl is an old pal LN, one way and another.
Thanks to all those who have responded with such positive comments. I wasn’t fishing for compliments – I was just struck by the fact that Wednesday was a form of ‘Lords of the Blog’ day in the Lords – so it is particularly encouraging to have evoked such a response. We are conscious that the blog is but one of several initiatives – another is the ‘Peers in Schools’ programme – to help peers engage with the public; we want to develop the blog as well as find new ways of engaging and, indeed, ways of engaging with new audiences.
I agree absolutely and completely that it is the message and not the messenger which matters.
Some where at the very least on anybody’s blog, there should be a signature to the thought.
I am quite happy about pseudonyms which can be a lot of fun, but with as serious political comment as you seem to be making, I should know….. perhaps I will find out with the extra detail you have provided.
A blog may only be a personal depository of otherwise unread information. Identity helps.
Piegon holing people is not something I am interested in, and there are generally ways of dealing with those who are.
I’m Tom Edwards by the way. Twm is the Welsh way of saying it. I’m a 19thC Welsh poet.
I’m afraid that we shall have to disagree. You may not be interested in the messenger but others always are. I have no intention of giving it out for free, so to speak. As Carl H has already made clear, I’m laughably easy to identify if necessary. Luckily, the kind of lazy bloggers who make personal attacks are also likely to be too idle to look me up.
I suppose I take the view that – if name is really only a name and it’s not the person behind it that counts – it makes little difference if my name is Governing Principles. If you want to know anything about the politics I’m advocating or the media I’m reading, I’m more than happy to answer questions on my blog.
If it’s good enough for Bagehot, Lexington and Charlemagne…
Best wishes,
http://www.governing-principles.com
im not aware if your lordships have read the latest reports as regards the DEB as noone here has so far make any DEB updates as the Report has passed and its coming upto the 3rd reading: House of Lords | 15.03.2010.
this is a Very Serious matter, and someone should be looking at and publicly commenting on the reports right here in this blog seriously.
see:
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/03/12/leaked-uk-record-ind.html
“Leaked UK record industry memo sets out plans for breaking UK copyright
Cory Doctorow at 11:11 PM March 12, 2010
In this leaked, six-page email, Richard Mollet, the Director of Public Affairs for the British Phonographic Institute (the UK’s record-industry lobbyists), sets out the BPI’s strategy for ramming through the Digital Economy Bill, a sweeping, backwards reform to UK copyright law that will further sacrifice privacy and due process in the name of preserving copyright, without actually preserving copyright.
…
he identifies Members of Parliament as being “resigned” to the fact that they will not be allowed to debate the bill or give it “detailed scrutiny” (heck of a job, MPs!).
He cites an expert on legislation as saying that the bill will likely die if MPs insist on their right and responsibility to examine this legislation in detail before voting on it.
http://craphound.com/BPDigitalEconomyBillweeklyminutes.pdf
”
http://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2010/bpi-drafted-web-blocking
“Just in case you were wondering where the idea for a web blocking amendment came from, we attach to this blog post a copy of the BPI’s draft, along with their justification for it.
Now, amendments often come from lobby and campaign groups, including us, not least because it’s the easiest way for them to show parliamentarians what they want. But the fact that twice, with the original copyright by diktat proposal, and then the web blocking proposal, the BPI essentially got to write what they wanted and get it proposed more or less wholesale as law, in such a tremendously sensitive area and in such a one-sided manner, shows something is very wrong with the way this debate is being conducted.
Parliamentarians need to recognize that copyright touches everyone and every technology in the digital age. It is no longer a question of inter-business regulation and deals. Getting copyright wrong has the potential to mess up our freedom of speech, ….
“
Response from Lord Renton:
Following on from our report a lot of detailed thought and action is now moving forward. For example, Lady Crawley, speaking for the government, mentioned a number of areas such as producing Bills in an electronic format. Parliamentary and Government officials are working in partnership on detailed standards for this, technology requirements and the implementation plan.
The Chairman of Committees, Lord Brabazon, mentioned other matters which have happened or are happening. These include major developments to http://www.parliament.uk, including the new bill pages (http://www.parliament.uk/business/bills_and_legislation.cfm); behind the scenes work between parliament and government departments to simplify and streamline the exchange of information about legislation and written questions; new rules to make it easier for broadcasters to film in the House of Lords; a plan to improve the visitors’ entrance at the Victoria Tower end of the palace; and the Connecting with Communities project run by the parliamentary archives and outreach services in the regions, beginning in Norfolk (http://news.parliament.uk/2010/01/norfolk-people-and-parliament-exhibition/).
Many of those who spoke in the debate have visited and spoken to schools and adult groups as part of the Lord Speaker’s outreach programme and/or have blogged on these pages. I see these Member-led initiatives as being the most effective way of all for the House to connect with the public.
Looking to the future, I hope that, after the General Election, many new Peers will read our report and will be interested in the challenge of Westminster communicating better with the public at large.
Tim Renton