These comments follow on from Lord Tyler’s analysis of the overcrowded House. There was a question from Lord Lee on 12 November about how to encourage more Chinese tourists to visit the UK, and in response difficulties about visas, costs and lack of flights were aired. I would have liked to intervene but there were so many peers trying to get their own questions heard that I gave up. This happens frequently. Several peers wish to be heard during the 7 minute slot for each question, and they get to their feet simultaneously, shouting out “My Lords . . . .” and hoping to prevail. We are a self regulating House, so the Speaker does not summon a Peer. There is some taking of turns, that is, if the last questioner was from one party, then the next should be from another and so on around the parties. Even that does not always work, and on occasion some of the valuable 7 minutes are taken up with chaotic attempts to be heard above the others until, sometimes, the Leader of the House intervenes and gives the nod to one or other would-be questioner.
It occurred to me that maybe women are less able to intervene in these circumstances because they might be inherently more inclined to give way and are more softly spoken. So I did some research. Over a recent period of 12 days, that is 48 questions, I analysed who the interveners were by gender. I omitted to classify the peer who had put down the question, as they can take the floor at the start in any case, and do not have to strive to join in. The results were surprising. In the period I looked at, 66 women (from a total of 180 baronesses in the House) intervened, and 198 lords (total 623). That’s 36% women and 31% men. So we get our fair share, indeed more! Albeit that quite often it was the same women or men intervening. Nevertheless, you need nerves of steel and the agility of a greyhound to get in.
So what would I have said about the problems of Chinese tourists had I been able to express a view? I would have pointed out some contradictions between our desire to encourage millions of tourists to visit, and our concern for the environment. We are frequently exhorted not to take unnecessary flights for holidays in order to minimise carbon emission. Britons produce relatively more carbon emission from air travel than many other countries. We know that Heathrow is inadequate but there are environmental objections to enlarging it or to building another airport in the congested south east. The London underground is savagely overcrowded, and the traffic is nearly at a standstill. So why on earth would we want to encourage a million Chinese, or any other tourists to come here? What about global warming, what about the extra flights that would be needed to bring them here and return home, and how would they fit into the underground? Yes, we managed during the Olympics (not that anyone has measured the carbon emission associated with the games), but that was largely because many millions of commuters stayed away from London. There is a massive misfit between our encouragement of tourism and our discouragement of environmental pollution.
Isn’t the issue with Chinese tourists that they can’t use their Schengen visas to come here as part of a European tour? So they will still be taking a long haul flight from China to Europe either way, it’s just that we in the UK don’t even see any benefit from that environmental damage.
Chinese tourists tend to travel as part of large organised groups, going en masse from one sight to the next by the coach load. It’s likely they wouldn’t even take an extra flight to come to the UK, it would be an extra item on their itinerary, by coach through the Channel Tunnel.
There was a question from Lord Lee on 12 November about how to encourage more Chinese tourists to visit the UK, and in response jonthen probably answers the question rather well. Schwengen.
The noble baroness should perhaps consider that a good deal of the procedure of the house could be put right here on the desktop screen of all Members, and then, like Maude, Blagger,Jonathen and so on you could all bleat to your heart’s content.
It is the age of members which inhibits much, much greater use of the internet/web for debating purposes, by them; an average age of 70.
Almost everything the Lords do, plan or say is on the Parliament website for public viewing. Many if not most of us are using the internet, social media, ipads, smartphones etc. But there is no substitute for genuine face to face debate.
If there are too many there and they do not get the say they want, then there surely is one?
If it were only on the website it would be much more sensible.
It would not matter if there were 1000 or 1200 peers, if more work were done exclusively on
passwordéd websites/blogs message boards.
The kind of debate the Baroness mentions would be the first for consideration as such.
Surely there should first and foremost be no substitute for round-table discussion ?
Both Public and Parliamentarian ?
Or we just abolish the Lords.
Think what you could do with 600 million over a term of Parliament?
Could you achieve more than paying 850 geriatrics to drink and eat at your expense?
Except when it comes to expenses, then its hidden.
For example why have the reports into the Peers that have committed fraud been made a state secret?
Just what did the Lords know about what was going on?
Why was the person responsible for handing out the cash, also the person to investigate what was going on?
Conflict of interest? Move along, you’re just a pleb.
Almost everything? Well, not when its to do with fiddles. Then its nothing.
“Do any US state congress senates vote online”
I can not think of what search terms to enter in to google/search engine to establish whether there is any
“congress or house of representatives worldwide actually taking any votes or debating online yet”.
Australia would seem the most likely contender for such activity.
What we must have is an authentic and very good Feng Shui man. He will give good guidance to make sure energy flows freely.
That way our Chinese visitors will be sure to have the time of their lives in our city of good luck. Don’t forget there is more than London to attract. Stratford on Avon is clean, pretty, has a river story that carries that quaint old English quality everybody loves.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGk5HIhdfnI&feature=related
Chinese reciprocal visits en masse could be a good way to encourage a great deal of tour explorers coming through that tunnel of twenty minutes duration.
Yes, we need them. So accommodate their taste for good fun and culture.
A short hike up the M40 or low and behold, Birmingham Airport, which could arrange a short, very cheap visa, for a little soupcon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSqHcwN6vPo
It’s all a matter of using your loaf.
Baroness Trumpington never has a problem getting in at Question Time neither does Baroness Gardner of Parkes. When you know it your sides turn hold your ground and keep stating “this side” or “Crossbench”