Keeping up is hard to do

Baroness Deech

In addition to the usual meetings and sittings this week, I was invited to attend meetings in the Palace of Westminster with and on the following inter alia: Racing and Bloodstock, Working Practices of the House, Reform of the House, the Bahraini Parliamentary delegation, the Leveson Inquiry, the Pancake Race, Universities, Aviation Noise, National Libraries, NHS Primary Care, Crime Figures, Broadband, Marine Pilots, Tamils, the Parliamentary Art Collection, Pro Bono Law, the Netherlands Ambassador, Islamic Finance, Ebacc, Diversity in the Working Place and Sexual Equality.  There were invitations to think tank sessions on Britain and Europe, Marriage Week, Muslim Peace, Child Abuse and Legal Services.  The one event I particularly regret not being able to attend was an invitation from Cumbrian MPs for Cumbria Day, which promised Cumbrian sausages, cheese, fudge, ales, gingerbread, pies and marmalade from that area.  There just isn’t time. 

The All Party Parliamentary Groups advertised their meetings for the week, which included sessions on Kosovo, Brazil, Rail in the North, Agroecology, Weight Watchers, Shooting and Conservation, Food and Health, Malaria, Mexico, the Constitution, Drug Policy, Classical Music, Fashion and Textile, Arts and Heritage, and the Commons and Lords Hockey Team, to name but a few.  There were international parliamentary exchanges with delgations from and to Sri Lanka, the Maldives, Sierra Leone, India, the Philippines and Saudi Arabia.   There is no shortage of opportunities to be informed.

The three I attended were the launch of Marriage Week, at which I spoke, Legal Services and Peace in the Middle East.  One can do quite a lot of catching up on other events via the internet and of course everybody is tweeting from the meetings they go to.  A deluge of information, not always reliable, and one needs to pick and choose.

17 comments for “Keeping up is hard to do

  1. Lord Blagger
    09/02/2013 at 12:41 pm

    A deluge of information, not always reliable, and one needs to pick and choose

    ===========

    So why when we ask you about your expenses does the Clerk of Parliament make it a state secret?

    Remember too that one of his roles is to pay you your cash.

    Why would he want to keep a secret what he knows or has done?

  2. GaretHugHowell
    10/02/2013 at 10:45 am

    A fine place to learn! It always amazed me that the place was not bursting at the seams
    with interest for so many different subjects of discussion. The winter term is always the best for such select committee meetings. I ought to be there for the pure pleasure of it all, but garden wall, and croquet lawn building takes precedence for now.

    Perhaps it does burst at the seams but it is so well run by doorkeepers/ constabulary/security that it works like a breeze. Winter is most work done and fewest visitors.
    and so on

  3. Louise Cooke
    10/02/2013 at 9:35 pm
  4. GaretHugHowell
    11/02/2013 at 11:49 am

    A deluge of information, not always reliable, and one needs to pick and choose

    The facts are that parliament is a place where most new members have to learn about democracy.

    It is particularly so with those who apply to the HofL through the appointments commission, such as
    B. T Grey Thompson, who by her own admission was/is learning about it, from the second chamber, and not from a democratic one at all.

    Regrettably the same may apply to the democratic chamber, that most new members do not know much about government departments and how they work, or how they may even be accountable to Parliament.

    There must be quite a few newly elected members who have scarcely ever been to parliament, merely deciding they want to ‘join’ it, succeed in doing so, and are then hopefully chucked in to a fast learning curve by the whips of the parties.

    It does at least guarantee a minimum of knowledge about government, which the public
    rarely learns about, even if they study politics and government at A level or university.

    I have always thoroughly enjoyed the select committees of both chambers, not on account of the querulous, and often ignorant members, but for the sometimes dubious wisdom
    of those giving evidence.

    I have heard some amazingly ignorant Doctors of Philosophy, giving evidence in their own discipline, but don’t quote me.

    The lack of democratic experience possessed by some of those appointed to the HofL, and their pride in having none, is lamentable.

    May they enjoy the best club in London, if that is what they want. That is its purpose.

  5. MilesJSD
    11/02/2013 at 12:08 pm

    “Marry in haste, repent at leisure”:

    No human-relationship-&-covenant-troth should be contracted and sacramentralised before each party has achieved both the ability to live alone off just one-human-living (min £143 max £300 per week) and has established sevenfold sacramental self-knowledge and self-control.
    ===========
    “Same Sex Marriage” is a bad enough loopholey term; it should be “Same Sex Cohabitation Contract”.

    But “Gay Marriage” is an outright corruption; of Language, Nature, and History; and thereby of both human-mind and human-morality.
    ‘Traditional’ Sacramental Marriage (and the Registry Office marriage can not escape this innately-holy sacramental essence) is between two people for the purpose of procreation-and-right-rearing of children;
    and in this its Social-legitimisation should be limited to that rearing of children,
    and not be a carte-blanche for “social-mobility” (erstwhilely better known as “social-climbing” qua “social-corrupting” and “competitive-career-ladder-scaling”).

    Legally and constitutionally, terming a “Homosexually-Gay-Contract” a “Sacramental-Marriage” is in a real sense a blatant insult to real holisticly-sacramental heterosexual-parenthood, and to the deadly-seriousness and equally ultimate holistic responsibilities and response-abilities of procreation and socially-integrable familyhood.

    It is also undermining of the participatively-cooperative nature of Sustainworthy-Earth-Citizenship and its necessarily inherent Participatory Democratisation & Democracy.

    I quote:
    “Calling yourself “leader” will never make you one”.

    Similarly, calling yourself, or someone-else, “married” will never make you, nor the other party, truly and real-life-sustainworthily married.

    Nor will it help even the natural-spiritual development and fulfilment of those who write the laws and rules, nor of those who perform the ceremonies or support such “gay-marriage” spiritual-usurpery.

    • GaretHugHowell
      13/02/2013 at 10:22 am

      Similarly, calling yourself, or someone-else, “married” will never make you, nor the other party, truly and real-life-sustainworthily married.

      Or a mother, especially if you are a man…..

      Give me peace O! God!

  6. maude elwes
    12/02/2013 at 5:46 pm

    This thread covers a broad spectrum and for Blagger, I thought this may help him to get a grip of what is taking place in the economy and where his taxes are fidning their way into the top 1%.

    Happy listening.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=gKOJqnAET9A

    • Lord Blagger
      13/02/2013 at 10:59 am

      The problem Maude is with the state.

      For example, why aren’t the state pensions on the government books? Surely they intend paying them.

      Well, its a con.

      1. They are deemed to be ‘contingent liabilities’, so they leave them off.

      So what’s contingent about paying the state pension?

      Well I got a partial answer yesterday, that lets the cat out of the bag a bit more.

      A contingent liability is one where there is less than a 50% chance of paying out what is owed. That’s the official line.

      Think about it. It’s less than a coin toss that you get your state pension.

      Nothing to do with the rich, all to do with the state and the thieves in Westminster

      [For the mods, fraud is theft. We still have convicted thieves in the Lords]

      • GaretHugHowell
        13/02/2013 at 1:56 pm

        to do with the state and the thieves in Westminster

        [For the mods, fraud is theft. We still have convicted thieves in the Lords]

        Murmuring judges? Still Blagger is a Lord.

      • maude elwes
        14/02/2013 at 3:29 pm

        Then, the only answer is, Blagger, to find out who ‘the State’ is. What you are missing is, ‘the state’ is human. Its face may well be hidden, but, those running the show and making these decisions are made up of one of us. Therefore, they can be removed, so we are told. Because this is a democracy.

        If this nation of people are truly distressed and find life untennable, because of the machinations of the ‘state.’ Then we must collectively move to be rid of those running this ‘farce.’ Get rid of frauds, sue them in court. Remove the veil from their faces and expose them to us all, as if in a police ‘line up.’ And more, those who pretend to be on the side of, or, for some kind of policy, when in reality they are lying, because they want election in order to work their secret intentions throughout our society, must then face up to charges against them once found out. Either by their own admission or by exposure from whistle blowers or journalists.

        Take for example, Mr Cameron, coming out today telling his voters across the country that he is not for immigration control after all, he is for the spread of immigration, from outside Europe in particular. As he says, he wants to court India and that therefore he is actively seeking more Indian students who want to be educated in our universities and via that education, induce them to set up family life once they have a degree, making them the front runners for top jobs desperately needed by our home bred variety. This, he tells us, must not be regulated, as many as want can come and he will welcome them, as he is proud to say he favours this massive influx into our country. And the reason, we are advised, is because Indians are naturally conservative, and therefore, likely to vote for his party. Its called follow the Blair. Did Cameron put this intention in his manifesto? Along with his views on Gay marriage? In order for us to select the policies we wanted to lead us to the future we all dream of? No, he did not. He did a Blair. He concealed his vision in order to mislead those whom he hoped would support him.

        Not only that, he mislead the voters into taking his party at face value by selling the lie that it is the welfare recipricants of this country that created the poverty he and his 1% cronies imposed on the entire nation, in order to fill their coffers to overflow.

        However, the biggest fraud, is the Lib/Dem team. What a ploy they set us up for. My God, how Clegg can stand to look himself in the eye as he passes his mirror of a morning is unbelieveable.

        There is no separation of the parties, they are equally culpable. As is the European contingent as they follow the White House orders.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ovChv06qCE

        And what we can do!

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wy632HTYpF8

        • Lord Blagger
          14/02/2013 at 5:10 pm

          Therefore, they can be removed, so we are told. Because this is a democracy.

          =============

          And? That doesn’t get people back the money the state has stolen.

          Then we must collectively move to be rid of those running this ‘farce.’ Get rid of frauds, sue them in court. Remove the veil from their faces and expose them to us all, as if in a police ‘line up.’

          Exactly. So things like, there is less than a 50% probability they will pay your state pension is important.

          Not only that, he mislead the voters into taking his party at face value by selling the lie that it is the welfare recipricants of this country that created the poverty he and his 1% cronies imposed on the entire nation, in order to fill their coffers to overflow.

          Well, the problem is the welfare receipiants.

          That’s both those who have chosen, or allowed to choose welfare as a choice. It also includes corporate welfare. For example, subsidies or tax breaks for specific industries. It also include lots in the Public sector, such as five a day coordinators.

          Now this has been going on way before Cameron. It goes back a long way.

          So, 5,300 bn of pensions owed. Less than 50% chance they get paid.

          Have they told you and I?

          Nope, they are lying. All of them. The only one who has said anything I have heard was David Owen.

  7. ladytizzy
    12/02/2013 at 5:58 pm

    B Deech, you mention a number of APGs and delegations offering “…no shortage of opportunities to be informed.”

    Frankly, managing my conflicting characteristics of cynicism and optimism has been a lifelong struggle. What advice can you offer?

    • Baroness Deech
      Baroness Deech
      13/02/2013 at 11:02 pm

      Need to know more about what you mean? Believe cynically, act optimistic?

      • ladytizzy
        16/02/2013 at 6:51 pm

        “Believe cynically, act optimistic?”

        I had considered my essential self to be an optimist but pushed to behave as a cynic . Upon reflection, you may well have the first part right and saved me £££ on future therapy.

        A little learning is more likely than not to be dangerous and it is up to me to research the available data; this is the stuff that is almost certainly compromised and/or incomplete, as any theologian or Donald Rumsfeld will sell you.

        Thus, while you regard information emanating from APGs etc as an opportunity to be informed, is it not likely that they see it as as opportunity to inform you of how fabulous they are, presenting only data that enforces their fabulousness? What, then, is their value?

  8. GaretHugHowell
    16/02/2013 at 8:24 am

    What I say about Blagger and Elwes is “motes and beams”; In Blagger’s case a life long “beam” of a slightly different category,and of great charm.

  9. MilesJSD
    18/02/2013 at 12:35 pm

    From the baroness’s, ladytizzy’s, GH’s, and LordBlagger’s comments
    it appears to me that “we” are missing the whole two overarching and underpinning Need-Domains of
    “individual-human-development” and
    “civilisation-sustainworthying”

    [all-roundly-developing every individual
    (7-billion-odd worldwide; not just those 7 million-or-so born with a silver-spoon in their mouths)

    and in-depth-sustainworthying every organisation and civilisation operating on Earth ]

  10. GaretHugHowell
    18/02/2013 at 4:35 pm

    then hopefully chucked in to a fast learning curve by the whips of the parties.
    My own comment and to add to it, the whips usually put their members in to committees that they do NOT know much about. I don’t suppose The Hon Bruce George knew much about Defence until he was appointed to the DefSelcom committee in about 2001/1999 I may be wrong. Enthusiasm counts for a lot, and how much work they are prepared to do.

Comments are closed.