“You are not what we expected” is quite often the response from people when they have invited a Baroness to speak but have not looked up my biography. Their response is normally in relation to my age and for that they can be forgiven as the average age for Members of the House of Lords is 70. It was wonderful to be able to speak about the experience of being the youngest female peer on Radio 4 ‘Woman’s Hour’ last week (podcast link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01v2q5m ) with the Labour Peer Baroness Worthington and the Liberal Democrat Baroness Parminter.
It is quite an amazing experience to be among the country’s leading experts in so many subject areas. The challenge has always been to learn from all these wise, experienced people whilst maintaining the courage and boldness to make my own contribution. The different generational perspective struck me from my very first times in the Chamber when the House was considering the Alternative Vote legislation. So often colleagues would say “Your Lordships will remember the two elections of 1974..” which of course I had no idea about. I have also had to research the day light saving experiment between 1968 and 1971 which my colleagues so often refer to in debates about whether the UK should move to European Time. Conversely some of my colleagues assume that I know all about modern technology, alas I don’t, so I am grateful to be able to pass them onto the youngest female peer Baroness Lane Fox who has just joined the cross benches.
I was surprised at how seriously my colleagues believe in the fact we are all “Peers” and are therefore on an equal platform. I still find it strange that everyone is on first name terms and I would be corrected if I did not call Lord Bragg, Melvyn or the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin. Although the House defers, especially during question time, to those who have experience in or campaign on a particular policy area, this is rather meritocratic. During a recent question on Central African Republic, a country I have informally adopted, colleagues gave way to me when I wanted to speak.
The sad aspect of having so many older people in your work place is that regularly the Lords Speaker has to announce the death of one of my colleagues. I have never been in a workplace where death is so often a feature and still find this rather odd and sad of course.
Perhaps it is because of the speed of change over the last 20 years but I increasingly think the different generations that people grow up in, affect their perspective more and more. Someone who is a ‘baby boomer’ really does see the world very differently to someone who is ‘Generation Y’. I have never thought that my colleagues are wrong factually although opinions between Peers differ enormously, but I have on occasion thought the world is just not like that during a debate. So I do hope the Lords will increasingly have a focus on recruiting those who can bring the younger person’s perspective to the House.
After being cross examined by Black Rod recently I take the liberty of reverting to my name. I stood in the Lords chamber in 1962, when a school chum advised me that I would become a peer. At that time it was mainly a hereditary chamber although former MPs also entered with the usual ease. Since he did not consider that I would be an MP, I could not imagine being a peer. It did not make sense.
I defered to his opinion by saying that I would beomce a peer when I was 70, not for a moment considering that I would. I am 68 and I still dont consider it, defer to it, or make sense of it.
I was first urged to join by Lord Elwyn Jones, Harold Wilson’s Lord chancellor
on the woolsack. The House of lords was built and designed,as an exclusive club. I am not interested in that kind of exclusivity, or clubbability.
@Baroness Berridge:
Does this mean the tax payer will be supporting you, as an appointee for life, non elected person, in the HoL for the rest of your days. From 42 to a possible 92 is fifty years. If so, you are a very expensive talking piece to have to accept with very little, if any, background in Baghdad. Especially as you are unlikely to be of much worth, in the real sense of parliamentary need, because you have no platform to stand on and as a result no one has any idea of where you are affiliated to or who with. Except you are a Tory. Therefore, we can only guess at your predilection and how far you plan to take those whims at our expense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Berridge,_Baroness_Berridge
No idea even of whether the baroness is committed to democracy; certainly to ageism. She has my deepest sympathies for all the people with whom she will make friends and then have to say goodbye to soon after, in a box.
Absolutely no better than being the manageress of an old people’s home. If Thomas Jefferson was right about the vanity of public speaking then she will have just that one extra dimension in her study of age and the value of powerless debate, vanity. She has Noble Baroness Murphy on the geriatric psychiatry side of things, so no problems there.
The Conservative Christian fellowship and International religious freedom? Don’t make me laugh, or is that some where Socialism and Conservatism interact?
Baroness Berridge,
I enjoyed the interview. I am from Louisiana where former Governor Edwin W. Edwards is running for Congress after having last served in that chamber when I was about seven years old. The truth is that your experiences of age differences can scarcely be entirely alien to many and provide some insight for all. I also related somehow to your baby experiences and remembered when I recently carried my sister’s baby while she spoke at our local Cathedral on “the Woman at the Well”. A different former governor was there and she has been our only female governor. http://www.cathedral.y2webbuilder.com/f/031614.pdf
I appreciate your candor and hope my fellow commentators don’t rough you up too much. You will likely have many interesting stories which are different when you are older than the average peer.