Slashdot Mirror
UK's House of Lords Speaks To Voters Via YouTube, Blogs
PHPNerd writes "In a bold move to connect with the next generation of young British voters, the House of Lords has launched a YouTube video series that will detail what it does and make it more accessible to the younger generation. It accompanies an experimental blog in which various Lords write about political issues and can receive feedback from anyone around the world. The article quotes spokesman Owen Williams saying, 'We're trying to engage with younger people and people who may not be interested in politics. We looked at YouTube because it appeals to people outside the political elite.' Is this doomed to failure, or should more governments be doing something similar?"
We are the members of the House of Lords
And what we're laying down won't make you bored.
We debate the shit the House of Commons proposes,
But we ain't no rubber stamp like some people might supposes.
Loose lips lose spit.
I welcome our new YouTube over^WLords.
Connecting to them pesky youngsters has been tried before. It didn't turn out so well.
For your information.... the House of Lords is not an elected body, it consists of members who have been given the priviledge (with a very few now who have inhereted it).
Some might say that this is a problem because it's not representative. However, unlike an elected body it's free to make decisions on their merit without the worry of being popular. i.e. it doesn't have to pander to the current tabloid whims.
Also, it has the advantage of having a large number of non-partisan members who aren't on the political party leash, many of which are experts in the fields of business, science and the law.
The main purpose of the House of Lords these days is to put a brake on all those stupid, popularist, knee-jerk bills the current encumbent party tries to force through. Of course, they don't like this and are hence trying to "reform" the house and make it weaker.
Agrajag: "Oh no, not again!"
They also tend to be rather better than the Commons in terms of serving the people (they have often voted against legislation that undermines civil liberties, for example), because they are far mroe independent from the executive.
If they try to "make it cool" in an attempt to make it accessible, it will fail and be quite embarrassing (see HoL rap above!).
If they make it accessible by speaking plainly, relating the issues to how they affect young people, Britain, and the world, it might have a shot at moderate success. (particularly if they show it in schools)
In any event, if executed halfway decently, I believe they should be commended for trying, regardless of the outcome.
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
The House that has in recent years so often tried to foil the plans of the government to erode the rights of citizens is a useless anachronism?
"Represent US rather than them"
I would argue that everybody should be represented in the house of Lords. And in general the people who are appointed have either held power or are well versed in 'speaking truth to power'. Together they make up a broad political cross-section of society that is largely driven by the priciples of science and law, it's quite amazing sometimes to sudenly hear a politican make sense and express doubt when they have been freed from the schackles of party policy. I would also argue that the US copyright regime and a large spontaneous US festival in the 60's should not be on top of their agenda.
IMHO setting up shop on youtube is an excercise in transperancy (others may see it as propoganda), either way there are plenty of old farts from the 60's like me who use it, and transperancy (or access to all propoganda's if you like) is always a GoodThing(TM). OTOH the second life thing sounds like an experiment with 'the new media' that was sold to someone without a clue, I would expect better from THoL.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Not for now.
Speaker blocks moves to put parliament on YouTube
"Footage from the chamber and committee rooms are only available subject to a licence which is issued by the speaker.
Martin will not allow material to be available on web sites such as MySociety and YouTube for fear of manipulation, according to deputy commons leader Helen Goodman.
"The licence stipulates that material must not be hosted on a searchable web site and must not be downloadable," she said."
MilkMiruku
Erm...what? I don't know where to start...
Let's go with;
Firstly; rank and privilege are actually not respected by the majority here.
The British consitution, as it stands, establishes the supremacy of both Parliament as a whole and the Commons within Parliament. The English Civil War(War of Three Kingdoms), Act of Settlement and Glorious Revolution firmly cemented Parliament's control over the monarchy. The Commons controls the finance and inheritance of the Crown. The Crown retains the theoretical ability to veto, but otherwise it truly is a constitutional placeholder. The supremacy of the Commons within Parliament is established by the Parliament acts of 1911 and 1949, allowing it to pass laws without approval from the Lords. The Lords now is relegated to the role of, effectively, saying "are you sure you want to do that?"
I think the Lords is anachronistic, but a house independent of the masses seems to work well. After all, the masses who apparently yearn for freedom from government and want to hoist the black flag are about 70% in favour of the state detaining people for 42 days without charge.
Admittedly I can't think of anything more Socialist than that, but I'm not sure how you're combining the threads of anarchism and socialism, which are self-evidently like oil and water as far as political theories go, so I don't really know where you're coming from. If I had to choose between the two, I'd choose anarchy, but I'd rather have a system that works.
The great thing about being a non-elected lord is that you don't have to do and think vile things to get elected. Perhaps it's a sad fact, but true. Years ago, there was a police attack on a number of really quite harmless hippies in Wiltshire. Unfortunately a member of the Lords was passing by on his motorcycle, observed the whole thing and reported it to the Lords. The outcome was not pleasant for the police. I am quite sure that a local elected politician would not have rocked the boat in this way.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
They don't make the decisions, the House of Lords cannot create or pass laws. All they can do is approve or reject bills that are sent to them by the House of Commons. If they reject a bill, the Commons can modify it or not as they see fit and send it back again. A few years ago the Parliament Act was passed to give the government a means of forcing a bill through when the Lords repeatedly reject it, although I don't know the details of it.
To be perfectly frank, at times the Lords is the only thing standing between us and yet another stupid, knee-jerk law that would do more harm than good. If you've been following UK news lately you'll have seen a number of instances of bad anti-terror laws being abused to do things including making sure families are in the right area for the school they want to send their children to to enforcing local rubbish disposal rules.
Oh, and none of the Lords are self-appointed; some inherited their titles from their parents, while these days most are awarded them by the government.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
You've got to be a troll, because only a troll could deliberately misunderstand the way the British Parliamentary system works so badly. Where's my (-1, Wrong) moderation option?
Pirate Party UK