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?"

The first blog posted today

[aussie_a (778472)]

I wonder if we can expect other branches of the government to follow suit?

Re:

[erlehmann (1045500)]

If, then I hope they won't using some proprietary technology like Flash. This may become the ODF issue all over again (though probably on a lesser extent); so let me be the first to say in this thread: Governments should use exclusively open standards.

Re:

[Dwedit (232252)]

"Flash Video" is nothing more than MPEG 4 video in a different container. It's about as proprietary as XVID.

Flash still sucks

[DrYak (748999)]

Sure, for a time flash support wasn't too great with Linux

And still isn't. It eats lots of resources and creates instabilities inside Firefox because it runs in the same thread.
And it's for i386 only, at a time when 64bits processors are almost standard.
Thus forcing 64bits Linux users to either use an additional unsupported layer to adapt it into 64bits browser, or to switch back to a 32bits software.
There's no flash on the iPhone.
There's no flash on the PS3/Linux.
There's no flash on most PDAs.
There's no flash for anything else except i386. Not for any of the var

Re:

[miruku (642921)]

Not for now.

Speaker blocks moves to put parliament on YouTube [computing.co.uk]

"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."

Re:

[stranger_to_himself (1132241)]

You can read transcripts of every Lords and Commons debate on the Hansard [parliament.uk] website. It's searchable as well. The BBC also hosts a lot of video of Commons debates.

House of Lords Rap

[fyoder (857358)]

'We're trying to engage with younger people and people who may not be interested in politics.

Uh huh. And why would people not interested in politics tune into something about politics? Are they going to be rapping or something?

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.

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

Yo Woolsack, don't think I is gay,
'Cos I gonna ask the Hon. Member to give way
Whilst some fools be acting bent,
We ensure all legislation gets an independent review before receiving Royal Assent.

M.C. McGonnagal

Re:House of Lords Rap

[hey! (33014)]

When Britain really ruled the waves,
In good Queen Bess's day,
The House of Lords made no pretense,
to intellectual eminence,
or scholarship sublime.
Yet Britan won its proudes bays,
in good Queen Bess's days.

When Wellington thrashed Bonaparte,
as every child can tell,
the House of Lords throughout the war,
did nothing in par-tic-ular.
Yet Britain set the world ablaze,
in Good King George's glorious days.

And while the House of Peers withholds,
its legislative hand,
And noble statement do not itch,
to interfere in matters which,
They do not understand,
As bright will shine Great Britains rays,
as in King George's glorious days!

May I be the first to say

[by Anonymous Coward]

I welcome our new YouTube over^WLords.

Re:

[cayenne8 (626475)]

Damn...I will the US Congress would go all out to do this type thing AND actually have all members have to participate in the broadcasts and feedback, so as to have more direct input from the people.

However, I'm guessing that this is expressedly prohibited by each members contract with their sponsoring corporation.

Tried it before

[Triv (181010)]

Connecting to them pesky youngsters has been tried before. It didn't turn out so well [youtube.com].

As someone from the US

[eclectro (227083)]

I would not only encourage young people in Britian to watch youtube, but to also have more tea parties.

Love,
American Nerd.

Re:

[PeterBrett (780946)]

I would not only encourage young people in Britian to watch youtube, but to also have more tea parties.

I agree! We should throw the goods foisted on us with unfavourable trade treaties by those imperialist and aggressively repressive "foreigners" from the other side of the Atlantic into the harbour where they came ashore! No more shall the government of the United States of America transparently manipulate our government into pandering only to their interests, to the detriment of the loyal people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island!

....oh, that wasn't what you meant?

Constitutional Role

[gilgongo (57446)]

YouTube videos would seem to be entirely consistent with the English constitution, according to Bagehot [wikipedia.org]:

"The fancy of the mass of men is incredibly weak; it can see nothing without a visible symbol, and there is much that it can scarcely make out with a symbol. Nobility is the symbol of mind. It has the marks from which the mass of men always used to infer mind, and often still infer it. A common clever man who goes into a country place will get no reverence; but the 'old squire' will get reverence. Even after he is insolvent, when every one knows that his ruin is but a question of time, he will get five times as much respect from the common peasantry as the newly-made rich man who sits beside him. The common peasantry will listen to his nonsense more submissively than to the new man's sense. An old lord will get infinite respect. His very existence is so far useful that it awakens the sensation of obedience to a sort of mind - the coarse dull, contracted multitude, who could neither appreciate or perceive any other."

Missing the Point

[arctanx (1187415)]

The problem here is the assumption that young people will watch something simply because it's hosted on Youtube.

We all know that there's a lot of boring crud on Youtube and it gets ranked quickly. Unless they have gone out of their way to make their videos entertaining, nobody's going to watch them who didn't have a passing interest already. I can see the 1-star ratings already.

Will it succeed? Depends on the execution...

[religious freak (1005821)]

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.

Re:

[shutdown -p now (807394)]

I suggest you to go to that blog and read a few entries yourself. I haven't noticed any attempts to "make it cool" there from the first glance - only serious and rather in-depth comments on interesting political issues.

No rick rolling

[RiotingPacifist (1228016)]

anybody that rickrolls them will be spending 42 days at her majesties pleasure tho.

Sir Norman Fry

[Mark_in_Brazil (537925)]

It's not just the House of Lords. Here are two YouTube videos of Sir Norman Fry (of the House of Commons) explaining a few things.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72ZO6w0rl6Y [youtube.com]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF6eRIAA6mE [youtube.com]

The House of Lords

[Kupfernigk (1190345)]

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.

Re:

[radio4fan (304271)]

That was the Battle of the Beanfield [wikipedia.org].

The peer was the Earl of Cardigan.

The police largely got away with it, of course.

Re:

[thedeadswiss (573599)]

The House Of Lords do a lot of good in protecting the rights of ordinary people, among other things. In theory I'd be against them, but they seem to show a great deal more common sense, and lack of cronyism and corruption compared to MPs. Compare and contrast live feeds from Parliament and the Lords - the latter are polite and intelligent, the former are seriously depressing.

Try Spitting Image again

[Holammer (1217422)]

If they want to connect with todays generation they should fund a new Spitting Image series. At least people could name politicians during the years it was on the air.

The Royal Channel

[stevegee58 (1179505)]

Actually, the British Monarchy has a very nice web site at http://www.royal.gov.uk/ [royal.gov.uk] and a YouTube channel at http://www.youtube.com/theroyalchannel [youtube.com].

A little girl is losing faith in democracy!

[damburger (981828)]

Or rather, I wouldn't be surprised if one did.

The unelected house of lords appears to be contributing most of the good governance of the UK whilst the elected house of commons is contributing most of the crappy stuff.

If we can't fix our system of government (the main probably being we lack a proper head of state, leaving the head of government with excessive powers) then how can we convince younger generations that democracy is worth it?

Re:

[zsau (266209)]

Is it? From here it looks like all the crap Britain does is the doing of the Commons and the Cabinet. Speaking as someone who comes from a free country that doesn't have anything remotely resembling a bill of rights, freedom and good governance come from the expectation of freedom and good governance, not from any particular structure.

Re:

[Angostura (703910)]

I'd say the problem isn't anything to do with the head of state, it's the fact that the legislature cannot hold the executive to account in a meaningful way on most occasions. Indeed, the Commons is often bypassed as the government makes up policy as it goes along.

Personally, I think a strengthening of the Select Committee system is the way to go.... but that doesn't sound very sexy, does it?

OK, I also have a mad proposal for reform of The House of Lords, that I think would help, but would never be accepted

Re:

[Reziac (43301)]

But the point is partly that the Lords are NEVER beholden to anyone's favours to get elected.

Under your system, I think we would see a rush of "retirements" and a great many underhanded deals of the type "You elect me and I'll elect you".

If someone is known to be too much of a freethinker, NO ONE in the Commons (except the candidate himself) would wish him elected to a body that could thwart the Commons' will.

UK Loses out to the USA in awesomeness

[tezza (539307)]

The UK Lords may send their dry message via youtube, but only American Judges send pr0n. [theregister.co.uk]

Re:"We lie cheat and steal... "

[MROD (101561)]

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.

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

A nice summary, but you forgot one other factor; because positions in the Lords are not dependent on party privilege, it is more or less impossible for a chief whip to force the Lords to toe a line because kicking them out of the party damages the party more than the Lord/Lady. As such the party structure in the Lords is what it used to be in the commons; a convenient system of shorthand labels for broad factions within an individualistic populace.

Re:

[IamTheRealMike (537420)]

Unfortunately, it also seems to lead to a rather nasty strain of eliteism. Check out this indictment of referendums [wordpress.com]. Yeah, I kid you not, the guy thinks referendums are on principle a bad idea because the result can depend on how you phrase the question.

To support this he uses the one of the weakest arguments I've seen for a long time - that based on "surveys" (uncited) if you ask people whether they want an elected second house, they say yes, and if you ask people if you want an expert and independent se

Re:

[hey! (33014)]

Actually, the House of Lords is not such a bad idea, except for the heredity thing. For one thing, it's the only way somebody who's not in the idle rich to participate in politics. It's the elected bodies around the world that are bastions of elitism these days, except it's economic elitism.

Now, a House of Lords that was selected by an open lottery, rather than a hereditary one, would be an interesting idea. Maybe you'd require some level of educational attainment, say make it open to anybody with an adv

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

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 t

Re:

[adamofgreyskull (640712)]

Mod parent up.

Re:"We lie cheat and steal... "

[Tim C (15259)]

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.

Re:

[jonaskoelker (922170)]

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.

So the government gets to choose who will watch over the government? What could possibly go wrong? ;)

Son: mom, may I eat all the cookies in the cookie jar?
Sock puppet: be my guest!

Re:

[stranger_to_himself (1132241)]

Well since Lords are appointed for life what ends up happening is that the current government is watched over by the Lords appointed by the last few governments. It works pretty well. Many of the Lords appointed by the current government are seen in the House as sock puppets and don't get a lot of respect.

Re:"We lie cheat and steal... "

[PeterBrett (780946)]

Yes, silly us, why would we want a democracy, when a panel of experts can make all the decisions for us. No thanks, sir, I am from Czech republic, and we lived under such system for 40 years (the self-appointed body of "experts" being http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Czechoslovakia [wikipedia.org]).

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?

Re:

[PeterBrett (780946)]

To expand on this -- the British system of "constitutional monarchy" with House of Lords and House of Commons has been in existence and working fairly stably for over half a millennium. If it was such a terrible, terrible idea, and doomed to failure by neglecting the needs of the common man in favour of putting wealth and power in the hands of only a privileged few, one would expect that it would have been overturned by bloody revolution by now, wouldn't one?

I challenge you to name a country which has ha

Re:"We lie cheat and steal... "

[the_womble (580291)]

And now we need someone else to vote for us and validate us, otherwise we'll be shown for the rotten crooks we are, and people will stop wanting to partake of our poison fruit.

The Lords do not need to win votes: they are appointed for life.

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.

Re:

[TheDugong (701481)]

Don't knock it. Australia has Senator On-Line received a mere 8000 votes, but an interesting concept. http://senatoronline.com.au/ [senatoronline.com.au] Our (well, I am British as well, but cannot vote there as I am not resident) upper house is elected of course.

Re:

[adona1 (1078711)]

Yes, but it's also a concept begging for a raid by 4chan....maybe it's for the better that they weren't elected ;)

Re:UK's House of Lords Speaks To Voters Via YouTub

[Dunbal (464142)]

Next we'll have an "iConstitution"

      For some reason I have a sneaking feeling that we will have been better off BEFORE this "iConstitution"...

Re:Goodbye House of Lords

[William Ager (1157031)]

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?

Re:"we're cutting your net off for p2p, vote for u

[TapeCutter (624760)]

"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.

Re:

[Ihmhi (1206036)]

Brilliant idea!

"Furthermore, it will be illegal to Lord Byron sucks dick park on the street with your vehicle facing oncoming traffic..."

Re:

[IamTheRealMike (537420)]

What, more or less vicious and manipulative than people who are emotionally invested in free software, anti DRM, Microsoft hatred, Apple love .... ?

I totally agree that Slashcode should be used more widely for hosting debates. Wordpress really doesn't cut it, it just can't scale as well as Slashcode can.

That said, there are a couple of things to be wary of. One is that Slashcode has a few problems that for whatever reason have never been fixed. One is that the overrated/underrated mods shouldn't exist

Re:

[BarneyL (578636)]

And I for one welcome our new in-joking overlords...