“I think this House, Parliament, and the public more widely will miss us,” the Earl of Devon said.
We really won’t
Them: “You’ll miss us”
Us: “We don’t think about you at all”
Do the bishops next
Allocate the 26 seats in the lords to ministers of different institutions that people look to for moral guidance in accordance with their membership: there should be bishops in the Lords, but there should also be imams, humanists and a rabbi.
I know we don’t have a separation of church and state but the idea of religion being involved at all in politics is abhorrent to me. Sure, maybe they could have some kind of group that is consulted by members when it comes to deciding on legislation but the idea of them having direct voting powers in what should be an entirely secular house seems very wrong.
The Lords should represent all views, including religious ones. Creating a secular society isn’t done by getting rid of bishops from parliament, because religious MPs and Lords will still be there. Secular society is only created when those in power agree not to let religious belief of one group restrict the behaviour of another.
But with that, there is nothing wrong with having bishops and imams in parliament. They bring an important perspective on ethical matters. I don’t agree with the position of the church on assisted dying, but many people do, and having that perspective reflected is good, even if I would rather it didn’t win out.
I still disagree that this requires a special privilige within a house. The people of the house can be of whatever religion. If we were to go down a road where the house was made up of people where we needed a particular makeup to represent different views then sure, like if we had to have a guaranteed population of gender, LGBT+, race and other protected characteristics but to just say religion needs special representation makes no sense.
There is more people in the count other than you.
Err, ok? Separating religion from politics is hardly a new concept though? I’m not saying religious wishes or groups should be ignored, I’m saying they shouldn’t have a special and separate right to everyone else to be present in a lawmaking house.
The majority of hereditary peers, who inherit their titles through their families, were abolished in 1999 under the last Labour government and this bill gets rid of the last remaining 92.
WTF…this should have been 1899.
The next challenge is how to make it actually representative instead of being a reward for party cronies like Peter Mandelson. Maybe it could be something like jury duty and members of the public cycle in for a year (with training).
I’ve long held the opinion that the upper chamber should be 1/3 appointed apolitical experts (scientists, doctors businesspeople etc) and 2/3 sortition, so drawn from the pool of registered voters like jury duty is. That way your retain the best bit of the lords, the expertise, and make it a far more democratic body without it having a direct electoral mandate to challange the commons.
Good news but it’s depressing and honestly shameful that it has taken so long. In any sane world this would have happened at least 50 years ago.
also, wtaf:
The BBC understands ministers have offered the Conservatives the chance to retain 15 hereditary members of the House of Lords as life peers.
Hopefully the average age of those Lords is about 90.
Nice.
On a serious note: here’s how you graciously relinquish power, and tactfully reclaim it, without guillotines or gulags or famines.
It’s not often these days I can point to the UK as a positive example, but it is nice to see.
