UK General Election 2017

[ProfessorDavey]

The division of the 26 Lords spiritual should be decided by numbers represented.

Sorry - I don't understand what you mean.

And note that these 26 are the only Bishops/ex Bishops in the Lords. So, to my knowledge as well as Welby there are two former Archbishops of Canterbury in the Lords, similar of York and London. Indeed it is effectively a default position that when an Archbishop of one of the 'great sees' retires they are offered a Life peerage to allow them to continue to sit in the Lords. Not all accept, as some want to pursue different avenues, but many do.

[ProfessorDavey]

No i'm not, I'm proposing keeping the twenty six but more fairly distributing them amongst those with a world view since we should have those eyes in Government.

In that proposal therefore the overview is thus represented. I believe it is already but it has not stopped self short term interests spiralling up their own rectum's.

Get secular humanist lords in and tough titty on those without a world view who are represented anyway.

Would you repeat that in plain English as I haven't the faintest idea what you are on about.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Would you repeat that in plain English as I haven't the faintest idea what you are on about.

1: I'm not proposing adding any more lords.
2: I'm proposing to redistribute the seats more fairly to represent those of different world views
3: Those with no world view are already represented by default.

[ProfessorDavey]

1: I'm not proposing adding any more lords.

Are you proposing a reduction overall, or total numbers remaining as they are. The current proposals are based on reduction over a period of years.

2: I'm proposing to redistribute the seats more fairly to represent those of different world views

Again, what do you mean - are you talking about some kind of established and organised philosophical group - whether religious or otherwise. If so, then firstly I'm not sure I agree (see my earlier post), but secondly to do so would necessarily require substantial reduction in the numbers of CofE Bishops (and ex CoE Bishops) - currently about 35 - in the Lords. Not to do so would require a similar number of RCC Bishops to be appointed, perhaps about half that number of Muslim Imans etc etc to be balanced by membership of those organisations. So you'd end up massively disproportionately packing the Lords with formal representatives of religious (and perhaps non religious) organisations, way beyond their proportionate membership amongst the population. And don't forget that this is just the 'formal' representation. There are also large numbers of active Christians (from that 5% block of the population) in the Lords.

3: Those with no world view are already represented by default.

What do you mean by 'those with no world view' - I think virtually everyone has a world view - it may however be personal and individual rather than aligned with an organised world view - but that doesn't mean it is any less a world view. And in what way are those people represented - if you have a personal and individual worldview, then surely the only way you'd be represented would be if you, yourself, were a member of the HoLs.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Are you proposing a reduction overall, or total numbers remaining as they are. The current proposals are based on reduction over a period of years.
Again, what do you mean - are you talking about some kind of established and organised philosophical group - whether religious or otherwise. If so, then firstly I'm not sure I agree (see my earlier post), but secondly to do so would necessarily require substantial reduction in the numbers of CofE Bishops (and ex CoE Bishops) - currently about 35 - in the Lords. Not to do so would require a similar number of RCC Bishops to be appointed, perhaps about half that number of Muslim Imans etc etc to be balanced by membership of those organisations. So you'd end up massively disproportionately packing the Lords with formal representatives of religious (and perhaps non religious) organisations, way beyond their proportionate membership amongst the population. And don't forget that this is just the 'formal' representation. There are also large numbers of active Christians (from that 5% block of the population) in the Lords.
What do you mean by 'those with no world view' - I think virtually everyone has a world view - it may however be personal and individual rather than aligned with an organised world view - but that doesn't mean it is any less a world view. And in what way are those people represented - if you have a personal and individual worldview, then surely the only way you'd be represented would be if you, yourself, were a member of the HoLs.

I think there are plenty who will claim to having no world view. Get rid of the Lords spiritual and ''world view'' has no representation in the national public sphere where the debate becomes parochial, self and short term interested.
We need to have world view in my opinion.
I am not averse to this being split as fairly as possible among ''world viewers'' and I would say you are bound to agree. Firstly because of fairness, secondly because without ''Lords Worldview'' aspects of life would not be represented.

It puzzles me that the Humanist associations are not campaigning for a scheme like mine. If they feel they would be only represented fairly by the removal of Bishops and the exclusion of other religious representatives then they would be in error since that would not in fact be fair.

I guess what I am saying is that to campaign for the removal of the bishops in the name of anti privilege is a Humbug.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think there are plenty who will claim to having no world view.

Only if you try to define 'world view' as something organised and largely associated with religion. When you define it in a much more expansive manner then I suspect the vast majority have a 'world view' whether that be linked to adherence to the golden rule, concern for the environment, commitment to basic human rights, belief in democracy etc etc.

Get rid of the Lords spiritual and ''world view'' has no representation in the national public sphere where the debate becomes parochial, self and short term interested.

Rubbish - all that would be lost would be the narrow official representation of one denomination or one religious faith, who count less than 2% of the UK population as their members. And also an organisation whose are wrestling with moral issues that most of the country moved beyond decades ago - most specifically on gay rights and role of women in society amongst others. So no, aligning 'world view' with the Lords Spiritual would be the very definition of parochial, self and short term interests.

[ProfessorDavey]

It puzzles me that the Humanist associations are not campaigning for a scheme like mine.

Which merely shows how little you understand about humanism and the role of humanist organisations. They are not top down, joining organisations that create structures for adherents to fold into. In that respect they are entirely unlike organised religions.

No they are organisation that recognise that for most rank and file humanists their humanism is individual, personal and private. Most humanist groups serve two purposes - firstly they are campaigning groups, focusing on lack of equality for humanism compared to other philosophical positions. Secondly they provide services that humanists may wish to access from time to time - e.g. naming ceremonies, funerals etc.

I certainly don't think that Humanists UK (for example) think they 'represent' rank and file humanists in a manner that CofE leaders clearly think they represent rank and file Anglicans.

The point about humanism is that it is about individual thinking and individual responsibility and therefore dividing the world (or the House of Lords) into a series of pigeon-holed blocks based on organised groupings (this percentage of leaders of the CofE, that % of leaders of the RCC, and of leaders of Islam, and that of leaders of Humanist organisations) is anathema.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Only if you try to define 'world view' as something organised and largely associated with religion. When you define it in a much more expansive manner then I suspect the vast majority have a 'world view' whether that be linked to adherence to the golden rule, concern for the environment, commitment to basic human rights, belief in democracy etc etc.
Rubbish - all that would be lost would be the narrow official representation of one denomination or one religious faith, who count less than 2% of the UK population as their members. And also an organisation whose are wrestling with moral issues that most of the country moved beyond decades ago - most specifically on gay rights and role of women in society amongst others. So no, aligning 'world view' with the Lords Spiritual would be the very definition of parochial, self and short term interests.

The religious of this country of all religions are split between not having bishops in and having bishops in. I have heard it reported on the BBC that people of other faiths are glad that there is some spiritual involvement in government and that it has allayed the kind of fear among the religious in countries such as France.

That said if you feel yourself represented without the Lords spiritual then that means you already have more representation than a religious person and the plea of privilege for religion is effectively Humbug.

The correct response for someone wanting to end privilege is to want all world views represented even as far as Government.

I was all for disestablishment until I became aware of the fear of marginalisation of the religious by Secular Humanism and realised that Humanists actually feel they are represented by the majority of the house of Lords making abolition of the Lords spiritual a ploy to remove religion from the public sphere rather than the humbug which it is presently peddled as.

[Sebastian Toe]

I was all for disestablishment until I became aware of the fear of marginalisation of the religious by Secular Humanism and realised that Humanists actually feel they are represented by the majority of the house of Lords

If Humanists feel that then their feeling is hanging off a shoogly peg.

[ProfessorDavey]

The religious of this country of all religions are split between not having bishops in and having bishops in. I have heard it reported on the BBC that people of other faiths are glad that there is some spiritual involvement in government and that it has allayed the kind of fear among the religious in countries such as France.

Oh don't you just love hearsay being used as 'evidence'.

To assess public opinion on this you need proper polling. Admittedly this hasn't been done often but there is some actual evidence, which shows:

1. Overall the public is strongly against Bishops in the House of Lords - typically more that twice as many don't support their presence as do support their presence.

2. Unsurprisingly the non religious are most against.

3. More surprisingly, ICM research for the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust found that more religious people did not support their presence than did.

4. Most surprisingly Christians were also against their presence, with 48% not supportive compared to only 33% who supported.

But hey why bother with evidence when hearsay, anecdote and 'I heard a guy on the BBC once say' will do.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh don't you just love hearsay being used as 'evidence'.

To assess public opinion on this you need proper polling. Admittedly this hasn't been done often but there is some actual evidence, which shows:

1. Overall the public is strongly against Bishops in the House of Lords - typically more that twice as many don't support their presence as do support their presence.

2. Unsurprisingly the non religious are most against.

3. More surprisingly, ICM research for the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust found that more religious people did not support their presence than did.

4. Most surprisingly Christians were also against their presence, with 48% not supportive compared to only 33% who supported.

But hey why bother with evidence when hearsay, anecdote and 'I heard a guy on the BBC once say' will do.

It still doesn't exonerate the Humanist associations of Humbug and actually holding the privileged position does it. The Humanist campaigns are a ploy to remove religion from the public forum and that is motivated by antireligious bigotry.

[ProfessorDavey]

It still doesn't exonerate the Humanist associations of Humbug and actually holding the privileged position does it. The Humanist campaigns are a ploy to remove religion from the public forum and that is motivated by antireligious bigotry.

Nice diversionary tactic - duly noted.

So you accept that public opinion, including the subset of the overall public who are religious and the subset of that group who are Christian all opposed the presence of Bishops in the House of Lords.

So are those subsets (the religious in general and Christians in particular) also showing anti religious bigotry by opposing Bishops.

[ProfessorDavey]

It still doesn't exonerate the Humanist associations of Humbug and actually holding the privileged position does it.

In what way do Humanist associations hold a privileged position in regard to automatic presence in the House of Lords?

I know you cannot quite think straight so blinkered are you by your faith position, but let's spell out the reality shall we:

Number of senior leaders of the CofE automatically granted a seat in the House of Lords purely on the basis of their position within the CofE - 26
Number of former senior leaders of the of the CofE granted life peerage to House of Lords to maintain their presence in the House of Lords - at least 6 (I think)
Number of senior leaders of all Humanist and Secular organisations granted a seat in the House of Lords purely on the basis of their position within those organisation - 0

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nice diversionary tactic - duly noted.

So you accept that public opinion, including the subset of the overall public who are religious and the subset of that group who are Christian all opposed the presence of Bishops in the House of Lords.

So are those subsets (the religious in general and Christians in particular) also showing anti religious bigotry by opposing Bishops.

Are you trying to pull an argumentum ad populum here.
Whatever religious peoples motivations for disestablishment. It does not detract from the point I am making that if you are partially satisfied by most seats being non religious and wholly satisfied with no religious representation then your only motivation is not fairness, it is not to end privilege it is to increase your own manifest privilege through an act of political elimination of opposition. A majority does not make you morally right.

I think you'll find that Christians who want disestablishment do so because they want the seculocracy out of church affairs vis the PM choosing the AofC. Most of those will not have had the close experience of the dark underside of Humanism as found in forums like Religionethics. So religion out of politics=politics out of religion? Fat chance.

[ProfessorDavey]

Are you trying to pull an argumentum ad populum here.

You seem to be misunderstanding the nature of representative democratic government.

[ProfessorDavey]

... if you are partially satisfied by most seats being non religious ...

But most seats aren't non religious, with the exception of the Lords spiritual all seats are neither religious nor non religious - they are not defined in that manner. Sure individual Peers may be religious or non religious, but that is a different matter.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You seem to be misunderstanding the nature of representative democratic government.

You cannot have representative democracy if Secular Humanists are fully represented and the religious are not.

[Shaker]

You cannot have representative democracy if Secular Humanists are fully represented and the religious are not.

Who is saying that they're not or shouldn't be?

[ProfessorDavey]

You cannot have representative democracy if Secular Humanists are fully represented and the religious are not.

But there is no Secular Humanist (note the capitals) representation in the Lords (nor in the Commons) - there are presumably some individuals who are members of those Houses who are themselves secular humanists (note no capitals) but they aren't there as representatives of Secular Humanism. Similarly there are plenty of members of both houses who are religious, yet who aren't there as representatives of those religions. The only people in the Commons or the Lords who are representatives of a religion or of Secular Humanism are the Bishops.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Who is saying that they're not or shouldn't be?

There are just by the 26 bishops. I'm saying those 26 should be redistributed among UK world views. I proposed the majority would be SH Lords. However if it is the case that SHers feel they are adequately represented by the Lords non spiritual then they have majority representation in any case.

Secondly is it not the case that calling for the removal of representation, disenfranchisement goes against the usual reasonable scenario of increasing representation and enfranchisement?

[ProfessorDavey]

Secondly is it not the case that calling for the removal of representation, disenfranchisement goes against the usual reasonable scenario of increasing representation and enfranchisement?

Reducing over-representation of one group to allow increase in representation of another under-representative group would be perfectly reasonable.

But we aren't even dealing with over and under representation - we are dealing with a situation where the CofE and the CofE alone has formal representation in the House of Lords - not other equivalent group, whether another religious organisation or a non religious organisation (for example Secular or Humanist organisations) are represented at all. The only members of the House of Lords automatically appointed to their positions by virtue of being the incumbent in a senior position in another organisation are the Bishops - no one else.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Reducing over-representation of one group to allow increase in representation of another under-representative group would be perfectly reasonable.

But we aren't even dealing with over and under representation - we are dealing with a situation where the CofE and the CofE alone has formal representation in the House of Lords - not other equivalent group, whether another religious organisation or a non religious organisation (for example Secular or Humanist organisations) are represented at all. The only members of the House of Lords automatically appointed to their positions by virtue of being the incumbent in a senior position in another organisation are the Bishops - no one else.

Then I suppose we are nearly singing from the same sheet. I believe our differences in opinion are manifest.

[ProfessorDavey]

There are just by the 26 bishops. I'm saying those 26 should be redistributed among UK world views. I proposed the majority would be SH Lords. However if it is the case that SHers feel they are adequately represented by the Lords non spiritual then they have majority representation in any case.

Still not clear what you are saying. But are you implying that currently we have 26 automatic members from one single world view (whatever that may be) organisation. And that we should replace those with 26 automatic members appointed by virtue of their leading position in a range of 'world view' organisations. Given that there are only 26 places presumably those would need to be selected from organisations with significant and demonstrable support within the UK population.

So 1 CofE Bishop, a leading RCC, a senior Muslim, one chief Rabbi, etc for religious groups. The chief exec of Humanists UK, likewise of the NSS, the head of Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, also of the National Trust, and RSPB, Amnesty International etc etc - you'd soon get to 26 from major member organisations.

But I guess that's not what you mean by 'wold view' and the only world views allowed would be those vetted and approved by Vlad.

[Harrowby Hall]

Reducing over-representation of one group to allow increase in representation of another under-representative group would be perfectly reasonable.

What would be perfectly reasonable would be a second chamber containing representatives of the total voting population who are elected (preferably by proportional representation) who are not their because of their parentage, managerial positions in the Church of England, employment as judges or who are simply appointed as an act of political patronage.

[ProfessorDavey]

What would be perfectly reasonable would be a second chamber containing representatives of the total voting population who are elected (preferably by proportional representation) who are not their because of their parentage, managerial positions in the Church of England, employment as judges or who are simply appointed as an act of political patronage.

I think you are somewhat confusing democratic with representative (in demographic terms).

If a chamber is to be demographically representative of the broader populations, then that would imply similar proportions (young vs old; male vs female; white vs ethnic minority groups; religious vs non-religious) as in the overall population. That is possible to achieve in an entirely appointed chamber - in other words the appointment panel can drive the make up of the chamber to be representative.

It is not really possible to achieve in a democratic context (or at least without significant influence) as you cannot dictate the type of person the electorate may choose to elect. Democratically it is perfectly feasible for all elected members to be male - that would of course not be representative of the population however. Sure you can have all women short lists etc etc, but who actually gets elected is down to the vagaries of the electorate.

The point here being that there are two distinct uses of the word 'representative' and it is important to recognise the distinction. The first is where an individual is meant to 'represent' their electorate. The second where the make up of a chamber is 'representative' of the make up of the broader population.