Evil

[jeremyp]

True in most, but not all cases.

So the Commons cannot use the Parliament Act to extend its parliamentary term. And I think there was (and still is) legal argument as to whether the commons can use the Parliament Act to extend its own powers. So, for example, were the commons to bring forward an act to abolish the second chamber entirely and bring the current role of the Lords into the commons thereby extending its powers then I'd be confident there would be a legal challenge over whether this could be achieved under the parliament act.

I stand corrected: bills extending the life of parliament are specifically excluded from the provisions of the parliament act. But there aren't any exclusions for any other types of bill (excepting those I've already mentioned). That said, the law is a funny thing, not always subject to common sense and the British constitution may have things to say as well.

Of course, a government seeking to get more powers could just threaten to create enough peers sympathetic to its cause to get the bill through. This is what the Liberal Party threatened to force through the original 1911 Parliament Act.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

The model of the split between the temporal and spiritual has survived in my opinion because a check and balance between the short term material expedients and the moral and human integrity as encapsulated in the idea of the spiritual.

Temporal lords who probably shared this view back along welcomed a check on their being absorbed, hijacked even by these short term material expedients.

That is why it needs a special place at the table, so there is a check on the fad, the fashion, taste, flights of self indulgent ego etc, and short termism. Rather like the Roman emperors who had somebody reminding them who they really were.

I think that's wishful thinking on your part that spiritual people do not succumb to the fads, fashions, ego and self-interests as most other human beings.  Some spiritual people are conservative/ traditionalists and some are liberal / reformists and open to change so there will be a split on issues like for non-spiritual people - e.g. women being ordained as Bishops,  gay marriage etc. Some spiritual people care more about retaining personal power to tell other people what to do than they do about being humble and of service to society. 

You also get some spiritual people who sexually abuse children because they put their own need for self-gratification above any moral issues of what is in the best interests of their victim or society.

How do you know the Lords spiritual represent yours or anyone else's moral outlook or do they just represent their own moral outlook?
 

So given the need for an alternative view, what are the merits of doing away with the checks and balances which you seem to be proposing. To me yours is a view which exists just to promote your aspiritual model of humanity something which has precious little to offer even short term quotidien issues.

I would say the merits would be to accurately reflect and be representative of society, as we are a democracy. If the majority of society want Lords Spiritual then we keep them. If they prefer another model or have perhaps become disillusioned with their spiritual representatives, or if voters perceive for example a complacency or laziness of thought in the pronouncements or actions/ inactions of said representatives, that is probably something the various spiritual institutions need to address internally to see what they can do regain public interest / support. 

Outrider is one of those who does not perceive benefit from the current model of the Lords Spiritual hence he is arguing for getting rid of automatic appointments of spiritual representatives in favour of having people in HofL who are elected, on the basis they will be held accountable for their actions and more representative of the views of society.

So different forms of spirituality could be represented in an elected HofL provided they have voter/ public support. Outrider's model just means there will be no automatic right to seats without first having earned them through voter support.

What is your idea of how to decide between competing candidates to appoint to the HofL so that the public perceive them to be representative and not out of touch with the people they claim to represent?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think that's wishful thinking on your part that spiritual people do not succumb to the fads, fashions, ego and self-interests as most other human beings.  Some spiritual people are conservative/ traditionalists and some are liberal / reformists and open to change so there will be a split on issues like for non-spiritual people - e.g. women being ordained as Bishops,  gay marriage etc. Some spiritual people care more about retaining personal power to tell other people what to do than they do about being humble and of service to society.

Are people who not only have a world view but are or have professionally committed to it's promotion, who have studied it and have had a responsibility oriented to that world view COMMUNITY subject to the same motivations as those who are there for party political, temporal, financial reasons? I think not

You also get some spiritual people who sexually abuse children because they put their own need for self-gratification above any moral issues of what is in the best interests of their victim or society.

And they should be removed as should any Lord

How do you know the Lords spiritual represent yours or anyone else's moral outlook or do they just represent their own moral outlook?

If they at least believe in a Lords spiritual as I do, their presence automatically represents human citizens better than their absence. 

Outrider is one of those who does not perceive benefit from the current model of the Lords Spiritual hence he is arguing for getting rid of automatic appointments of spiritual representatives in favour of having people in HofL who are elected, on the basis they will be held accountable for their actions and more representative of the views of society.

I would put it differently. Outrider IMV wishes to do away with the Lords spiritual as a way of advancing a view of humanity he would like people to be inveigled into via stealth erosion of religious views. That view could though be accomodated in what I propose. But his view is exclusive of any spiritual view.

So different forms of spirituality could be represented in an elected HofL provided they have voter/ public support. Outrider's model just means there will be no automatic right to seats without first having earned them through voter support.

So he wants an elected House of Lords.

What is your idea of how to decide between competing candidates to appoint to the HofL so that the public perceive them to be representative and not out of touch with the people they claim to represent?

This is a question of categories of Lords. An increase in categories is IMV more representative than having one category. particularly if one type represents the quotidien yet transient politico economic views and one type represents a wide range of world views.

[Outrider]

I think you have to look at the complete record over several decades.

Arguably you could look a lot longer than that, the Lords Spritual have been fighting against progress for centuries.

By equality are you talking about economic equality, gender equality, sexual equalty, racial equality or what?

All of those. You can make a recent argument that the Lords Spiritual have become vocal about their depiction of economic equality being important - which is a good thing - I'm not aware of their current stance on racial equality but I'd imagine it's relatively progressive, which wasn't always the case. They were vocally opposed to, for instance, universal suffrage when that was being touted in the inter-war years, and the last I heard they remained opposed to gay marriage.

Usually your type majors of sexual equality to the exclusion of all other equalities IMHO

My type? I think you'll find that all the trendy ultra-woke antitheists are all about the gender-identity these days...

Any check is better than the zero check you are proposing

When I proposed entirely abandoning any sort of upper house? Oh, wait, no, no-one did that. No-one is proposing 'zero checks', I'm just suggesting that we shouldn't be skewing the distribution of the background of those checks by giving a reserved extra voice to some religious extremists.

Firstly it is a superior model than yours for the reasons I have said.

Arguably a superior model to the caricature of my model that you've cleaved to for reasons only you may know.

Secondly a house of Lords whose intrinsic use is merely to remind people that according to the current Hegemony i.e. white middle class agnostic secularism, They are just politico economic beings.

So instead we should be reserving seats for white middle-class theists? Way to push the broad view. An elected second house would be able to represent the people in a way that the party affiliated lower house does not - which, implicitly, you understand because you're in favour of the concept with this one special case carved out.

It offers an undiluted view of things from a different perspective but that can be better served by widening it's membership not removing it just for the purposes of reminding the people that they are merely the politico-economic homonculus of Middle class atheism.

Their view can, and almost certainly will be, represented, it just wouldn't be privileged - it wouldn't, for instance, be representative amongst the elected members and then skewed by having this reserved group of special cases on top.

No, I want it, the Lords spiritual, to contain professional humanists and secularists as well as the religious I want it's membership to contain people with your anthropo-psychological understanding of humanity.

So vote for those people. Encourage other people to vote for those people. Don't reserve seats for your interpretation of one (or potentially more) institutions interpretation of those people. Earn your seat, don't get given it because of a historic politico-social architecture deemed it useful in an attempt to deny the reality that the politico-social architecture has moved on.

O.

[Outrider]

Are people who not only have a world view but are or have professionally committed to it's promotion, who have studied it and have had a responsibility oriented to that world view COMMUNITY subject to the same motivations as those who are there for party political, temporal, financial reasons? I think not

I'm sure, if you asked them, both David Cameron and Tony Blair would tell you that they felt they fit this description. You can do all of those things without being a Bishop. You can do all of those things and be repugnantly socially recidivist.

If they at least believe in a Lords spiritual as I do, their presence automatically represents human citizens better than their absence.

And yet, merely being affiliated with an institution doesn't mean that they would believe as you do - whereas, having to explain what they espouse and believe during an election campaign would give you an idea of whether they believed as you do.

I would put it differently. Outrider IMV wishes to do away with the Lords spiritual as a way of advancing a view of humanity he would like people to be inveigled into via stealth erosion of religious views.

On the contrary, I don't want to erode religious views, I wish to erode religious power.

That view could though be accomodated in what I propose. But his view is exclusive of any spiritual view.

Again, no. Religious people are not banned, they just don't have reserved seats for if they don't get elected.

So he wants an elected House of Lords. This is a question of categories of Lords. An increase in categories is IMV more representative than having one category. particularly if one type represents the quotidien yet transient politico economic views and one type represents a wide range of world views.

So where do the special interests end? Do we have Lords Scientific? Lords Political, Legal, Musical? Does Dance get its own, or is it lumped in with ska under music? Or with sculpture under art? Does medicine qualify separately, or is it part of science? Do we have 'health, and try find Lords who can represent both actual medicine and homeopathy?

O.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Are people who not only have a world view but are or have professionally committed to it's promotion, who have studied it and have had a responsibility oriented to that world view COMMUNITY subject to the same motivations as those who are there for party political, temporal, financial reasons? I think not

Are their motivations the same? My experience is that some atheists are altruistic and some theists are altruistic in certain situations and sometimes they both do not have altruistic motives. The evidence suggests both can be selfish, misguided, ignorant, motivated by money, political power etc etc in certain situations. So not seeing any significant difference in the motivation of people seeking political influence by sitting in the HofL regardless of being spiritual or not.

By world view, do you mean the Lords Spiritual share the world view of a hope and belief in a supernatural entity that exercises moral judgement?

Other than that, as with the diversity of thought and interpretation of all people, religious or otherwise, people's concepts of the supernatural entity are different, their concepts of the morality of the supernatural entity are different, how much tolerance they show to other opinions are different, their resultant moral decisions are different, their interpretation of the various religious texts are different.

I don't think that believing in a supernatural entity will lead to morally better or even different decisions from those who are there for party political, temporal, financial reasons. The reason being is that a lot of spiritual people serve their own interests first or put party political, temporal, financial reasons head of spiritual considerations.

The question is whether a belief in a supernatural entity is of sufficient significance in the social sphere to have an automatic seat at the table for a group of people who share that belief. I am not convinced that their belief deserves automatic rights - if their message is beneficial then they should be there because they have sufficient skills to convince the public of why they need a seat at the table. The only other possible argument is if the public view spiritual people as deserving of an automatic seat as a discriminated against minority - like a quota system.

If they at least believe in a Lords spiritual as I do, their presence automatically represents human citizens better than their absence.

Sure - but it might be at the expense of other special interests as there are limited seats. So one way to solve the competing interests is for everyone to stand for election and no one getting an automatic seat.

I would put it differently. Outrider IMV wishes to do away with the Lords spiritual as a way of advancing a view of humanity he would like people to be inveigled into via stealth erosion of religious views. That view could though be accomodated in what I propose. But his view is exclusive of any spiritual view.

An election means no one has control over the outcome - its in the hands of the voters, not in the control of Outrider. That's usually a fair method unless minorities are not being represented. Is that your argument for an automatic seat for Lords Spiritual?

So he wants an elected House of Lords This is a question of categories of Lords. An increase in categories is IMV more representative than having one category. particularly if one type represents the quotidien yet transient politico economic views and one type represents a wide range of world views.

What would you suggest is a fair way for Society to pick these categories and decide how many seats are assigned to each category?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Are their motivations the same? My experience is that some atheists are altruistic and some theists are altruistic in certain situations and sometimes they both do not have altruistic motives.

I would expect a basic level of altruism from those who are in parliament. However we know that altruism can get lost in parliament where it is important to remind people intellectually, spiritually and historically of it's importance. I could imagine say a Lord Sentamyu a Lord Mirvis, a Lady Khorsandi and a Lord Dawkins enriching such an enterprise.

The evidence suggests both can be selfish, misguided, ignorant, motivated by money, political power etc etc in certain situations.

I find myself thinking that this type of naked self interest is less pronounced in some one who has earned high respected in their own world view community and possibly beyond.

By world view, do you mean the Lords Spiritual share the world view of a hope and belief in a supernatural entity that exercises moral judgement?

It should be clear to you by now that my view of the Lords spiritual is not that inclusive and world view beliefs need not involve supernatural entities.

Other than that, as with the diversity of thought and interpretation of all people, religious or otherwise, people's concepts of the supernatural entity are different, their concepts of the morality of the supernatural entity are different, how much tolerance they show to other opinions are different, their resultant moral decisions are different, their interpretation of the various religious texts are different.

And this range should be represented in our national life.

I don't think that believing in a supernatural entity will lead to morally better or even different decisions from those who are there for party political, temporal, financial reasons. The reason being is that a lot of spiritual people serve their own interests first or put party political, temporal, financial reasons head of spiritual considerations.

Such a range of beliefs will be represented and those representing would probably be those highly respected in their respective communities for their wisdom and knowledge.

The question is whether a  belief in a supernatural entity is of sufficient significance in the social sphere to have an automatic seat at the table for a group of people who share that belief. I am not convinced that their belief deserves automatic rights - if their message is beneficial then they should be there because they have sufficient skills to convince the public of why they need a seat at the table. The only other possible argument is if the public view spiritual people as deserving of an automatic seat as a discriminated against minority - like a quota system.
 Sure - but it might be at the expense of other special interests as there are limited seats. So one way to solve the competing interests is for everyone to stand for election and no one getting an automatic seat. An election means no one has control over the outcome - its in the hands of the voters, not in the control of Outrider. That's usually a fair method unless minorities are not being represented. Is that your argument for an automatic seat for Lords Spiritual? What would you suggest is a fair way for Society to pick these categories and decide how many seats are assigned to each category?

I base my suggestion on representation of the humanity of Britain. The political acceptance of Bodies piled high by the democratically elected leadership shows that the belief aspect of humanity, that which gives humanity dignity is far from represented in our system. IMHO.

There would be no election system identical to that of the house of commons. That, it seems to me, leaves it prey to party politics. It also mocks the notion of a house of expertise or wisdom or life experience.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Arguably you could look a lot longer than that, the Lords Spritual have been fighting against progress for centuries.

Do you mean change and progress?
My understanding of progress in your circles is of perpetual change for the better which happens automatically and thus should not be subject to any intellectual or moral challenge.
[/quote]

[Outrider]

Do you mean change and progress?

I love the way you ask the question like you're going to pay any attention to my answer and not just continue with your caricature of my position... nevertheless, to play the game.

Without change there is no progress. By progress, I refer to what's generally considered to be progressive ideas in sociopolitics - an increase in personal liberty, equality of opportunity and access.

My understanding of progress in your circles is of perpetual change for the better which happens automatically and thus should not be subject to any intellectual or moral challenge.

Maybe that fundamentally flawed understanding is the underlying cause of your failure to realise why maintaining the unwarranted privilege of the Lords Spiritual is a bad thing?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I love the way you ask the question like you're going to pay any attention to my answer and not just continue with your caricature of my position... nevertheless, to play the game.

Without change there is no progress.

Or regress.

By progress, I refer to what's generally considered to be progressive ideas in sociopolitics

That's a bit tautological n'est pas

- an increase in personal liberty, equality of opportunity and access.

If you hadn't noticed, that is being wound back by politicians.....in this enlightened, increasingly secular nation. Wound back by the boarding school class of politician, journalist, activist and lobbyist.

Maybe that fundamentally flawed understanding is the underlying cause of your failure to realise why maintaining the unwarranted privilege of the Lords Spiritual is a bad thing?

As I said Rowan Williams proposed there were religious minorities who see Lords spiritual as a bulwark against the antireligious undercurrent of the british middle and working classes, even in it's present form which, make no mistake I want changed too but not in your way which shows arseclenching lack of imagination and understanding...in my humble opinion.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I would expect a basic level of altruism from those who are in parliament. However we know that altruism can get lost in parliament where it is important to remind people intellectually, spiritually and historically of it's importance. I could imagine say a Lord Sentamyu a Lord Mirvis, a Lady Khorsandi and a Lord Dawkins enriching such an enterprise. I find myself thinking that this type of naked self interest is less pronounced in some one who has earned high respected in their own world view community and possibly beyond.

Given the news stories over the years about people involved in politics, I am really sceptical about anyone who claims they seek these positions because they are driven by altruism. While, as you say, there may be a basic level of altruism in some situations, it has become increasingly clear that Lords, spiritual or otherwise, are susceptible to self-interest, human weakness, fallible motivations, biases, all of which will affect their role in Parliament. Plus it has been claimed that altruism has many benefits for the altruist. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hide-and-seek/201203/does-true-altruism-exist

It should be clear to you by now that my view of the Lords spiritual is not that inclusive and world view beliefs need not involve supernatural entities.

Ok - so spiritual does not necessarily involve anything supernatural - got it. And you have said you would include atheists / humanists in this category.

And this range should be represented in our national life.  Such a range of beliefs will be represented and those representing would probably be those highly respected in their respective communities for their wisdom and knowledge. I base my suggestion on representation of the humanity of Britain. The political acceptance of Bodies piled high by the democratically elected leadership shows that the belief aspect of humanity, that which gives humanity dignity is far from represented in our system. IMHO.

There would be no election system identical to that of the house of commons. That, it seems to me, leaves it prey to party politics. It also mocks the notion of a house of expertise or wisdom or life experience.

Ok so independents who hold beliefs that are not based on political party lines or party loyalty as a check on the legislation passed by the House of Commons - although both spiritual and political beliefs involve being interested in the humanity of society.

But given they are not accountable to the electorate, their spiritual beliefs could involve getting the country further and further into debt by paying for welfare that isn't matched by tax income, but you still think they should be given an automatic seat. It's not difficult to see why people might disagree with your idea though is it? And it would not be because they want religion to disappear from public life.

[Gordon]

So tell me, Vlad, if the HoL was replaced by a second chamber that was filled on the basis of recurring elections, like the HoC, would you agree with that approach?

I'd have no problem with people standing for election (perhaps using a form of PR) on the stated basis of their religious outlook, and if they had sufficient proportionate votes to get themselves elected then it could be said that this demonstrated that there was indeed public support for an overt religiously-inspired role in political governance arrangements.

Has to be better that special privileges for just on organisation, that according to its name is specific to just one of he four nations of the UK, and cannot be seen to specifically represent anyone other that its members.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So tell me, Vlad, if the HoL was replaced by a second chamber that was filled on the basis of recurring elections, like the HoC, would you agree with that approach?

As long as the House was divided into the Lords Temporal and the Lords worldview then I would not be averse to an elective element.

I'd have no problem with people standing for election (perhaps using a form of PR) on the stated basis of their religious outlook, and if they had sufficient proportionate votes to get themselves elected then it could be said that this demonstrated that there was indeed public support for an overt religiously-inspired role in political governance arrangements.

see previous.

Has to be better that special privileges for just on organisation, that according to its name is specific to just one of he four nations of the UK, and cannot be seen to specifically represent anyone other that its members.

I disagree strongly with any reduction and collapse of something like a world view e.g. atheism, Hinduism, secular humanism into the term 'organisation. That is just mealy mouth word misuse. I am not keen on the c of e retaining it's privilege but any reform should be in the direction of widening the membership of the non temporal lords rather than an antireligious promotion disguised as a virtuous move

[Gordon]

As long as the House was divided into the Lords Temporal and the Lords worldview then I would not be averse to an elective element.

So you want to stack the deck? Why not just let those whose wish to stand on a religious platform do so, and then it becomes a matter for the electorate whether or not they get elected.

I disagree strongly with any reduction and collapse of something like a world view e.g. atheism, Hinduism, secular humanism into the term 'organisation. That is just mealy mouth word misuse.

Not really: it is a clear fact that there are various religious organisations around, with the CofE given its special HoL privileges being the obvious example: and the CofE is an organisation since it has staff, a management structure, career progression and various premises (as do other religious organisations) - and these organisations do get involved in political lobbying.
   

I am not keen on the c of e retaining it's privilege but any reform should be in the direction of widening the membership of the non temporal lords rather than an antireligious promotion disguised as a virtuous move

How can allowing those with an overt religious agenda to present themselves for election on a platform based on their religious agenda ever be "antireligious"?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you want to stack the deck? Why not just let those whose wish to stand on a religious platform do so, and then it becomes a matter for the electorate whether or not they get elected.

Not really: it is a clear fact that there are various religious organisations around, with the CofE given its special HoL privileges being the obvious example: and the CofE is an organisation since it has staff, a management structure, career progression and various premises (as do other religious organisations) - and these organisations do get involved in political lobbying.
   
How can allowing those with an overt religious agenda to present themselves for election on a platform based on their religious agenda ever be "antireligious"?

That would not be a situation that would arise in a house where there was a fixed dichotomy of Lords temporal and Lords world view. As I said beyond that dichotomy ''elect away'' to your hearts content.

To have one type of Lord temporal betrays an arseclenchingly uncharitable, narrow and unimaginative view of the citizen and citizenry.

I do not advocate a privilege class of Lords C of E but while it is like that I support their efforts in countering the tyranny of the majority particularly in terms of religious minority.

We already get to elect a house of commons where reality shows us that any twat can get in and get on and that twats clearly have representation.

[Gordon]

That would not be a situation that would arise in a house where there was a fixed dichotomy of Lords temporal and Lords world view. As I said beyond that dichotomy ''elect away'' to your hearts content.

Why is there are need for two classes of the elected at all? If the electorate has an option of voting for those who indicate they are standing on a religious platform then surely that is sufficient - they will receive electoral support, or they won't, on the same basis as candidates standing on different platforms - I believe this approach is loosely referred to as 'democracy'.

To have one type of Lord temporal betrays an arseclenchingly uncharitable, narrow and unimaginative view of the citizen and citizenry.

Don't be silly - remember the electorate decide who to vote for, and those elected (irrespective of the platform they stood on) are just a temporary set of elected members. Perhaps you are concerned that not enough of the electorate will support those standing on an overt religious agenda but what happens in free and fair elections, as you may have noticed, is that the electorate gets to choose and that some candidates are successful while others are rejected. Sounds to me that you'd prefer not to risk that the electorate gets to choose in case their choice doesn't fit with your preferences.

I do not advocate a privilege class of Lords C of E but while it is like that I support their efforts in countering the tyranny of the majority particularly in terms of religious minority.

So you support that the CofE/religious groups have special privileges to play a part in political governance.

We already get to elect a house of commons where reality shows us that any twat can get in and get on and that twats clearly have representation.

There is a long and honourable history of twats getting themselves elected, as current political events illustrate, but that is a consequence of the electoral system and the processes that get said twats on the ballot-paper: I can't see why even those of a religious persuasion who seek election should be excluded from participating in the electoral twatfest.

After all, as you imply, one can only conclude that a proportion of the electorate must therefore be fellow twats given who and what some of them have voted for in recent years.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why is there are need for two classes of the elected at all?

You seem to be saying the election to the upper house is central. I think we have to start with the purpose of the second house. How could a tory upper house possibly act as a check and balance on a tory commons? Alistair Campbell famously pointed out that the Labour party doesn't do religion. That doesn't reflect or represent the ''doing of'' religion by people in the country. Similarly what people want in a house of commons is someone who is going to represent their socioeconomicpolitical lives which someone focussed on religion cannot deliver. That is why people don't want parties or candidates that just represent one aspect of their lives. Look at the difficulty of the green party in getting people in the commons.

If the electorate has an option of voting for those who indicate they are standing on a religious platform then surely that is sufficient

I think we have shown that people standing on any world view ticket, The greens, The natural law party, The Christian party do not get elected or get elected in minute quantities. Give yourself a quick check. If a gay or climate change candidate was standing on those respective tickets would you give up the SNP? I wouldn't elect a christian merely standing on a religious ticket. I would stand then with my world view unrepresented or inadequately represented. That's an important part of me. Now you would be more represented, enjoying as you do my frustration.

- they will receive electoral support, or they won't,

They won't

on the same basis as candidates standing on different platforms - I believe this approach is loosely referred to as 'democracy'.

No, We know that only parties representing centrally socioeconomicpolitical views get elected.

remember the electorate decide who to vote for,

Yes but election is not central to the purpose of an upper house which I would say is there to act as a check and a balance. Create a second commons and you effectively only have one with no check or balance. The upperhouse looks at things from a different view point. It should have people bringing the relevance of world view and it should have experience and those elected. Now election may be a way of getting people who can do this although a one person on vote universal suffrage system may not be appropriate to achieve this

(irrespective of the platform they stood on) are just a temporary set of elected members.

Is that really appropriate for what we want from another house? I thought it was expertise and wisdom and full representation. How is that achieved by here today gone tomorrow party politicians?

Perhaps you are concerned that not enough of the electorate will support those standing on an overt religious agenda but what happens in free and fair elections,

I'm for a category of Lords who reflect and represent world views Gordon yours included, as you have failed to notice or more likely failed to act on that knowledge.

[Outrider]

Or regress.

Potentially, yes.

That's a bit tautological n'est pas

Not at all, it's pointing out that there's a generally accepted core idea, with some debate about the fringes, and that the detail probably isn't that important to this discussion.

If you hadn't noticed, that is being wound back by politicians.....in this enlightened, increasingly secular nation. Wound back by the boarding school class of politician, journalist, activist and lobbyist.

There is - and always has been - agents of the establishment who have sought to maintain a status quo, or to try to pull back a few decades to a perceived 'golden age'. Until very recently, the Church of England was firmly at the heart of that, and elements of the Anglican community still are.

As I said Rowan Williams proposed there were religious minorities who see Lords spiritual as a bulwark against the antireligious undercurrent of the british middle and working classes, even in it's present form which, make no mistake I want changed too but not in your way which shows arse-clenching lack of imagination and understanding...in my humble opinion.

And you could easily make a case for the Philistine tendencies of the working class to favour football over ballet as a reason to reserve seats for the 'fine' arts, or you could make the case for the anti-science populist right wing to necessitate the 'Lords Scientific'... that balance of competing interests and ideas is precisely why we shouldn't have reserved seats on one particular issue. Religion and spirituality is important to you, but there are many of us who couldn't find one shit to give about it, let alone two; the same goes for ballet, and football, and journalism and music and any number of others.

What makes religion different? Why does religion deserve a special place, when actually important relevant things (he said with "arse-clenching lack of imagination and understanding"  ) don't?

O?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Potentially, yes.

Not at all, it's pointing out that there's a generally accepted core idea, with some debate about the fringes, and that the detail probably isn't that important to this discussion.

There is - and always has been - agents of the establishment who have sought to maintain a status quo, or to try to pull back a few decades to a perceived 'golden age'. Until very recently, the Church of England was firmly at the heart of that, and elements of the Anglican community still are.

And you could easily make a case for the Philistine tendencies of the working class to favour football over ballet as a reason to reserve seats for the 'fine' arts, or you could make the case for the anti-science populist right wing to necessitate the 'Lords Scientific'... that balance of competing interests and ideas is precisely why we shouldn't have reserved seats on one particular issue. Religion and spirituality is important to you, but there are many of us who couldn't find one shit to give about it, let alone two; the same goes for ballet, and football, and journalism and music and any number of others.

What makes religion different? Why does religion deserve a special place, when actually important relevant things (he said with "arse-clenching lack of imagination and understanding"  ) don't?

O?

You are just trivialising ''world views'' here. All the types of Lords mentioned here have been and are represented in the Lords temporal.

[Gordon]

Vlad

You either have free and fair democratic elections or you don't.

Of course the method used is relevant too, where FFP favours the larger parties, but perhaps some for of proportional representation method (such as used in Holyrood, where not all the seats are based on FFP) would give a greater change that smaller parties/interest groups that have a level of support that is notable but not sufficient to win FFP seats outright.

But I don't think you can guarantee representation of any interest group, religious or otherwise, if they don't have at least some electoral support - since if you did that you would be, as I said earlier, artificially stacking the deck and removing the influence of the electorate.
   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad

You either have free and fair democratic election or you don't.

If free and fair democratic elections result in whatever succeeds the house of Lords, which acts as a check on the commons and reflects world views properly then have them....if they do not then don't.

People still get a free and fair election for the commons anyway.


   

[Gordon]

If free and fair democratic elections result in whatever succeeds the house of Lords, which acts as a check on the commons and reflects world views properly then have them....if they do not then don't.

People still get a free and fair election for the commons anyway.


 

How can you 'reflect world views properly' though?

Prospective candidates are free to espouse whatever 'world view' (whatever that means) they subscribe to but it is the electorate that needs to be convinced in sufficient numbers for them to be elected. You seem to favour ensuring that the 'world view' you subscribe to should be represented by dictat without knowing the extent to which you'd have electoral support.

If I had a 'world view' that in any second chamber there should be at least 16 men with beards, like me, would you insist that my 'world view' should be taken seriously and enforced by dictat, or would you trust the electorate to decide if my 'world view' was worthy of their support?

[Outrider]

You are just trivialising ''world views'' here. All the types of Lords mentioned here have been and are represented in the Lords temporal.

Which completely fails to answer the question of why you don't think the representative spread of religious people amongst the Lords Temporal cannot adequately represent religion and religious views when they apparently can adequately represent, say, medicine or art? What is it that you think makes religion need special help?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How can you 'reflect world views properly' though?

Prospective candidates are free to espouse whatever 'world view' (whatever that means) they subscribe to but it is the electorate that needs to be convinced in sufficient numbers for them to be elected. You seem to favour ensuring that the 'world view' you subscribe to should be represented by dictat without knowing the extent to which they have electoral support.

If I had a 'world view' that at in any second chamber there should be at least 16 men with beards, like me, would you insist that my 'world view' should be taken seriously and enforced by dictat, or would you trust the electorate to decide if my 'world view' was worthy of their support?

I think you've had candidates and electorates in mind all along Gordon and I've had categorys of candidates and functions of houses in mind. You are advocating two of the same kinds of houses, otherwise known as one kind of house, or effectively one house. I've talked about One house which satisfies what you want and another house which has Lords temporal and Lords world view which might or might not have elections to it. If there were, a certain number of people would be elected as a world view lord.

So we are talking about two different things. Two conceptions of what needs representing, Two conceptions of checking and balancing. I have established in this thread what I feel needs properly represented and why an elected upper house removes check and balance if those elections are on the same basis as for the house of commons i.e. party political based on unreflected or informed socio economic concerns only

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which completely fails to answer the question of why you don't think the representative spread of religious people amongst the Lords Temporal cannot adequately represent religion and religious views when they apparently can adequately represent, say, medicine or art? What is it that you think makes religion need special help?

O.

Because were it to be a carbon copy of the commons the focus would be socio economic and party political.
I do not think in terms of religion needing special help. You might as well ask the question why does socio economic and party political interests need the special help of having a dedicated house. I think world views need the same status as temporal here today gone tomorrow issues.

You keep misrepresenting my position as particularly religious.

On the other hand if you are asking why I support the idea of the current House of Lords as a buffer for religious minorities against overzealous secularists it's because I can empathise with the discomfort they feel from overzealous secularists having experienced them through this forum over a period of years.