Evil

[Gordon]

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.

I'm of the firm view that those charged with political governance should be elected by public vote and subject to reelection at regular intervals. I can't see why that is incompatible with a second revising chamber, and in such a chamber it may be that a different electoral system based on PR might better represent the range of views once detached from the traditional political party/FFP model, albeit the traditional political parties would of course be free to campaign.   

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

Sounds like you've already decided that the 'word view' you subscribe to must be represented in any second chamber without checking that your preferred 'world view' has sufficient electoral support - that approach seems a tad undemocratic to me.

[Outrider]

Because were it to be a carbon copy of the commons the focus would be socio economic and party political.

It's the upper house, it's agenda is broadly set by the fact that it's there to moderate the lower house. The make-up would be - presumably - determined by the electorate. Whether it would be carbon copy or not would be determined by how the seats were apportioned.

I do not think in terms of religion needing special help.

You do. You might not phrase it like that, but you are defining an upper house where religion somehow requires reserved seats because it can't compete against other viewpoints and will be drowned out. Either that's what the electorate wants, or religious voices will compete just fine because they'll get elected, but you want to give religion special help by reserving seats for it.

You might as well ask the question why does socio economic and party political interests need the special help of having a dedicated house.

Socio-economic interests don't need a dedicated house, they need a parliament of some sort because that's the business of government.

I think world views need the same status as temporal here today gone tomorrow issues.

Then if they need the same status, why do you advocate reserving special seats for them? Surely they can compete for an electorate's attention on an equal footing with everything else if they need the same status?

You keep misrepresenting my position as particularly religious.

I don't see that I have - whether or not you are individual religious isn't necessarily connected to whether you think religion should have a reserved place in the upper house, although I'd admit it seems to me that anyone advocating that position would be more likely to be religious than not.

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.

How does a secularist get 'overzealous'? Why does anyone need protection against equal representation?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm of the firm view that those charged with political governance should be elected by public vote and subject to reelection at regular intervals. I can't see why that is incompatible with a second revising chamber, and in such a chamber it may be that a different electoral system based on PR might better represent the range of views once detached from the traditional political party/FFP model, albeit the traditional political parties would of course be free to campaign.   

Sounds like you've already decided that the 'word view' you subscribe to must be represented in any second chamber without checking that your preferred 'world view' has sufficient electoral support - that approach seems a tad undemocratic to me.

And I'm of the firm view that there should be two houses which operate as an effective check and balance system and that one of these should be elected on the basis of universal sufferage ie OPOV and that a candidate for this house should be free to stand on whatever platform they wish and that this house is informed by another house of experience and wisdom where world views have an equal status with temporal here today gone tomorrow issues.

 At present yes, Christianity would be included in the Lords spiritual as would humanism and secularism and Islam.

It would be possible depending on demographics that Christianity might not warrant the numbers. I believe and would hope that christian viewpoint be bulwarked and buffered against the swivel eyed atheist/secularist/humanist contingent by the institution of the Lord's world view. And of course decent atheists/secularists/humanists. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's the upper house, it's agenda is broadly set by the fact that it's there to moderate the lower house.

On what basis would that moderation even occur?

The make-up would be - presumably - determined by the electorate.

Again on what basis. How would the electorate be informed? Would there be a referendum on the structure of the House of Lords for instance?

Whether it would be carbon copy or not would be determined by how the seats were apportioned.

How could the seats be apportioned?

You do. You might not phrase it like that, but you are defining an upper house where religion somehow requires reserved seats because it can't compete against other viewpoints and will be drowned out. Either that's what the electorate wants, or religious voices will compete just fine because they'll get elected, but you want to give religion special help by reserving seats for it.

No, I want there to be the Lords world view. Religion has to be represented because people do religion and it is a huge part of there lives as irreligion or antireligion or humanism or secularism is. Look at the time spent on this forum for instance and they would have representation.
 You are just reiterating your own wank fantasy if it's just about having C of E lords.

Socio-economic interests don't need a dedicated house, they need a parliament of some sort because that's the business of government.

They don't need a dedicated house...they need a parliament...... do you realise how stupid that sounds? Is socioeconomics the basis of government no....that is why we have a house of Lords with Lords spiritual and Lords who are there for their wisdom and experience in temporal affairs.

Then if they need the same status, why do you advocate reserving special seats for them? You are calling them special seat Surely they can compete for an electorate's attention on an equal footing with everything else if they need the same status?

Not sure I'm sure what you are getting at here. I think what I am saying should be obvious to any fool. Lords world view and Lords temporal make up any house existing as check and balance to a common is natural whereas an identical house to the commons offers no check to party politics.

I don't see that I have - whether or not you are individual religious isn't necessarily connected to whether you think religion should have a reserved place in the upper house, although I'd admit it seems to me that anyone advocating that position would be more likely to be religious than not.

How does a secularist get 'overzealous'? Why does anyone need protection against equal representation?

A secular house represents secular interests but not religious interests. How then is that 'equal representation'? A secular house definitionally starts loaded completely in favour of secular world view... before any election for it takes place. As it stands secular Lords represent 96.6% of representation to 3.4% representation by Lords spiritual.

Your position is therefore the mintiest and stripiest of humbugs.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm of the firm view that those charged with political governance should be elected by public vote and subject to reelection at regular intervals. I can't see why that is incompatible with a second revising chamber, and in such a chamber it may be that a different electoral system based on PR might better represent the range of views once detached from the traditional political party/FFP model, albeit the traditional political parties would of course be free to campaign.   

I think PR probably would make it easier to elect candidates standing on world view tickets too.

[Outrider]

On what basis would that moderation even occur?

When they collectively vote against a bill that's been sent to them for assent, or vote to make amendments and pass it back - you know, like the upper house does now.

Again on what basis. How would the electorate be informed? Would there be a referendum on the structure of the House of Lords for instance?

How we get there, the precise details of how things are communicated are a different discussion, I think. I could see a referendum on a significant change to the convention, but the last major change to the Lords didn't get one, so who knows.

How could the seats be apportioned?

Proportionately, hopefully. You're in favour of an elected upper house, you suggested, how would you do it?

No, I want there to be the Lords world view. Religion has to be represented because people do religion and it is a huge part of there lives as irreligion or antireligion or humanism or secularism is. Look at the time spent on this forum for instance and they would have representation.

People spend huge amounts of time on science, art, sport, celebrities... they have their own fora, how do you ensure them equal representation if you're only reserving special seats for religion?

You are just reiterating your own wank fantasy if it's just about having C of E lords.

Even if it's a range of sects and cults and traditions. Why does the particular religious stance on anything merit more attention than, say, an Everton fan, or a devotee of Belinda Carlisle, or a geologist?

They don't need a dedicated house...they need a parliament...... do you realise how stupid that sounds?

Well, let's see if everybody else understands it fine. I may have failed to communicate adequately, or it may just be you failing to read past your preconceptions.

Is socioeconomics the basis of government no....that is why we have a house of Lords with Lords spiritual and Lords who are there for their wisdom and experience in temporal affairs.

Socioeconomics isn't the 'basis' of government, it's the purpose of government.

Not sure I'm sure what you are getting at here.

You say that religion needs an equal footing with other concerns, but then you want to reserve special seats for religious members of the upper house, which suggests that you don't actually want an equal footing. Make your mind up.

I think what I am saying should be obvious to any fool.

You'd think that, but you don't appear to have realised that it's nonsense, so apparently not.

Lords world view and Lords temporal make up any house existing as check and balance to a common is natural whereas an identical house to the commons offers no check to party politics.

And you think that 'any fool' should be able to understand that word salad? I suspect what you mean is that if the make-up of the Lords was similar to the make-up of the Commons then how would be it any sort of check or balance - an excellent argument against the current political nomination of Lords, I'd agree. It doesn't for a minute though explain why religion is the one area you think needs special attention in the way it's different - why not reserve places for ex-football managers, as they are a different group from those in the Commons? Why religion?

A secular house represents secular interests but not religious interests.

Secular interests are EVERYONE'S interests. For someone who deplores fools, you can't seem to get your head around that simple concept. Secularism does not equal enforced atheism. Secularism is not antitheism. Secularism is just 'religion isn't special'.

How then is that 'equal representation'? A secular house definitionally starts loaded completely in favour of secular world view... before any election for it takes place.

Yes. Which means neither religion nor atheism is favoured by the structure.

As it stands secular Lords represent 96.6% of representation to 3.4% representation by Lords spiritual.

Which is 3.4% reserved specifically for religion, and then a representative group of people who represent a mix of religion and non-religion. Why not just have the mix? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that 50% of the population were religious, and therefore that 50% of the Lords Temporal were also religious - that would leave us with a 51.7% religious upper house, where 3.4% of the house have a particularly religious remit and everyone else's religion or non-religion is incidental to their broader presence. So, again... why is religion special?

Your position is therefore the mintiest and stripiest of humbugs.

Which should make it easier for you to come up with a coherent argument against it, but you keep failing to address the key question being asked. That's never happened before....

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which is 3.4% reserved specifically for religion, and then a representative group of people who represent a mix of religion and non-religion. Why not just have the mix? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that 50% of the population were religious, and therefore that 50% of the Lords Temporal were also religious - that would leave us with a 51.7% religious upper house, where 3.4% of the house have a particularly religious remit and everyone else's religion or non-religion is incidental to their broader presence. So, again... why is religion special?

When you say ''religious'' what bearing would that have on a Government which you say is based on socio economic (and I would add political) factors?

[Outrider]

When you say ''religious'' what bearing would that have on a Government which you say is based on socio economic (and I would add political) factors?

Because religion is a social consideration - you know, part of the 'socio' bit of 'socio-economic'. Like 'should we charging religious places of worship tax like businesses' or 'are religious organisations automatically charitable'...

Now, sport is equally part of the 'socio', and science and art and music so, again...

Why should religion get reserved seats but not other specific interest areas?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because religion is a social consideration - you know, part of the 'socio' bit of 'socio-economic'. Like 'should we charging religious places of worship tax like businesses' or 'are religious organisations automatically charitable'...

Now, sport is equally part of the 'socio', and science and art and music so, again...

Why should religion get reserved seats but not other specific interest areas?

O.

These temporal things ARE represented by experts in their fields but there is the point. They are not world views, Outrider. The number of people who have become Lords on account of their expertise, professional and pastoral or community leadership experience in a World view context is miniscule. Wikipedia includes Eames, Jacobovits and more recently Sachs as such appointees. Their appointments were made donkey years ago.

Luckily the Lords has a category of Lords non-temporal although it's complexion is not nearly optimal.

That there exists Lords spiritual has nothing to do with how the Lords temporal is composed.

[Outrider]

These temporal things ARE represented by experts in their fields but there is the point.

So if the system works for representing those ideas, why doesn't it work for religion?

They are not world views, Outrider.

Funny, you seem to opine on a regular basis that 'philosophical naturalism' is exactly that. And the great philosopher, Bill Shankly, reliably informed us all that football isn't a matter of life and death, it's much more important than that. Religion is only a world-view from the inside; from the outside it's not a view of this world, but a pipe-dream about another world.

The number of people who have become Lords on account of their expertise, professional and pastoral or community leadership experience in a World view context is miniscule. Wikipedia includes Eames, Jacobovits and more recently Sachs as such appointees. Their appointments were made donkey years ago.

Perhaps because the Appointments Committee knows that the field is already overrepresented by the Lords Spiritual - do they really need MORE seats dedicated to this increasingly niche interest?

Luckily the Lords has a category of Lords non-temporal although it's complexion is not nearly optimal.

How would you make it 'optimal'? How, given the sectarian nature of religion, would you adequately represent all the various religious viewpoints? What would be the threshold for a particular view to get representation - and how would it account for the less formally institutionalised religious worldviews?

That there exists Lords spiritual has nothing to do with how the Lords temporal is composed.

To the extent that it has to do with how the Lords is composed, it sort of does. That there is a category of 'Lords Temporal' at all is only to contrast with the anachronism that is the Lords Spiritual.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So if the system works for representing those ideas, why doesn't it work for religion?

There is a separate system for ''religion''

Funny, you seem to opine on a regular basis that 'philosophical naturalism' is exactly that. And the great philosopher, Bill Shankly, reliably informed us all that football isn't a matter of life and death, it's much more important than that.Religion is only a world-view from the inside; from the outside it's not a view of this world, but a pipe-dream about another world.

I would say that that is an ignoramus's caricature of religion. But again religion is but one world view and in my reforms would not have exclusive access to a Lords worldview.

Perhaps because the Appointments Committee knows that the field is already overrepresented by the Lords Spiritual - do they really need MORE seats dedicated to this increasingly niche interest?

At only 3.4% of the Lords, the notion of spiritual overrepresentation is IMHO an obvious delusion. Again calling world views ''niche interest'' is an ignoramus's caricature of world views

How would you make it 'optimal'? How, given the sectarian nature of religion, would you adequately represent all the various religious viewpoints? What would be the threshold for a particular view to get representation - and how would it account for the less formally institutionalised religious worldviews?

What worldviews are you talking about here? Of course you couldn't represent all world views just the main demographic categories.

To the extent that it has to do with how the Lords is composed, it sort of does. That there is a category of 'Lords Temporal' at all is only to contrast with the anachronism that is the Lords Spiritual.

Yes because there is a contrast. How can there be an anachronism of world view. Secularism and humanism are world views. How are they anachronistic and if not at what point will they be?

[Outrider]

There is a separate system for ''religion''

We know, that's what the discussion is about. That fails to explain why you think religion would not be adequately represented if it were treated the same as everything else.

I would say that that is an ignoramus's caricature of religion.

Of course you would, because why have to come up with a point when you can throw out an ad hominem instead.

But again religion is but one world view and in my reforms would not have exclusive access to a Lords worldview.

But it's the only worldview you're reserving special seats for... no-one is suggesting exclusive access (nice straw-man).

At only 3.4% of the Lords, the notion of spiritual overrepresentation is IMHO an obvious delusion.

And, again, that's not what's being argued - there is the normal representation amongst the Lords, and then an additional set of reserved seats. Why is the normal representation not sufficient?

Again calling world views ''niche interest'' is an ignoramus's caricature of world views

No, it's a response to the data which shows that religious belief and, particularly, formal religious organisations, are increasingly a marginal concern.

What worldviews are you talking about here?

Let's go with scientism, seeing as how it makes you publicly wet yourself in writing so frequently.

Of course you couldn't represent all world views just the main demographic categories.

Ah, so vested interests within vested interests. How very Tory of you.

Yes because there is a contrast.

There are innumerable contrasts - there are the scientists and the non-scientists, the artists and the philistines, the communists and the libertarians, dare I say it there are the religious and irreligious... they don't get a different status, they (most of them) just do their job as Lords, they don't need special seats to do it.

How can there be an anachronism of world view.

Because it's a relic from a past age that hasn't worked out it's not relevant any more? I don't know really know, you'd have to ask a proponent.

Secularism and humanism are world views.

Humanism yes. Secularism not really, it's a position on one narrow topic - it's a political stance, but it has nothing to say on life in general.

How are they anachronistic and if not at what point will they be?

The Lords Spiritual? Because we are not a society where religion is central to what happens in everyone's day to day lives, we've grown beyond needing sky-daddy's approval and started thinking for ourselves.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

We know, that's what the discussion is about. That fails to explain why you think religion would not be adequately represented if it were treated the same as everything else.

I've spent several posts explaining why. You don't recognise the difference between the non temporal and the temporal. That is a mental failure on your part as is your delusion of non temporal overrepresentation.

Of course you would, because why have to come up with a point when you can throw out an ad hominem instead.

But it's the only worldview you're reserving special seats for... no-one is suggesting exclusive access (nice straw-man).

Again I want all world views to be represented by demographic popularity

And, again, that's not what's being argued - there is the normal representation amongst the Lords, and then an additional set of reserved seats. Why is the normal representation not sufficient?

As explained earlier Lords temporal are there because of expertise earned in temporal sociological(secular society)economic situations and are required to focus and contribute in that context. Lords non temporal are there for there expertise precisely located outside these secular or here today gone tomorrow temporal contexts.

No, it's a response to the data which shows that religious belief and, particularly, formal religious organisations, are increasingly a marginal concern.

I have said that sufficient reduction of population of a world view would mean a transfer of seats to the more populous world views so what you have said is merely your wankfantasy.

.

There are innumerable contrasts - there are the scientists and the non-scientists, the artists and the philistines, the communists and the libertarians, dare I say it there are the religious and irreligious... they don't get a different status, they (most of them) just do their job as Lords, they don't need special seats to do it.

Because it's a relic from a past age that hasn't worked out it's not relevant any more? I don't know really know, you'd have to ask a proponent.

Humanism yes. Secularism not really, it's a position on one narrow topic - it's a political stance, but it has nothing to say on life in general.

The Lords Spiritual? Because we are not a society where religion is central to what happens in everyone's day to day lives, we've grown beyond needing sky-daddy's approval and started thinking for ourselves.

ignoramus's caricature.

I think you'll find all the categories mentioned by you represented in the house of Lords and some far in excess of any lords world view.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because it's a relic from a past age that hasn't worked out it's not relevant any more?

Fallacy of modernity also not sure about the relic theory if people still practicising spirituality then it's still going. Don't You represent more of a relic as a Privileged empiricist?

[Outrider]

I've spent several posts explaining why.

No, you've spent several posts actively avoiding dealing with that question. So far the closest we've come is the idea that religion is a world-view (and, implicitly, nothing else is).

You don't recognise the difference between the non temporal and the temporal.

I don't recognise that there is anything 'non-temporal', but for the sake of argument let's assume that there is. Firstly, why is it the business of parliament, and secondly why does it need a special case of recognition.

That is a mental failure on your part as is your delusion of non temporal overrepresentation.

Maths isn't a strong point either, then? Religion, and religious belief, is present in, and represented by, the Lords Temporal already, why do you need special reserved Lords Spiritual to supplement that?

Again I want all world views to be represented by demographic popularity.

Then you don't need to reserve seats for religion, they can be represented amongst the Lords.

As explained earlier Lords temporal are there because of expertise earned in temporal sociological(secular society)economic situations and are required to focus and contribute in that context.

Let's assume that any of us believe that's the case, for the sake of argument here.

Lords non temporal are there for there expertise precisely located outside these secular or here today gone tomorrow temporal contexts.

How can you be an expert in stuff that's not demonstrable? Why does that expertise need special consideration, why can't these demands be pitted equally against the other concerns? And, again, secular concerns are not opposed to religious concerns or intrinsically aligned with 'atheist' concerns. Secular is about what weight the system puts on these.

I have said that sufficient reduction of population of a world view would mean a transfer of seats to the more populous world views so what you have said is merely your wankfantasy.

You're touting for special representation for your sky-daddy fan-clubs to keep us as the only first world nation with a vestige of a theocracy, and you're accusing me of a having 'wank-fantasies'? Do you think by spouting profanity you're appealing to the 'non-temporal' short-sighted reality-dwellers? Is this an attempt to be 'hip' and 'down wit da yoof'? Or are you just bloviating because you've realised you're spouting absolute shite?

ignoramus's caricature.

Show, don't tell. I could just dismiss your overly wordy lack of points with a casual dismissal, but nobody learns where the faults are in your thinking if you don't show your working.

I think you'll find all the categories mentioned by you represented in the house of Lords and some far in excess of any lords world view.

And, as you've noted, religion is represented in the Lords Temporal, so still why do you need special help?

O.

[Outrider]

Fallacy of modernity,

That's nearly a point. If I said that it was right because it was new, that would have been the right point. I said it no longer had a place, that's not because it's been explicitly replaced with something new, but rather because it's just no longer required.

also not sure about the relic theory if people still practicising spirituality then it's still going.

Shouldn't Christianity have supplanted Judaeism? And Islam Christianity? And Mormonism Islam? And Yoga Islam? (I might have skipped a few steps there, but you get the point).

Don't You represent more of a relic as a Privileged empiricist?

Based on the argument I made, it's possible if you could show that empiricism lacked relevance... good luck with that.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, you've spent several posts actively avoiding dealing with that question. So far the closest we've come is the idea that religion is a world-view (and, implicitly, nothing else is).

That isn't at all the point i'm making. There are more world views than religious ones. I have mentioned humanism, secularism, atheism.

I don't recognise that there is anything 'non-temporal',

I do

but for the sake of argument let's assume that there is. Firstly, why is it the business of parliament, and secondly why does it need a special case of recognition.

parliament should represent as near complete humanity as it is possibly able to up to the religion done by people or the humanism done by people, otherwise the citizen is viewed as the narrow, reduced and stunted homonculus beloved of certain atheists like yourself.

Religion, and religious belief, is present in, and represented by, the Lords Temporal already

Only in the sense spleens or ovaries or connective tissue is represented you don't hear much about them. Of course beliefs and specifically world views are an irreducible part of humanity and more complex since they inform temporal decisions and religion and humanism and secularism is what people ''do''.

[Outrider]

That isn't at all the point i'm making. There are more world views than religious ones. I have mentioned humanism, secularism, atheism.

OK, so we've already established that secularism isn't a world-view, neither when it comes to it is atheism; those are both views on a single idea. Humanism, I'll grant you, could be considered a world-view. I didn't suggest that you'd claimed religion was the only world-view, just that the closest you'd come to establishing a basis for your contention that religion needs special treatment in the Lords was that it was a worldview. I made the point that religion wasn't the only worldview to ask why the others didn't also need special treatment, so we're still waiting for your actual justification.

I do

So why should my parliament's representation be artificially skewed because you don't have a firm grasp of reality?

parliament should represent as near complete humanity as it is possibly able to up to the religion done by people or the humanism done by people, otherwise the citizen is viewed as the narrow, reduced and stunted homonculus beloved of certain atheists like yourself.

How do you pack so much horseshit fallacy into one incomprehensible little bundle of bollocks? Pretty much everyone who has commented, me included, thinks that parliament should be representative - you're the only one that's suggesting reserving special seats for one particular interest group to skew that. If sport and art and music and science can be represented reasonably fairly without reserving seats for those outlooks, why does religion need special consideration? So apart from the straw man, the self-contradiction, and the ad hominem, all that was wrong with that was the punctuation and the sentence structure. Oh, and the fact that you still don't actually have a point.

Only in the sense spleens or ovaries or connective tissue is represented you don't hear much about them.

Maybe religion just isn't very relevant that often? It was heard in the debates about assisted dying, it was heard in the debates about extending marriage to gay people...

Of course beliefs and specifically world views are an irreducible part of humanity and more complex since they inform temporal decisions and religion and humanism and secularism is what people ''do''.

So is sexuality, should we have 'Lords Homosexual'? So is gender, should we have reserved seats for male or female or non-binary Lords? Every element of everyone's background informs their complexity - you've still failed to establish why religion is somehow different to all those other elements.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

OK, so we've already established that secularism isn't a world-view, neither when it comes to it is atheism; those are both views on a single idea. Humanism, I'll grant you, could be considered a world-view. I didn't suggest that you'd claimed religion was the only world-view, just that the closest you'd come to establishing a basis for your contention that religion needs special treatment in the Lords.

Since the house of Lords is constructed to have two classes of Lords, at other times more, I'm not sure that any of these classes recieving special treatment is an appropriate charge. I need to also remind you that my approach deals with world views not specifically religion.

So why should my parliament's representation be artificially skewed because you don't have a firm grasp of reality?

Again the structure of the Lords is how it is. Any solution to change it is the ''artificial skewing''.

Pretty much everyone who has commented, me included, thinks that parliament should be representative - you're the only one that's suggesting reserving special seats for one particular interest group to skew that.

How even if that is what I was doing would that affect parliament being representative. Your point is non sequitur since their could be instances of what you are alleging which could make parliament more representative.

How then does your point of view reduce representation in parliament? Let us count the ways 1) The model of humanity represented by your proposal. Your model is the reduced narrow aspiritual, socio economic homonculus. This creature in fact is what you are selling. Embed this into government and your world view dominates. How perfect. For you 2) people do world views, all people, everyone has beliefs 3) You have no check or balance. Party politics are the soul order of the day. In the house of Lords that is checked by cross benchers Lords spiritual and by wisdom and experience in the temporal Lords, they in their turn are checked by Lord World view who can check on the pastoral implications and provide a much longer view which is morally oriented rather than politically expedient.

If sport and art and music and science can be represented reasonably fairly without reserving seats for those outlooks, why does religion need special consideration?

And yet of course the current system somehow does make sure there are Lords of sport, art and music and science and that way is not one man one vote so why you are specially pleading that somehow religion needs a specially democratic approach.
Also sport, art, music and science are only things certain people do, and have experience living it unlike world views and belief systems which everybody has, does and lives.

Maybe religion just isn't very relevant that often? It was heard in the debates about assisted dying, it was heard in the debates about extending marriage to gay people...

You keep twisting the argument away from worldviews in question. You obviously aren't going to want to talk about my proposals.

You want this to be about me pumping religion, you are stoking a wankfantasy. I on the other hand see you wanting to inflict your narrow minded, reduced, dehumanised socio economic , aspiritual homonculus view of humanity through the organs of government.

So is sexuality, should we have 'Lords Homosexual'? So is gender, should we have reserved seats for male or female or non-binary Lords? Every element of everyone's background informs their complexity - you've still failed to establish why religion is somehow different to all those other elements.

If it's a worldview, if these issues constitute a set of beliefs then their in the Lords worldview. If not then the Lords temporal will have to find away to get them in. Over to you.

One bloke who I think we badly need in the House of Lords is Peter Tatchell. I'd swap Justin Welby out for him any day.

[ProfessorDavey]

Again the structure of the Lords is how it is. Any solution to change it is the ''artificial skewing''.

But the point is that the Lords is currently artificially skewed and therefore removing that artificial skewing increases fairness and representation.

You sound like the kind of person who thinks that the removal of a special privilege amounts to discrimination when it is actually reducing discrimination against those who do not benefit from that special privilege.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But the point is that the Lords is currently artificially skewed and therefore removing that artificial skewing increases fairness and representation.

Ha Ha Ha, where do we stop then with the extent the Lords is artificially skewed....and that brings us to your specially pleading religion here. The Lords is a nest of privilege full stop.

You sound like the kind of person who thinks that the removal of a special privilege amounts to discrimination when it is actually reducing discrimination against those who do not benefit from that special privilege.

No I want it (Lords spiritual) changed to a ''Lords world view''. Without a lords non temporal the house of Lords just satisfies those who believe in a kind of Aspiritual, non belief, socioeconomic party political homonculus idea of humanity.

[jeremyp]

Without a lords non temporal the house of Lords just satisfies those who believe in a kind of Aspiritual, non belief, socioeconomic party political homonculus idea of humanity.

Sorry, I haven't been following the conversation about this.

You seem to be implying that "spiritual" lords are banned from being lords temporal. I don't think this is the case, and, even if it were, if we abolished the lords spiritual, would could lift any ban on Christian (or other religious) people from being lords temporal.

[ProfessorDavey]

Ha Ha Ha, where do we stop then with the extent the Lords is artificially skewed....and that brings us to your specially pleading religion here.

It is artificially skewed as it provides 26 automatic places for members on the basis of their position within senior roles within a single completely separate organisation. This is a special privilege which is not afforded to any other organisation, who may have their members appointed to the HoLs through the normal process but have no guaranteed automatic positions.

[ProfessorDavey]

You seem to be implying that "spiritual" lords are banned from being lords temporal. I don't think this is the case ...

It most certainly isn't the case, to the extent that all living ex Archbishops of Canterbury and of York are lords temporal.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sorry, I haven't been following the conversation about this.

You seem to be implying that "spiritual" lords are banned from being lords temporal. I don't think this is the case, and, even if it were, if we abolished the lords spiritual, would could lift any ban on Christian (or other religious) people from being lords temporal.

I have neither said  ex spiritual Lords have been banned from the HoL, are Banned or will be. Who they appoint and why is up  them surely.
As i've made it clear I would not abolish the Lords spiritual, just widen it's remit. Abolishing it would mean that a check and balance would be lost and less representation for what everybody does namely hold a belief system and try to live according to it since a lack of representation here means only one world view is satisfied. It is this point that makes a mockery of claims for fairness, democracy and more representation by those who propose it.