Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Bishop of Truro says CofE takes Lords' role 'seriously'

Page 1 of 1 [ 7 posts ] 

Previous topic | Next topic

Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

29 Apr 2013, 4:52 am

Quote:
Bishop of Truro says CofE takes Lords' role 'seriously'

The newest bishop to take a seat in the House of Lords has said the Church of England is taking its role in Parliament "more and more seriously".

The Bishop of Truro, Tim Thornton, was introduced in the Lords on 22 April.

Speaking on BBC Radio Cornwall he said the Lords Spiritual, as the bishops are known, have regular meetings about how best to engage in politics.


It is an embarrassment to my country that the men in funny little clothes still get a special privilege to sit in the House of Lords purely because they believe in a God based on the State Church's principles. I understand why it was there in the past - in fact, no, I don't actually - but we are an increasingly secular country and this mob shouldn't have a place.

I'm not interested in his thoughts on religious values. I'd be slightly more interested if he got enough people to vote for him as an Independent MP, but we all know that hardly any of these guys would be able to manage it on their own.

These people aren't necessarily bad, but they are using their privileged position to scrabble around in the dark for reasons why people aren't listening to them.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

29 Apr 2013, 11:54 am

Just because you take a privilege seriously does not mean that you are entitled to retain that privilege.

I see no reason why the 92 hereditaries need to remain in Parliament. I see no reason why life peers should be entitled to sit for life. I see no reason why conferral of membership in the Lords should be an open ended privilege of the sitting Prime Minister.

I have no issue with an appointed Upper House (we debate this question incessantly in Canada, and will for decades more because of the cumbersome nature of our constitutional amendment practices). But an Upper House of unlimited size, which is subject to the manipulation of the Prime Minister of the day can only serve to diminish its power, and hence, its relevance.


_________________
--James


0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

29 Apr 2013, 12:10 pm

Because the public are very apathetic about it, No party wants to take this on, they kick it to the long grass every time.

Referendums are usually a disaster on stuff like this, especially when the public are poorly informed.

Also because it is connected to monarchism historically, I think a fair few brain will explode trying to comprehend.

Personally I am for Lords reform. I think you can still stick to the principles of the Westminster system without having these appointment or hereditary peers.

Although I'm not a natural monarchist, I accept they are very popular, and I think the 'republican' movement that there is pretty laughable, not something I want as a replacement.

There does need to be a facilitation of Lords reform though.

I actually quite like the idea of making it random. Simple a candidate has to study political history, and then it is a lottery system with a rotation.

One of the major concerns is the party 'infiltration', and lack of separation between the the chambers. The whole point of having a second chamber is it should be different.



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

29 Apr 2013, 3:35 pm

0_equals_true wrote:
I actually quite like the idea of making it random. Simple a candidate has to study political history, and then it is a lottery system with a rotation.

One of the major concerns is the party 'infiltration', and lack of separation between the the chambers. The whole point of having a second chamber is it should be different.


I really am very against the idea of the system either being directly elected, or where political functionaries/former MPs are simply allowed into the system. We need a system largely absent of bovine party loyalty. If we're going to have a replication of the House of Commons, then what's the point of having a bicameral legislature in the first place?

0_equals_true wrote:
Referendums are usually a disaster on stuff like this, especially when the public are poorly informed.


I think much of the public is deliberately kept very poorly educated on things like this.

0_equals_true wrote:
Because the public are very apathetic about it, No party wants to take this on, they kick it to the long grass every time.


They shouldn't be. Religious privilege of any kind in government harms all of us.



CSBurks
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Apr 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 766

29 Apr 2013, 4:11 pm

I think at one point Christopher Guest (the filmmaker) was a member. Even he said it needed reform.



puddingmouse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,777
Location: Cottonopolis

29 Apr 2013, 5:25 pm

Tequila wrote:
0_equals_true wrote:
I actually quite like the idea of making it random. Simple a candidate has to study political history, and then it is a lottery system with a rotation.

One of the major concerns is the party 'infiltration', and lack of separation between the the chambers. The whole point of having a second chamber is it should be different.


I really am very against the idea of the system either being directly elected, or where political functionaries/former MPs are simply allowed into the system. We need a system largely absent of bovine party loyalty. If we're going to have a replication of the House of Commons, then what's the point of having a bicameral legislature in the first place?

0_equals_true wrote:
Referendums are usually a disaster on stuff like this, especially when the public are poorly informed.


I think much of the public is deliberately kept very poorly educated on things like this.

0_equals_true wrote:
Because the public are very apathetic about it, No party wants to take this on, they kick it to the long grass every time.


They shouldn't be. Religious privilege of any kind in government harms all of us.


It's not the sexiest of political subjects. I have to admit that I didn't care until I studied Government and Politics A Level 10 years ago.

There needs to be a grassroots awareness campaign with links to the mainstream media that's not the Graun or the Independent.


_________________
Zombies, zombies will tear us apart...again.


puddingmouse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,777
Location: Cottonopolis

29 Apr 2013, 5:26 pm

0_equals_true wrote:
Because the public are very apathetic about it, No party wants to take this on, they kick it to the long grass every time.

Referendums are usually a disaster on stuff like this, especially when the public are poorly informed.

Also because it is connected to monarchism historically, I think a fair few brain will explode trying to comprehend.

Personally I am for Lords reform. I think you can still stick to the principles of the Westminster system without having these appointment or hereditary peers.

Although I'm not a natural monarchist, I accept they are very popular, and I think the 'republican' movement that there is pretty laughable, not something I want as a replacement.

There does need to be a facilitation of Lords reform though.

I actually quite like the idea of making it random. Simple a candidate has to study political history, and then it is a lottery system with a rotation.

One of the major concerns is the party 'infiltration', and lack of separation between the the chambers. The whole point of having a second chamber is it should be different.


I like your analysis of this situation, but why do you think the republican movement is laughable in the UK - out of curiosity?


_________________
Zombies, zombies will tear us apart...again.