HAVING an unelected House of Lords in Britain is ludicrous – but even more objectionable is the presence in the Lords of 24 bishops and two archbishops
The House of Lords, widely seen as an elitist and out-dated institution that doesn’t represent the diversity of the UK population, needs to be reformed, and its unelected, out-of-touch members put out to pasture.
It's time to rid the Lords of this bunch of religious reactionaries
Right now, Power2010, which is funded by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust and the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, and supported by a wide range of individuals and organisations, is running an on-line poll.
Here you can cast a vote calling on the Government to remove the appointed and hereditary Lords and bishops from the House of Lords, and replace them with an elected membership, serving fixed terms in office.
The new members of the second chamber would be elected directly by the people. With the legitimacy that comes from being elected, this would also almost certainly mean that the second chamber would gain more powers.
Please help give this poll a boost. It is only running for five more days.
Not surprisingly, the Church of England is determined to put up a fight to keep a presence in the Lords.
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
February 18th, 2010 at 1:28 am
Isn’t it nice, though, to have a group of educated advisers who aren’t beholden to anyone? I often wish that the Senate in the States didn’t have to make promises to get elected. Things might actually get done.
Or not.
HJ
February 18th, 2010 at 1:28 am
Oh, yeah, screw the bishops though.
HJ
February 18th, 2010 at 6:57 am
At the risk of riling everybody – I disagree.
We have an elected body of politicians, and they have made England so no-labourer friendly that immigrants in Calais, when offered the chance to stay in France, insist they want to go to England where they can ‘live off the benefits’.
The house of lords is mainly hereditary, and therefore fairly powerless. Let us keep it that way.
By all means kick out the bishops! Unless daddy was a bishop – and a lord – they have no right to be there.
Much as I dislike the CofE, and almost all other religious institutions, as long as we have Queen Elisabeth as head of the church, we shall have to put up with her minions.
At the moment, she – and her House of Lords – are the lesser of
the possible evils.
February 18th, 2010 at 7:03 am
How about vote for a written constitution so we can the go on to put in place a separation of church and state, after that we could also ensure religon never enters into politics. Everyone could rest a little easier then.
February 18th, 2010 at 8:47 am
Bashing the Bishops again, Barry? Have a look at this:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/ho.....782700.ece
February 18th, 2010 at 8:51 am
I don’t follow your logic, @gsw! You blame our elected MPs for the state of affairs in Britain today, and then say that the Lords have been powerless to do anything about this, yet you are in favour of the status quo!!
February 18th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
Agrees heartily with Gsw. An elected body keeping checks on an elected body seems illogical.
Members of the upper house should be selected randomly, like jurors, the only stipulation being that they must be nanas.
February 18th, 2010 at 3:23 pm
House of Lords for Bishops, is this 2010 or is this 1010. Surely the House of Lords is out of touch and should be brought up to date.
Even some Bishops I assume have doubts if there is a god, so are they reliable and relevant to tell the country how to live their lives.
February 18th, 2010 at 5:15 pm
The idea that these 26 unelected bishops, puffed up with their titles, picking up their tax funded expenses and attempting to block humane laws repels me. This is the group that tried to have spouses who helped their terminally ill and grotesquely suffering partners have the benefit of euthanasia on the continent arrested on their return. Not enough to die from a terminal illness, choking and suffocating in your own vomit in one instance, but these meddling scum add to the anxiety by wanting the returning partner arrested.
They represent little appart from a stone age god, with an insatiable apettite for flattery, and a ready vengeance by despatching those who fail to obey his contradictary and vilely cruel and incomprehensible demands in an eternity in hell for those who upset him. Jack Straw says that in ten years the C. of E. is likely to agree that bishops should not be in the Lords. What has this to do with the C. of E. and why wait ten years? They should be thrown out by the end of the week. The don’t represent me nor the people in the UK. We missed having Cormac Murphy O’Connor, the retired RC archbishop by a whisker and that only because of the child abuse scandal in Ireland. Just a touch too embarassing at the time, I guess.
February 18th, 2010 at 9:40 pm
I have to disagree with @gsw re: Immigrants in Calais wanting to go to England to live off the benefits. The human beings in question are, for the most part, young Afghan and Iraqi refugees who have fled their war torn countries – thanks to Bush and Blair. They aspire to work in Britain as they are denied the right to work here in France.
February 19th, 2010 at 4:04 am
Let me humbly say that I, as an American citizen, was unaware that there was an unelected house of parliament. Less yet, that there were a bloc of it’s representatives that were religious hierarchy. Silly me.
But, before you freethinkers decide that putting it to a vote is the answer, consider this:
In the US, George W. Bush was re-elected, mostly by the religious right voters. Anti-gay marriage, slay the muslims, and cutting taxes for the rich put him in office. The major reason the right wing lost the white house and both houses of congress was the arrogant assumption that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Now, the pendulum is swinging back, because Obama could not fix the enormous republican mess with a wave of his eloquent wand. Real thinkers know it could not be done in a fell swoop, but even people like me are seeing that he is not using clear judgement in making every dollar count.
I guess, that my point is, that ousting a cluster of religious pricks, and putting their seats up for vote, is not going to solve much. Bush gave the Iraqis a legitimate election, and who did they elect? Their Imams!!!!!!!!! It’s sad, but true. Democracy doesn’t work until the populace is enlightened. And that seems so far away as we view our self destuction on the near horizon.
NeoWolfe
February 19th, 2010 at 12:32 pm
@Neo Wolfe Not only that we have a Queen who is religious, unelected and who announced that religion was the answer to the world’s problems. Her son, Prince Charles, a seriously idle man but religious, intends to be a “Defender of Faith” when he becomes King. By that he means he is going to defend the lot – muslims, hindus, christians. Anything except atheists. What he doesn’t do is stick by what he is defending as he has been an adulterer and Princess Di didn’t to too well with him.
And you think you got problems.
Good to read your posts from the Home of the Brave, Land of the Free.
February 19th, 2010 at 7:31 pm
It is important to get the Bicameral quality back into the Upper Chamber.
At the moment, it is ideal for the Government to have appointed peers in Lords.
It is time the People of Britain became Sovereign as not only do we have a Head of State who is unelected, we have a PM able to use their powers.
February 20th, 2010 at 4:34 pm
Couldn’t agree with you more Ash.
If we could have an elected upper chamber, the bishops, hereditaries, cronies and those who got a seat by giving a large donation to the party of their choice would be out.
Even if the Lords should maintain a reviewing role, do we really want bishops to be doing the reviewing.
One of the suggestions is to have those elected for a term of 12 years, so they have more security and are less affected by party leaders coming and going.