Skip to main content

MPs vote for an elected House of Lords

This week MPs voted for a fully elected second chamber in Parliament. It's not what the government wanted, and not what anyone expected but the vote came out with a clear majority for a 100% democratically elected House of Lords. This vote is 'indicative' not binding on ministers, but it gives a very clear signal.

I'd say it's about time. Frankly I find it embarassing that the lower house of the Parliament that runs this country is made up of heredity peers, appointees, and worst of all 26 Church of England bishops. It's a blight on our democracy, and needs reforming.

I always find it curious and a bit annoying that in America there is such organisations as Americans United for the Separation of Church and State to maintain a separation that is already constitutionally established; whereas in the UK, where there is no separation of church and state, there is no such organisation to campaign to create that separation.

One organisation that does want a separation of church and state is Ekklesia. I really like the stuff that comes out from them. About this vote they said, "This vote indicates clear support for bringing an end to an historical anomaly in the Second Chamber which has done no favours for either church or state.

"The removal of bishops from the House of Lords is long overdue. It has been a travesty that 26 men sit in Parliament simply because an undemocratic religious institution, in a curious conjunction with Government, has appointed them as their leaders.

"The presence of 26 bishops in Parliament implies that one brand of Christianity should be given special status over all other religions and belief systems. Not only is it at odds with democratic values, it is at odds with Christian values. Reform is long overdue, and the Government should now respond to the way that MPs have voted, and give their backing to the complete removal of bishops from the House of Lords."

Amen to that.

Comments

Yes, I've thought of going to Ireland too. But not very seriously.

I really have no idea how the Lord's should be constituted, but then again, neither does Parliament, so I don't feel too bad.
Rich said…
Just a small correction: The House of Lords is the upper house of Parliament, not the lower.

Talking about movements to separate church and state in the UK (you may note that the Church of Ireland, including Northern Ireland, and the Church of Wales have already been disestablished) is always an excuse to bring out the name of the movement that opposed it - Antidisestablishmentarianism.
Yes, Rich, always worth dropping that word into conversation if you possibly can!
Anonymous said…
The issue with a fully democratic second chamber, which I have always agreed with in principle (I am also pretty much a republican in the sense I believe strongly in meritocracy), is that it could become dominated by one party. If that one party also dominates the lower chamber, then there is potentially a loss of the check on power.

We should remember that one of the greatest challenges to some of the encroachments on our civil liberties by the current Labour government's various policies has been the House of Lords.

I'd still like to see some independently appointed experts and elder statepersons in there - individual voices rather than the party machine - but am happy that we now seem at least one step on the way to the end of the current system.

Perhaps the second chamber could have 80% elected members with full voting rights, and 20% appointed experts who have the right to speak there but not vote?

And note to Scott - NZ, Australia and Canada all stick technically have a monarchy - ours!

Popular posts from this blog

Radical?

When I started this blog nearly 4 years and nearly 300 posts ago one of the labels I used for it/me was "radical." Perhaps I used it a little unreflectively. Recently I've been pondering what radical means. A couple of things have made me think of this. Firstly this blog series from my friend Jeremy, which explores a distinction between "radical progressives" and "rational progressives." There is also this definition of radical, liberal and conservative from Terry Eagleton quoted at Young Anabaptist Radicals : “Radicals are those who believe that things are extremely bad with us, but they could feasibly be much improved. Conservatives believe that things are pretty bad, but that’s just the way the human animal is. And liberals believe that there’s a little bit of good and bad in all of us.” What interests me is finding a way to express the tension I feel sometimes between myself and the wider Unitarian movement. One way to express this is to say I tend

What does it mean to be non-creedal?

Steve Caldwell says "The problem here isn't humanism vs. theism for theist Unitarian Universalists -- it's the non-creedal nature of Unitarian Universalism" This is a good point. We need to think much more deeply about what it means to be a non-creedal religion. The first thing I want to say is that there is more than one possible understanding of non-creedalism. The Disciples of Christ are a non-creedal church, they say here : " Freedom of belief. Disciples are called together around one essential of faith: belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Persons are free to follow their consciences guided by the Bible, the Holy Spirit study and prayer, and are expected to extend that freedom to others." Quakers are also non-creedal and say here : Quakers have no set creed or dogma - that means we do not have any declared statements which you have to believe to be a Quaker. There are, however, some commonly held views which unite us. One accepted view is that th

What is Radical Christianity?

Radical Christianity is about encountering the God of love . It is first and foremost rooted in the discovery of a universal and unconditional source of love at the heart of reality and within each person. God is the name we give to this source of love. It is possible to have a direct and real personal encounter with this God through spiritual practice. We encounter God, and are nourished by God, through the regular practice of prayer, or contemplation.  Radical Christianity is about following a man called Jesus . It is rooted in the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish prophet living under occupation of the Roman Empire two thousand years ago. It understands that's Jesus' message was the message of liberation. His message was that when we truly encounter God, and let God's love flow through us, we begin to be liberated from the powers of empire and violence and encounter the  "realm of God" - an alternative spiritual and social reality rooted in love rather th