My latest piece for the Spectator looks at the question of Lords reform and poses the question: why we don’t remove the bishops at the same time as the hereditary peers?
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/labours-cynical-house-of-lords-reform/
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/labours-cynical-house-of-lords-reform/
Comments
But I think we all agree they've overstayed their welcome.
The Lords is a revising Chamber and with some quite minor changes could continue doing the good work it already does.
But that highlights why this move to prioritise stripping out the hereditaries - without doing more - looks rather cynical.
Will we see any further reform after that? 🤷♂️
But struggle to believe that the witless Williamson could be on the right side of any argument through principle; presumably he's merely (or at least mainly) mischief making.
Always assuming there's any actual intention to reform, where I share your dubiety...
Was always an easy and cost-free promise to make that would help keep more left-leaning and reform-minded (small "r") voters onside.
Political affiliation and funding should be ruled out in exchange for a fixed salary and employment contract.
...it's not OK to have an established Church without representation in the Parliament which makes its rules.
I have nothing against disestablishment. I do object to the idea it's OK to remove the Lords Spiritual without disestablishment.
Why couldn’t the CofE just have a single representative in the Lords?
A satanist couple turn up to a RC church in Redditch demanding to be married to make mockery. They are politely declined. They go to the CofE Church & similarly. They take CofE to court bc parliament has ruled CofE must marry anyone in England. They win. Fair? /1