Comments: Reforming the House of Lords

It all sounds like a bit of a struggle to maintain power and influence on the part of Their Lordships to me. Surely the Church of England will not cling to their status as governmental 'Lords Spiritual' under the present constitution - which denies any other Faith group the same or similar privelege?

I won't hold my breath on this, but I can truly understand how this situation will be closely monitored by other faith communities in the U.K. - and in the Anglican Communion at large, where Bishops are elected by the people of the diocese - for their appointed task of forwarding the Gospel mission, to ALL people, of the Church of God in their patch.

Theocratic Government is a problem in a democratic world-view.

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Saturday, 4 June 2011 at 2:10am BST

Pope John XXII is once said to have made the remark: 'Semper Reformanda" - about the Faith; but why should this not be applied to the House of Lords?

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Sunday, 5 June 2011 at 10:44am BST

Well, I think it is all very sad -- how is the PM going to do away without a gaga backbencher by making him a life peer?
And what about the Lords sitting as a Supreme Court (when only the Law Lords show up) -- I do not like Bush's Poodle at all!

Posted by Prior Aelred at Monday, 6 June 2011 at 1:27am BST

When President Botha offered to reform apartheid,Desmond Tutu responded, " You can't reform Apartheid, it is like rearranging tin cans in a wheel barrow." Same goes for this anachronism. lets do what the new zealanders did. That is abolish the second chamber or make it a senate of 100 members.

Posted by ROBERT IAN WILLIAMS at Tuesday, 7 June 2011 at 5:29am BST

Goodness me! I agree with Robert Williams. I am not sure about unicameral government since there seems to me to be something to be said for a delaying and revising chamber. But let's get rid of the present arrangements completely. The power of patronage is corrupt and corrupting. A second chamber, wholly elected on a different system, limited in power and numbers which has no place for bishops or other nominations is the only way to go. Otherwise, apart from anything else, we will have a second chamber dominated by ecclesiastics of various types and religions, who by their very nature are going to be inhibiting, conservative, cautious and generally reactionary.

Posted by Richard Ashby at Tuesday, 7 June 2011 at 1:32pm BST

And why in the 21st century should the wife of a created peer get a title, but the husband of a baroness no honour? Make them Senators for the term of their office only.. restricting costume dressing to the Queen.. and an upper age limit of 80.

Posted by robert ian Williams at Thursday, 9 June 2011 at 4:53pm BST

Good Lord. Robert Ian Williams wants to turn the British House of Lords into the Canadian Senate - a festering pustule on te arse end of our democracy that we would be well rid of.

BTW, RIW - the retirement age for those summoned to the Taskless Thanks of the Canadian Senate is 75.

Posted by Malcolm French+ at Friday, 10 June 2011 at 5:57am BST
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.