21 March 2010

Bishops’ seats & Lords reform

It's right that we should look at this. I'm a bit concerned that the way that the 'official' CofE response lookstoo much like self-serving justification.Church Times - Bishops’ seats threatened again in Lords reform: "“Any notion that a wholly elected second chamber will be other than a body dominated by the main political parties, to the exclusion of bishops and other senior faith representatives (for example the present Chief Rabbi, who is a member of the Lords), and of the many other able and experienced people who are not politicians and currently sit on the cross benches, is fanciful.”"
Of course it all depends on the way that the election was held. I too am not in favour of simply reproducing a Senate with a party political agenda: that would indeed be more of the same that the country seems to be rather sick of. But if we were to consider elections from a different kind of constituency which didn't really suit party politics, and perhaps favoured issues, well, that'd be worth doing: and it could make room for Church representation too ... See my proposals here and more posts here.

No comments:

"Spend and tax" not "tax and spend"

 I got a response from my MP which got me kind of mad. You'll see why as I reproduce it here. Apologies for the strange changes in types...