Do the bishops next

"I think this House, Parliament, and the public more widely will miss us," the Earl of Devon said.

We really won't

Them: "You'll miss us"

Us: "We don't think about you at all"

Nice.

Allocate the 26 seats in the lords to ministers of different institutions that people look to for moral guidance in accordance with their membership: there should be bishops in the Lords, but there should also be imams, humanists and a rabbi.

How about the clergymen, do they still get to vote on legislation in the UK?

I know we don't have a separation of church and state but the idea of religion being involved at all in politics is abhorrent to me. Sure, maybe they could have some kind of group that is consulted by members when it comes to deciding on legislation but the idea of them having direct voting powers in what should be an entirely secular house seems very wrong.

There is more people in the count other than you.

Good news but it's depressing and honestly shameful that it has taken so long. In any sane world this would have happened at least 50 years ago.

also, wtaf:

The BBC understands ministers have offered the Conservatives the chance to retain 15 hereditary members of the House of Lords as life peers.

Err, ok? Separating religion from politics is hardly a new concept though? I'm not saying religious wishes or groups should be ignored, I'm saying they shouldn't have a special and separate right to everyone else to be present in a lawmaking house.

The majority of hereditary peers, who inherit their titles through their families, were abolished in 1999 under the last Labour government and this bill gets rid of the last remaining 92.

Id love to know what made the 92 special or the 15 mentioned in another comment. Where they like close family lines to the royal family or something?

The Lords should represent all views, including religious ones. Creating a secular society isn't done by getting rid of bishops from parliament, because religious MPs and Lords will still be there. Secular society is only created when those in power agree not to let religious belief of one group restrict the behaviour of another.

But with that, there is nothing wrong with having bishops and imams in parliament. They bring an important perspective on ethical matters. I don't agree with the position of the church on assisted dying, but many people do, and having that perspective reflected is good, even if I would rather it didn't win out.

IIRC the 92 that were sitting were elected by all the heredetary peers who were eligable to sit in the Lords when the change came into effect. Ironicly making them the only elected members in the Lords.

I imagine something similar will happen here with the hereditaries that actually make useful contributions being turned into life peers.

wait. the house of lords is still unelected? I thought it had mostly become elected with some inherited left or such. You know never mind. I think imma go wikipedia this.

Hopefully the average age of those Lords is about 90.

Edit: I remembered the appointment process a bit wrong, see ohulancutash's reply

For the most part it is appointed. Each prime minister traditionally gives some people peerages at the end of their term, which entitles but does not require those people to sit in the House of Lords. On paper it's the king that does it, but in practice it's the PM. There are a few others like the last hereditary lords that this is about (they used to make up most of the House) and the lords spiritual (a couple dozen bishops from the church of England, who I would rather like to see get the same treatment as the hereditary peers)

WTF...this should have been 1899.

The next challenge is how to make it actually representative instead of being a reward for party cronies like Peter Mandelson. Maybe it could be something like jury duty and members of the public cycle in for a year (with training).

Peerages are handed out annually on the advice of the PM, and there is a quota system to allow each party to be represented in the intake. The end of term appointments are personal to the PM, and are not part of the same system.

Ahh, there's the danger of working off of memory without checking. That said, upon checking, it must be more than annually? If we take Blair as an example since he had a long tenure, it seems like he did a big chunk in June most (but not all) years but there are almost always at least a couple of other batches or individual appointments

At certain times you can buy them by bribing the right people be awarded them in recognition of your very kind and generous donations to important projects.

If a Lord retires from the house they need to be replaced

That surely can't be right, there was no way for a life peer to retire until quite recently (and after Blair's tenure)

They weren’t immortal you know.

Even if we include death, you can absolutely check the numbers and see that life peers are not replaced upon either retirement or death in any kind of timely manner. To use the years 2000 - 2006 as an example because that doesn't require me to combine more tables than necessary from wikipedia, the stretch from the summer appointments in 2001 through to the summer of 2004 saw very few new appointments, and then throughout the second half of 2005 there was a substantial batch of appointments after the main summer one that was bigger than the retirements/deaths that had happened since the summer batch

I'm quite happy to be proven wrong here but it'd be nice if you can point to a source, because I can't find one and everything I can find doesn't support it

I still disagree that this requires a special privilige within a house. The people of the house can be of whatever religion. If we were to go down a road where the house was made up of people where we needed a particular makeup to represent different views then sure, like if we had to have a guaranteed population of gender, LGBT+, race and other protected characteristics but to just say religion needs special representation makes no sense.

I've long held the opinion that the upper chamber should be 1/3 appointed apolitical experts (scientists, doctors businesspeople etc) and 2/3 sortition, so drawn from the pool of registered voters like jury duty is. That way your retain the best bit of the lords, the expertise, and make it a far more democratic body without it having a direct electoral mandate to challange the commons.

On a serious note: here's how you graciously relinquish power, and tactfully reclaim it, without guillotines or gulags or famines.

It's not often these days I can point to the UK as a positive example, but it is nice to see.