Bigger Than Your Average Bishopric
Political change in the UK tends to be a slow process. It's traditional, you know. The reform of the House of Lords has been on the political agenda for a while now, but, let's be gentlemen about it, it's only a hundred years since it was first officially stated that "...it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis...", so there's no need for any impatience, or, heaven forbid, rowdiness! After all, it was plainly stated at the time (Parliament Act, 1911) that "...such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation."
We're almost there but not quite yet. There's a couple of issues, or so, about which we can't quite decide what would be best. You see it's partly that word 'popular' which seems to be causing a bit of trouble. Some foolish people took it to mean that members of the reformed House would be selected by a vote of the common people. Goodness gracious! That would never do. We'd actual be something approaching a true representative democracy if that was to happen. And I'm sure I don't have to tell you where that leads!
So what's this 'popular' thing really about? Well there's some jolly popular chaps in the House, I can tell you, like good old Rowan, for example. He's got a palace or some such down Canterbury way, so I hear, and I believe he has a big bishopric too. He is very popular with the ladies. But you'd never know it by looking at him. Bit of a scruffy bugger, actually, but he knows a thing or two about all that spiritual stuff. 'S probably why he's one of the Lords Spiritual. You see, it's all so logical really.
[image error]
There's a splendid suggestion that the number of Lords in the House be reduced from something over 800 (I have to admit I don't know even half of them) to 300, with fully 80% elected by the peasants, er, common people. That should keep 'em happy, what? The other 20% would be appointed of course, so we can still delay things endlessly by talking a load of tommy-rot for hours on end. And if things get a bit heated, good old Rowan and his chums will still be there to do a bit of spiritual talk to calm things down.
I can't understand it myself, but there's been a bit of backlash about this idea. Some cad pointed out that the much vaunted reduction in the number of Lords Spiritual, from 26 to 12, actually means a proportional increase, in terms of Lords Spiritual, from 3.15% to 4%.
That prompted a bit of quick thinking, over a period of several weeks, and as a result, someone came up with an excellent ruse to divert attention. They put clauses into the proposals exempting the Lords Spiritual (the Battling Bishops as I like to call them) from the serious offence provision and those on expulsion and suspension, making them completely unaccountable to Parliament. Tally Ho!
But that's not the clever bit. Just as the furor erupted, Rowan comes rushing out saying, "who put that in? It's not what us nice cuddly Bishops want! That is completely unwarranted! We demand those clauses are removed so that we can sit in the House under the same terms as everyone else!"
Brilliant! Rowan and John (his bro from York) put it all down in writing too, so it's all official. With a bit of luck everyone will altogether forget about the 100% elected House of Lords option while they're all riled up about the preposterous exemptions for the Bishops. It might even hoodwink the British Humanist Association and that damn campaign of theirs.
[image error]
And to top it all off, David pulled a bit of a master stroke by saying he is considering plans to create a "multi-faith" House of Lords where Muslim imams could sit alongside bishops. If that doesn't get the plebs begging to just keep the good old Bishops I don't know what will!
[image error]
