Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Another poll showing almost no change – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited November 19 in General
Another poll showing almost no change – politicalbetting.com

Tories get 1% nearer with Opinium https://t.co/KIWMfJRYYZ

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 2,000
    Long way to go to the GE 👍
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,624
    For goodness sake Opinium.

    Better of two. Best of three.

    Starmer would make the BETTER PM.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,502

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,502
    algarkirk said:

    Scott_xP said:

    I suspect abolishing the House of Lords will be a massive cockup, cost billions, and the replacement will be not fit for purpose.

    But it is the only way since Brexit we can fuck off Dan Hannan.

    We need an unelected House of Lords with members who are appointed for particular expertise, and who have advisory and revising roles and with no power finally to prevent legislation. An elected one leads to deadlock. And the elected members would be much less use as most useful people would not stand for election.

    The current HoL is a start in the right direction.

    “We need an unelected House of Lords with members who are appointed for particular expertise”

    Do we? Saying what you said implies the only way Parliament can consult expertise is to have a quango second chamber for that.

    How is what you call “a need” delivered in the US for example?
  • carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    Starmer can end the ridiculous awarding of peerages as per Dorries and Tom Watson quite simply without entering a major constitution change at a time of continuing economic crisis
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,648

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,891
    edited November 19

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,527
    Lordy Lordy. This is interesting.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,229
    edited November 19

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    Very few people are actively supportive of the way it is currently made up though, even within it they'll usually talk of need to reform it, so abolishment or big reform will cause constitutional nerds excitement, and some argy bargy over the details, but not be very controversial whilst looking like he is sweeping away anachronisms and enacting major change. So politically its a good move.

    But since he is looking, just for starters as a reminder.
    • Upper limit on size to match the Commons (I've no issue with a large chamber, and frankly the room would look ridiculous if even at full capacity it was nearly empty)
    • Current members to be phased out over 2 parliaments to reach that size, in order of first appointed (need to clear away those serving for life under the old system)
    • Those who have not attended at least 50% of divisions without a good reason to immediately lose their peerage, and not be eligible for reappointment (It's supposed to be a job, even if not full time - ensuring a minimum attendance permits people of expertise to be appointed, so long as they commit to a proper service as a legislator)
    • No more ex-MPs admitted within 10 years (If you no longer wish to be an MP, you don't need to be a Lord - you can earn your way back in with post MP good work)
    • No donors to parties admitted within 5 years (avoids even appearance of buying peerages)
    • No resignation honours permitted (unnecessary)
    • 20 year maximum appointment (Life is too long, but if you want a chamber that can take a long view, fine)
    Shame he'll probably go with a boring 100 seat Senate of Nations and Regions, 25 from each nation. It seems to come up the most often.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,648
    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,070
    Jonathan said:

    Lordy Lordy. This is interesting.

    Senator Senator. It's an acquired taste.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,874

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    No it wouldn't, the monarch would still remain Supreme Governor.

    Though of course the monarch would have to agree to sign an Act of Parliament abolishing the House of Lords and the House of Lords could delay any such Act too.

    An elected upper house would also be far more willing to vote down Bills given it had its own elected mandate too
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,229

    Jonathan said:

    Lordy Lordy. This is interesting.

    Senator Senator. It's an acquired taste.
    I'd prefer they stick with Lord, even if it was an elected Chamber. Senate is fine, but I'd like a bit of unqiueness.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,527

    Jonathan said:

    Lordy Lordy. This is interesting.

    Senator Senator. It's an acquired taste.
    I like it. Progress. Long overdue.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,070
    I wonder if Starmer secretly reads pb and is an avid politics nerd.

    Watch out if he starts salivating over AV, and legislating to ban fruit on pizza.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,874

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 7,100
    kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Lordy Lordy. This is interesting.

    Senator Senator. It's an acquired taste.
    I'd prefer they stick with Lord, even if it was an elected Chamber. Senate is fine, but I'd like a bit of unqiueness.
    Lord should relate to someone who's been appointed. John Prescott dislikes the term yet doesn't object to the fact he can sit in parliament for the rest of his life without having to be answerable to the voters.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,582
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Lordy Lordy. This is interesting.

    Senator Senator. It's an acquired taste.
    I like it. Progress. Long overdue.
    'Senator' is a title from Ancient Rome...
  • DJ41DJ41 Posts: 404
    "Man being processed at Manston detention centre in Kent dies".

    A Home Office spokesperson: "We wish to express our heartfelt condolences to all those affected. Until a postmortem examination takes place, we cannot comment in detail, but there is no evidence at this stage to suggest that this tragic death was caused by an infectious disease. We take the safety and welfare of those in our care extremely seriously."

    That must be why the Home Office allowed unaccompanied refugee children to be put into the care of landlord Nicholas van Hoogstraten.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,229

    kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Lordy Lordy. This is interesting.

    Senator Senator. It's an acquired taste.
    I'd prefer they stick with Lord, even if it was an elected Chamber. Senate is fine, but I'd like a bit of unqiueness.
    Lord should relate to someone who's been appointed..
    That's why it'll be funnier if people who are elected have to go by it.

  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,502
    On topic. I don’t believe the polling saying the dial was not moved by this budget, my hunch is stick to PB delayed reaction rule, where political events take a week or so to show in polling, making mugs of anyone who think it’s already there - though we have from evidence identified delayed reaction phenomenon exists, it is still largely unexplained as to why or how. I think we will be able to say this budget moved things one way or other after about two weeks of polling.

    To add to the header on Opinium polling putting Truss Con just five behind Labour - all the year under the misdemeanours of Boris the Opinium gap was rarely larger than 4, in the 33-39 range.

    I would disagree Sunak is safe as houses in number 10 - the only thing that could make Sunak safe is Party discipline on basis that despite differences the Party can still support him his chancellor and budget, and the jury has to be out on that. We already see public opposition from those who fundamentally disagree so can’t remain silent or publicly continue support, but are they just a clique or are there great swathes of the party who feel this way?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,582
    DJ41 said:

    "Man being processed at Manston detention centre in Kent dies".

    A Home Office spokesperson: "We wish to express our heartfelt condolences to all those affected. Until a postmortem examination takes place, we cannot comment in detail, but there is no evidence at this stage to suggest that this tragic death was caused by an infectious disease. We take the safety and welfare of those in our care extremely seriously."

    That must be why the Home Office allowed unaccompanied refugee children to be put into the care of landlord Nicholas van Hoogstraten.

    They were staying in hotels he owned, not placed in his care.

    That's bad enough without exaggeration. (Especially as given his record he shouldn't be allowed to own any commercial property.)
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,322
    DJ41 said:

    "Man being processed at Manston detention centre in Kent dies".

    A Home Office spokesperson: "We wish to express our heartfelt condolences to all those affected. Until a postmortem examination takes place, we cannot comment in detail, but there is no evidence at this stage to suggest that this tragic death was caused by an infectious disease. We take the safety and welfare of those in our care extremely seriously."

    That must be why the Home Office allowed unaccompanied refugee children to be put into the care of landlord Nicholas van Hoogstraten.

    https://youtu.be/iQXRsshaZk8
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,648
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 2,000

    I wonder if Starmer secretly reads pb and is an avid politics nerd.

    Watch out if he starts salivating over AV, and legislating to ban fruit on pizza.

    I think that there are a lot of high level politicians who 'secretly' follow PB...
  • carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    Starmer can end the ridiculous awarding of peerages as per Dorries and Tom Watson quite simply without entering a major constitution change at a time of continuing economic crisis
    By the end of 2024, the acute phase of the economic crisis should be over. And given that tax (as much as anyone can get away with) and spend (as little as possible) are going to run themselves irrespective of which grownups are in charge, the Commones might as well sort this sort of thing out if it needs sorting.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,130
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    The removal of the Lord Bishops (you are right that not all diocese bishops are Lords - they have to wait their turn) would be a bad move imo and generally i think the Lords should be made up of professions rather than politicians
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,874

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    The removal of the Lord Bishops (you are right that not all diocese bishops are Lords - they have to wait their turn) would be a bad move imo and generally i think the Lords should be made up of professions rather than politicians
    Agree entirely and any Tory Party worth its salt should fight any such change hard
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,130

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    Its good to have God represented though in the Lords (as it would other professions and not just politicians)
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,891

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    The removal of the Lord Bishops (you are right that not all diocese bishops are Lords - they have to wait their turn) would be a bad move imo and generally i think the Lords should be made up of professions rather than politicians
    On the other hand, the C of E ought to be barred completely from the Lords and other sects and religions adopted instead for the next, oh, I don't know, 500 years? Only fair to balance out.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,891
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    The removal of the Lord Bishops (you are right that not all diocese bishops are Lords - they have to wait their turn) would be a bad move imo and generally i think the Lords should be made up of professions rather than politicians
    Agree entirely and any Tory Party worth its salt should fight any such change hard
    In other words, a bunch of mediaeval theocrats.
  • carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    Starmer can end the ridiculous awarding of peerages as per Dorries and Tom Watson quite simply without entering a major constitution change at a time of continuing economic crisis
    By the end of 2024, the acute phase of the economic crisis should be over. And given that tax (as much as anyone can get away with) and spend (as little as possible) are going to run themselves irrespective of which grownups are in charge, the Commones might as well sort this sort of thing out if it needs sorting.
    I very much doubt that the economic crisis will be over before the later part of this decade
  • To correct my post on the other thread the L/L/G vote was down 2% to 58 not up 2. So that's not quite so bad for the Cons.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 7,100
    I understand the problem with tax rates of 60% once you are over the £100k threshold. However I think there are far more fundamental economic problems that we face. We have among the lowest levels of automation for an advanced economy. Yet Lord Wolfson states that we need more low skilled migration in order for his business to succeed. Why? We have substantial amounts of net migration already.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,891
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    The removal of the Lord Bishops (you are right that not all diocese bishops are Lords - they have to wait their turn) would be a bad move imo and generally i think the Lords should be made up of professions rather than politicians
    On the other hand, the C of E ought to be barred completely from the Lords and other sects and religions adopted instead for the next, oh, I don't know, 500 years? Only fair to balance out.
    Edit: not to mention about 50% selected precisely for being atheists, rationalists, etc.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,874

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,546

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment


    I don't think so. Let us suppose that there were a revised HoL or a new chamber altogether with no bishops having the right to sit in it.

    That on its own would not disestablish the CoE, it would merely change a part of the state/ecclesiastical settlement. To disestablish would require primary legislation, which would also touch upn the constitutional settlement between parliament and crown.

    Personally I am an antidisestablishmentarian, and I think the case is fairly decent intellectually; but the really profound case for the establishment is that it would be an immense upheaval, dig up huge numbers of sleeping dogs and buried bodies and fundamentally alter the meaning of the monarchy (in my eyes it would cease to exist really).

    No government will ever be prepared for the effort, when most people simply don't care either way.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,874
    edited November 19
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    The removal of the Lord Bishops (you are right that not all diocese bishops are Lords - they have to wait their turn) would be a bad move imo and generally i think the Lords should be made up of professions rather than politicians
    On the other hand, the C of E ought to be barred completely from the Lords and other sects and religions adopted instead for the next, oh, I don't know, 500 years? Only fair to balance out.
    Absolutely not, the fact the C of E is the established church and religion means Rome and Islam are not. We allow freedom of worship of whatever denomination or religion but the C of E is our established church
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,130
    edited November 19
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    The removal of the Lord Bishops (you are right that not all diocese bishops are Lords - they have to wait their turn) would be a bad move imo and generally i think the Lords should be made up of professions rather than politicians
    On the other hand, the C of E ought to be barred completely from the Lords and other sects and religions adopted instead for the next, oh, I don't know, 500 years? Only fair to balance out.
    why - England is a mainly christian and anglican country - In dark times today spirituality is perhaps needed more than ever - certainly I would not take guidance from politicians like Johnson as how to behave.The Cof E evolves of course and has done pretty successfully imo. People still take note when the Archbishop of Canterbury speaks especially over issues like poverty and hope
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,229

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    The removal of the Lord Bishops (you are right that not all diocese bishops are Lords - they have to wait their turn) would be a bad move imo and generally i think the Lords should be made up of professions rather than politicians
    When you have people making or scrutinising legislation and policy, they become politicians. Why not for an Assembly of Saints again?

    Appointments is supposed to get at least a few more experts whose views are worthwhile but wouldn't stand for parliament in, but professional blocs wouldn't eliminte politcs.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,874
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    The removal of the Lord Bishops (you are right that not all diocese bishops are Lords - they have to wait their turn) would be a bad move imo and generally i think the Lords should be made up of professions rather than politicians
    Agree entirely and any Tory Party worth its salt should fight any such change hard
    In other words, a bunch of mediaeval theocrats.
    Better that than a Scottish Nationalist
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,130
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    The removal of the Lord Bishops (you are right that not all diocese bishops are Lords - they have to wait their turn) would be a bad move imo and generally i think the Lords should be made up of professions rather than politicians
    Agree entirely and any Tory Party worth its salt should fight any such change hard
    In other words, a bunch of mediaeval theocrats.
    there is nothing medieval about the modern CofE
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,891
    algarkirk said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment


    I don't think so. Let us suppose that there were a revised HoL or a new chamber altogether with no bishops having the right to sit in it.

    That on its own would not disestablish the CoE, it would merely change a part of the state/ecclesiastical settlement. To disestablish would require primary legislation, which would also touch upn the constitutional settlement between parliament and crown.

    Personally I am an antidisestablishmentarian, and I think the case is fairly decent intellectually; but the really profound case for the establishment is that it would be an immense upheaval, dig up huge numbers of sleeping dogs and buried bodies and fundamentally alter the meaning of the monarchy (in my eyes it would cease to exist really).

    No government will ever be prepared for the effort, when most people simply don't care either way.
    I think that's right, from one point of view. Yet one narrow sect of one religion is given total dominance in the mostly English state. Not relevant to Wales, NI or Scotland. Or to the majority who are not C of E.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,101
    Now I understand why Rishi doesn't want any ministers going on the radio every morning
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,029

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    The removal of the Lord Bishops (you are right that not all diocese bishops are Lords - they have to wait their turn) would be a bad move imo and generally i think the Lords should be made up of professions rather than politicians
    On the other hand, the C of E ought to be barred completely from the Lords and other sects and religions adopted instead for the next, oh, I don't know, 500 years? Only fair to balance out.
    why - England is a mainly christian and anglican country - In dark times today spirituality is perhaps needed more than ever - certainly I would not take guidance from politicians like Johnson as how to behave.The Cof E evolves of course and has done pretty successfully imo. People still take not when the Archbishop of Canterbury speaks especially over issues like poverty and hope
    Johnson and his successors choose the head of the Church.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,891
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    The removal of the Lord Bishops (you are right that not all diocese bishops are Lords - they have to wait their turn) would be a bad move imo and generally i think the Lords should be made up of professions rather than politicians
    Agree entirely and any Tory Party worth its salt should fight any such change hard
    In other words, a bunch of mediaeval theocrats.
    Better that than a Scottish Nationalist
    Away and play with a train set. You still can't explain why we have to stick with Henry VIII's mess of a constitution 500+ years later.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,874
    edited November 19
    Carnyx said:

    algarkirk said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment


    I don't think so. Let us suppose that there were a revised HoL or a new chamber altogether with no bishops having the right to sit in it.

    That on its own would not disestablish the CoE, it would merely change a part of the state/ecclesiastical settlement. To disestablish would require primary legislation, which would also touch upn the constitutional settlement between parliament and crown.

    Personally I am an antidisestablishmentarian, and I think the case is fairly decent intellectually; but the really profound case for the establishment is that it would be an immense upheaval, dig up huge numbers of sleeping dogs and buried bodies and fundamentally alter the meaning of the monarchy (in my eyes it would cease to exist really).

    No government will ever be prepared for the effort, when most people simply don't care either way.
    I think that's right, from one point of view. Yet one narrow sect of one religion is given total dominance in the mostly English state. Not relevant to Wales, NI or Scotland. Or to the majority who are not C of E.
    Scotland of course now has more Roman Catholics than England percentage wise as you have no Protestant established church, so the Pope therefore has more influence north of the border than down south
  • barrykennabarrykenna Posts: 202
    edited November 19

    On topic. I don’t believe the polling saying the dial was not moved by this budget, my hunch is stick to PB delayed reaction rule, where political events take a week or so to show in polling, making mugs of anyone who think it’s already there - though we have from evidence identified delayed reaction phenomenon exists, it is still largely unexplained as to why or how. I think we will be able to say this budget moved things one way or other after about two weeks of polling.

    To add to the header on Opinium polling putting Truss Con just five behind Labour - all the year under the misdemeanours of Boris the Opinium gap was rarely larger than 4, in the 33-39 range.

    I would disagree Sunak is safe as houses in number 10 - the only thing that could make Sunak safe is Party discipline on basis that despite differences the Party can still support him his chancellor and budget, and the jury has to be out on that. We already see public opposition from those who fundamentally disagree so can’t remain silent or publicly continue support, but are they just a clique or are there great swathes of the party who feel this way?

    Opinium tends to show smaller Labour leads because it allows for likely 'swingback' . In that sense, it is providing a prediction of how things will stand in the future rather than being an indicator of the current state of the parties. Of course , some 'swingback' has already occurred. How much more remains?
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,502

    To correct my post on the other thread the L/L/G vote was down 2% to 58 not up 2. So that's not quite so bad for the Cons.

    I think you were right the first time, LLG has grown by 2 to 58?

    Other of 7 reported, but no slice of bar for Reform.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,546
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    The removal of the Lord Bishops (you are right that not all diocese bishops are Lords - they have to wait their turn) would be a bad move imo and generally i think the Lords should be made up of professions rather than politicians
    Agree entirely and any Tory Party worth its salt should fight any such change hard
    In other words, a bunch of mediaeval theocrats.
    I think in a good light it is possible to distinguish between good, kind Stephen Conway the Bishop of Ely, and the Spanish Inquisition. Also with effort one can draw subtle and nice distinctions between the theocracy of Westminster and that of either Tehran or the House of Saud.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,624
    The massed forces of antidisestablishmentarianism have been unleashed on PB.

    Captain HY leading the charge.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,891
    edited November 19

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    The removal of the Lord Bishops (you are right that not all diocese bishops are Lords - they have to wait their turn) would be a bad move imo and generally i think the Lords should be made up of professions rather than politicians
    On the other hand, the C of E ought to be barred completely from the Lords and other sects and religions adopted instead for the next, oh, I don't know, 500 years? Only fair to balance out.
    why - England is a mainly christian and anglican country - In dark times today spirituality is perhaps needed more than ever - certainly I would not take guidance from politicians like Johnson as how to behave.The Cof E evolves of course and has done pretty successfully imo. People still take note when the Archbishop of Canterbury speaks especially over issues like poverty and hope
    Mainly? Seriously?

    C of E is only 47% - and that includes very many purely nominal ones. And that is Enngland, not the UK as a whole.

    Might as well go back to the old days of only letting the men, or the property owners, vote.

    And by definition the C of E is controlled by politicians such as Johnson - he did step down nominally when he became a RC, but yes, it is part of the state in that sense.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,229
    I find it hilarious the temporary situation of hereditary peers has continued for over 20 years, with some really funny by-elections to replace them (such as the Lord Avebury one, with 7 candidates but only 3 eligible voters).

    The indicative votes in 2003 seems like it was fun.

    Results of parliamentary votes, 4 February 2003

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_of_the_House_of_Lords#Votes_of_February_2003
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,891
    edited November 19
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    algarkirk said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment


    I don't think so. Let us suppose that there were a revised HoL or a new chamber altogether with no bishops having the right to sit in it.

    That on its own would not disestablish the CoE, it would merely change a part of the state/ecclesiastical settlement. To disestablish would require primary legislation, which would also touch upn the constitutional settlement between parliament and crown.

    Personally I am an antidisestablishmentarian, and I think the case is fairly decent intellectually; but the really profound case for the establishment is that it would be an immense upheaval, dig up huge numbers of sleeping dogs and buried bodies and fundamentally alter the meaning of the monarchy (in my eyes it would cease to exist really).

    No government will ever be prepared for the effort, when most people simply don't care either way.
    I think that's right, from one point of view. Yet one narrow sect of one religion is given total dominance in the mostly English state. Not relevant to Wales, NI or Scotland. Or to the majority who are not C of E.
    Scotland of course now has more Roman Catholics than England percentage wise as you have no Protestant established church, so the Pope therefore has more influence north of the border than down south
    Away and stop trying to restart the Gordon Riots.

    Edit: KC3 would be very surprised by you, in more than one way.

    Plus, a large chunk of the C of E is practically RC anyway.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,546
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    The removal of the Lord Bishops (you are right that not all diocese bishops are Lords - they have to wait their turn) would be a bad move imo and generally i think the Lords should be made up of professions rather than politicians
    Agree entirely and any Tory Party worth its salt should fight any such change hard
    In other words, a bunch of mediaeval theocrats.
    Better that than a Scottish Nationalist
    Away and play with a train set. You still can't explain why we have to stick with Henry VIII's mess of a constitution 500+ years later.
    It's Burkeans versus Bonapartists. (I'm a Burkean). There is a clear line of organic development from then till now; it's the same tree but it is not in the same state as under Henry VIII. Don't cut down the tree.

  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,648
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,891

    The massed forces of antidisestablishmentarianism have been unleashed on PB.

    Captain HY leading the charge.

    Finding myself working out if it is theoretically possible to achieve that word on Scrabble. Sadly, no.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,546
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    algarkirk said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment


    I don't think so. Let us suppose that there were a revised HoL or a new chamber altogether with no bishops having the right to sit in it.

    That on its own would not disestablish the CoE, it would merely change a part of the state/ecclesiastical settlement. To disestablish would require primary legislation, which would also touch upn the constitutional settlement between parliament and crown.

    Personally I am an antidisestablishmentarian, and I think the case is fairly decent intellectually; but the really profound case for the establishment is that it would be an immense upheaval, dig up huge numbers of sleeping dogs and buried bodies and fundamentally alter the meaning of the monarchy (in my eyes it would cease to exist really).

    No government will ever be prepared for the effort, when most people simply don't care either way.
    I think that's right, from one point of view. Yet one narrow sect of one religion is given total dominance in the mostly English state. Not relevant to Wales, NI or Scotland. Or to the majority who are not C of E.
    Scotland of course now has more Roman Catholics than England percentage wise as you have no Protestant established church, so the Pope therefore has more influence north of the border than down south
    Away and stop trying to restart the Gordon Riots.
    Dickens's most under rated novel is about the Gordon Riots: Barnaby Rudge. Read and reread. Great.

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,891
    algarkirk said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    The removal of the Lord Bishops (you are right that not all diocese bishops are Lords - they have to wait their turn) would be a bad move imo and generally i think the Lords should be made up of professions rather than politicians
    Agree entirely and any Tory Party worth its salt should fight any such change hard
    In other words, a bunch of mediaeval theocrats.
    Better that than a Scottish Nationalist
    Away and play with a train set. You still can't explain why we have to stick with Henry VIII's mess of a constitution 500+ years later.
    It's Burkeans versus Bonapartists. (I'm a Burkean). There is a clear line of organic development from then till now; it's the same tree but it is not in the same state as under Henry VIII. Don't cut down the tree.

    On the other hand: by their fruits shall ye know them.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,130
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    i was honoured to meet my local Lord Bishop at my parish the other month and the position still inspires hope and awe and humility in me (a cynical middle aged man) - It would be a huge loss for the Bishops to leave the Lords
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,891
    algarkirk said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    algarkirk said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment


    I don't think so. Let us suppose that there were a revised HoL or a new chamber altogether with no bishops having the right to sit in it.

    That on its own would not disestablish the CoE, it would merely change a part of the state/ecclesiastical settlement. To disestablish would require primary legislation, which would also touch upn the constitutional settlement between parliament and crown.

    Personally I am an antidisestablishmentarian, and I think the case is fairly decent intellectually; but the really profound case for the establishment is that it would be an immense upheaval, dig up huge numbers of sleeping dogs and buried bodies and fundamentally alter the meaning of the monarchy (in my eyes it would cease to exist really).

    No government will ever be prepared for the effort, when most people simply don't care either way.
    I think that's right, from one point of view. Yet one narrow sect of one religion is given total dominance in the mostly English state. Not relevant to Wales, NI or Scotland. Or to the majority who are not C of E.
    Scotland of course now has more Roman Catholics than England percentage wise as you have no Protestant established church, so the Pope therefore has more influence north of the border than down south
    Away and stop trying to restart the Gordon Riots.
    Dickens's most under rated novel is about the Gordon Riots: Barnaby Rudge. Read and reread. Great.

    Mm, must try that. Thanks.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,502
    edited November 19

    On topic. I don’t believe the polling saying the dial was not moved by this budget, my hunch is stick to PB delayed reaction rule, where political events take a week or so to show in polling, making mugs of anyone who think it’s already there - though we have from evidence identified delayed reaction phenomenon exists, it is still largely unexplained as to why or how. I think we will be able to say this budget moved things one way or other after about two weeks of polling.

    To add to the header on Opinium polling putting Truss Con just five behind Labour - all the year under the misdemeanours of Boris the Opinium gap was rarely larger than 4, in the 33-39 range.

    I would disagree Sunak is safe as houses in number 10 - the only thing that could make Sunak safe is Party discipline on basis that despite differences the Party can still support him his chancellor and budget, and the jury has to be out on that. We already see public opposition from those who fundamentally disagree so can’t remain silent or publicly continue support, but are they just a clique or are there great swathes of the party who feel this way?

    Opinium tends to show smaller Labour leads because it allows for likely 'swingback' . In that sense, it is providing a prediction of how things will stand in the future rather than being an indicator of the current state of the parties. Of course , some 'swingback' has already occurred. How much more remains?
    Yes Opinium use a swing back methodology. Do you think it’s just used on the party figures, Baz, or mangle the best PM figures too?

    When we have discussed the Opinium method before we assumed the size of don’t know won’t say affects the size of swingback, smaller pool, less swing. Maybe Con % under Boris was inflated by a bigger pool of these, the pool smaller now hence less swing back. It’s only six away after all.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,546
    Carnyx said:

    algarkirk said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    The removal of the Lord Bishops (you are right that not all diocese bishops are Lords - they have to wait their turn) would be a bad move imo and generally i think the Lords should be made up of professions rather than politicians
    Agree entirely and any Tory Party worth its salt should fight any such change hard
    In other words, a bunch of mediaeval theocrats.
    Better that than a Scottish Nationalist
    Away and play with a train set. You still can't explain why we have to stick with Henry VIII's mess of a constitution 500+ years later.
    It's Burkeans versus Bonapartists. (I'm a Burkean). There is a clear line of organic development from then till now; it's the same tree but it is not in the same state as under Henry VIII. Don't cut down the tree.

    On the other hand: by their fruits shall ye know them.
    Carnyx said:

    algarkirk said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    The removal of the Lord Bishops (you are right that not all diocese bishops are Lords - they have to wait their turn) would be a bad move imo and generally i think the Lords should be made up of professions rather than politicians
    Agree entirely and any Tory Party worth its salt should fight any such change hard
    In other words, a bunch of mediaeval theocrats.
    Better that than a Scottish Nationalist
    Away and play with a train set. You still can't explain why we have to stick with Henry VIII's mess of a constitution 500+ years later.
    It's Burkeans versus Bonapartists. (I'm a Burkean). There is a clear line of organic development from then till now; it's the same tree but it is not in the same state as under Henry VIII. Don't cut down the tree.

    On the other hand: by their fruits shall ye know them.
    Not if you cut down the tree.

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,891
    algarkirk said:

    Carnyx said:

    algarkirk said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    The removal of the Lord Bishops (you are right that not all diocese bishops are Lords - they have to wait their turn) would be a bad move imo and generally i think the Lords should be made up of professions rather than politicians
    Agree entirely and any Tory Party worth its salt should fight any such change hard
    In other words, a bunch of mediaeval theocrats.
    Better that than a Scottish Nationalist
    Away and play with a train set. You still can't explain why we have to stick with Henry VIII's mess of a constitution 500+ years later.
    It's Burkeans versus Bonapartists. (I'm a Burkean). There is a clear line of organic development from then till now; it's the same tree but it is not in the same state as under Henry VIII. Don't cut down the tree.

    On the other hand: by their fruits shall ye know them.
    Carnyx said:

    algarkirk said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    The removal of the Lord Bishops (you are right that not all diocese bishops are Lords - they have to wait their turn) would be a bad move imo and generally i think the Lords should be made up of professions rather than politicians
    Agree entirely and any Tory Party worth its salt should fight any such change hard
    In other words, a bunch of mediaeval theocrats.
    Better that than a Scottish Nationalist
    Away and play with a train set. You still can't explain why we have to stick with Henry VIII's mess of a constitution 500+ years later.
    It's Burkeans versus Bonapartists. (I'm a Burkean). There is a clear line of organic development from then till now; it's the same tree but it is not in the same state as under Henry VIII. Don't cut down the tree.

    On the other hand: by their fruits shall ye know them.
    Not if you cut down the tree.

    As I recall, that was precisely the advice given at the relevant time, if the fruits were unworthy.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,471
    DJ41 said:

    "Man being processed at Manston detention centre in Kent dies".

    A Home Office spokesperson: "We wish to express our heartfelt condolences to all those affected. Until a postmortem examination takes place, we cannot comment in detail, but there is no evidence at this stage to suggest that this tragic death was caused by an infectious disease. We take the safety and welfare of those in our care extremely seriously."

    That must be why the Home Office allowed unaccompanied refugee children to be put into the care of landlord Nicholas van Hoogstraten.

    He was actually Nicholas Hoogstraten; I believe he added the 'Van' to give a touch of noblesse oblige. Denise Van Outen did the same.
  • TresTres Posts: 1,338
    Bishops in parliament is an anachronism that should be abolished along with the rest of the Lords.
  • Excellent policy from Keir
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,874
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    algarkirk said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment


    I don't think so. Let us suppose that there were a revised HoL or a new chamber altogether with no bishops having the right to sit in it.

    That on its own would not disestablish the CoE, it would merely change a part of the state/ecclesiastical settlement. To disestablish would require primary legislation, which would also touch upn the constitutional settlement between parliament and crown.

    Personally I am an antidisestablishmentarian, and I think the case is fairly decent intellectually; but the really profound case for the establishment is that it would be an immense upheaval, dig up huge numbers of sleeping dogs and buried bodies and fundamentally alter the meaning of the monarchy (in my eyes it would cease to exist really).

    No government will ever be prepared for the effort, when most people simply don't care either way.
    I think that's right, from one point of view. Yet one narrow sect of one religion is given total dominance in the mostly English state. Not relevant to Wales, NI or Scotland. Or to the majority who are not C of E.
    Scotland of course now has more Roman Catholics than England percentage wise as you have no Protestant established church, so the Pope therefore has more influence north of the border than down south
    Away and stop trying to restart the Gordon Riots.

    Edit: KC3 would be very surprised by you, in more than one way.

    Plus, a large chunk of the C of E is practically RC anyway.
    It is a fact though, 16% of Scots are Roman Catholic but only 9% of English are Roman Catholic.

    Anglo Catholics are just a small minority within the C of E, there are significantly more liberals and evangelicals within it

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Scotland

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_England
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,874

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,502

    On topic. I don’t believe the polling saying the dial was not moved by this budget, my hunch is stick to PB delayed reaction rule, where political events take a week or so to show in polling, making mugs of anyone who think it’s already there - though we have from evidence identified delayed reaction phenomenon exists, it is still largely unexplained as to why or how. I think we will be able to say this budget moved things one way or other after about two weeks of polling.

    To add to the header on Opinium polling putting Truss Con just five behind Labour - all the year under the misdemeanours of Boris the Opinium gap was rarely larger than 4, in the 33-39 range.

    I would disagree Sunak is safe as houses in number 10 - the only thing that could make Sunak safe is Party discipline on basis that despite differences the Party can still support him his chancellor and budget, and the jury has to be out on that. We already see public opposition from those who fundamentally disagree so can’t remain silent or publicly continue support, but are they just a clique or are there great swathes of the party who feel this way?

    Someone giving it a like has merely encouraged me, to answer my own question.

    I don’t believe the current budget rebels are just a clique, or even just an ERG or right wing clique, I think they speak for the more silent majority of the Conservative party - however, that doesn’t even matter today. Imagine the Truss argument against what Sunak and Hunt have done but in the hands of better, more able communicators, arguing for growth instead of austerity, arguing there were other options and this budget was a political choice not a necessity, arguing this against a backdrop of Hunt and Sunak’s plan apparently failing, and, not argued by just one person, but from a whole range voices across the party. In that scenario even if it’s just a niche view now, it can certainly gain support into majority view. This is why I wouldn’t have Sunak safe as houses at any point in his brief turn as PM.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,412

    Excellent policy from Keir

    I think we a ripe for change, but what that change should be should be open for discussion. There is no absolute need for two chambers. The primary must be elected. I worry about an elected second house - who would it attract, if the power resides in the House of Commons?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,222
    I think that both Bishops and hereditaries do a useful job in highlighting the absurdity and pointlessness of the House of Lords as do has been and never was politicians and various donors. It really is ridiculous and it is long past time that this freak show was retired.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,648
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
  • DavidL said:

    I think that both Bishops and hereditaries do a useful job in highlighting the absurdity and pointlessness of the House of Lords as do has been and never was politicians and various donors. It really is ridiculous and it is long past time that this freak show was retired.

    I couldn't agree more and stopping political appointments such as Dorries and Tom Watson should be relatively easy to achieve

    What comes after is of course much more complex
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,130

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
    The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 19,555

    Excellent policy from Keir

    Yeah addressing the issue right at the top of peoples concerns.

    FFS mate he has gone along with the £54bn black hole and austerity 2 this week and said we employ too many foreigners in the NHS this week and ruled out inflation matching pay offers. He has said he is happy to kiss a Tory and has many Tory friends.

    I see Mrs SKS can clearly say she has done the same this very week

    How can you give a stuff about the 2nd chamber with all this shit going on?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,874

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
    The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
    The RC also has no women priests or openly homosexual priests and is firmly anti gay marriage
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 7,100
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    The main christian church in the UK? I'm puzzled by your logic. What is the largest christian church in the UK? And how would not having the monarch as supreme governor mean that that title goes to the Pope?
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,648
    edited November 19

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
    The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
    Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,046
    So, a question for MSPs and those who support the government’s gender reforms: is Dolatowski a “predatory male” or a “trans woman”? Or is she actually both of these things? And if she is both, what are the implications of that status?

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/fc90146c-6813-11ed-bcd8-599592d95f22?shareToken=ce5a93cacf684cb8af27de9a2cc11565
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,874

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
    The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
    Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
    Plenty of African and Eastern European migrants are Catholic and Catholics tend to have higher birthrates.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 29,974

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
    The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
    An important feature of Bishop in the Lords is that takes up places that might otherwise go to people who are a bit too much into God Bothering.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,101
    ...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,874

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    The main christian church in the UK? I'm puzzled by your logic. What is the largest christian church in the UK? And how would not having the monarch as supreme governor mean that that title goes to the Pope?
    As in most other Christian nations on earth the Roman Catholic church is the largest church, in Northern Ireland and Wales now too and probably within a decade or 2 Scotland (given the Church of England has a higher percentage lead in England over the RC church than the Church of Scotland does over the RC Church in Scotland).

    Protestants might be more counting Pentecostal evangelicals etc but being the largest Christian denomination again in England would be a huge coup for the Vatican
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,471
    I like the House of Lords. I would democratise the House of Lords by appointing Lords (still for life) proportionally according to vote percentages in the most recent GE. So you'd see a gentle evolution, some peers from smaller parties, much fairer but not a radical change.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,546
    Carnyx said:

    algarkirk said:

    Carnyx said:

    algarkirk said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    The removal of the Lord Bishops (you are right that not all diocese bishops are Lords - they have to wait their turn) would be a bad move imo and generally i think the Lords should be made up of professions rather than politicians
    Agree entirely and any Tory Party worth its salt should fight any such change hard
    In other words, a bunch of mediaeval theocrats.
    Better that than a Scottish Nationalist
    Away and play with a train set. You still can't explain why we have to stick with Henry VIII's mess of a constitution 500+ years later.
    It's Burkeans versus Bonapartists. (I'm a Burkean). There is a clear line of organic development from then till now; it's the same tree but it is not in the same state as under Henry VIII. Don't cut down the tree.

    On the other hand: by their fruits shall ye know them.
    Carnyx said:

    algarkirk said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    The removal of the Lord Bishops (you are right that not all diocese bishops are Lords - they have to wait their turn) would be a bad move imo and generally i think the Lords should be made up of professions rather than politicians
    Agree entirely and any Tory Party worth its salt should fight any such change hard
    In other words, a bunch of mediaeval theocrats.
    Better that than a Scottish Nationalist
    Away and play with a train set. You still can't explain why we have to stick with Henry VIII's mess of a constitution 500+ years later.
    It's Burkeans versus Bonapartists. (I'm a Burkean). There is a clear line of organic development from then till now; it's the same tree but it is not in the same state as under Henry VIII. Don't cut down the tree.

    On the other hand: by their fruits shall ye know them.
    Not if you cut down the tree.

    As I recall, that was precisely the advice given at the relevant time, if the fruits were unworthy.
    A very fair point, on top authority.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,874

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
    The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
    An important feature of Bishop in the Lords is that takes up places that might otherwise go to people who are a bit too much into God Bothering.
    If C of E Bishops didn't have the places then Roman Catholic cardinals, evangelical preachers and Muslim Imams might have the places too.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,648
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
    The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
    Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
    Plenty of African and Eastern European migrants are Catholic and Catholics tend to have higher birthrates.
    About 10% of the population. They need to get down to some hardcore banging to be numerous enough to reverse the reformation. Knickers Off For Francis '22
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 7,100
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    The main christian church in the UK? I'm puzzled by your logic. What is the largest christian church in the UK? And how would not having the monarch as supreme governor mean that that title goes to the Pope?
    As in most other Christian nations on earth the Roman Catholic church is the largest church, in Northern Ireland and Wales now too and probably within a decade or 2 Scotland (given the Church of England has a higher percentage lead in England over the RC church than the Church of Scotland does over the RC Church in Scotland).

    Protestants might be more counting Pentecostal evangelicals etc but being the largest Christian denomination again in England would be a huge coup for the Vatican
    What does that have to do with the Monarch being supreme governor of the Church of England?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,874

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
    The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
    Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
    Plenty of African and Eastern European migrants are Catholic and Catholics tend to have higher birthrates.
    About 10% of the population. They need to get down to some hardcore banging to be numerous enough to reverse the reformation. Knickers Off For Francis '22
    If the RC church became the largest church in England again the Reformation would be reversed effectively and disestablishment most likely leads to that
  • At this point, the Tories will have to do what Jeremy Corbyn's Labour had to do in 2017, which they failed to do and still created another Tory Government.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,222
    Scott_xP said:

    ...

    Genius. Again.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,874

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    The main christian church in the UK? I'm puzzled by your logic. What is the largest christian church in the UK? And how would not having the monarch as supreme governor mean that that title goes to the Pope?
    As in most other Christian nations on earth the Roman Catholic church is the largest church, in Northern Ireland and Wales now too and probably within a decade or 2 Scotland (given the Church of England has a higher percentage lead in England over the RC church than the Church of Scotland does over the RC Church in Scotland).

    Protestants might be more counting Pentecostal evangelicals etc but being the largest Christian denomination again in England would be a huge coup for the Vatican
    What does that have to do with the Monarch being supreme governor of the Church of England?
    Everything as it stops the Pope being the head of our largest Christian denomination, which is the main reason Henry VIII made himself SG of the C of E
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,624

    DavidL said:

    I think that both Bishops and hereditaries do a useful job in highlighting the absurdity and pointlessness of the House of Lords as do has been and never was politicians and various donors. It really is ridiculous and it is long past time that this freak show was retired.

    I couldn't agree more and stopping political appointments such as Dorries and Tom Watson should be relatively easy to achieve

    What comes after is of course much more complex
    There is a simple answer. Nothing.

    New Zealand functions perfectly well with unicameralism, as do many other countries.

    We could then use the Lords chamber as a bingo hall or strip club.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 55,023
    edited November 19

    DavidL said:

    I think that both Bishops and hereditaries do a useful job in highlighting the absurdity and pointlessness of the House of Lords as do has been and never was politicians and various donors. It really is ridiculous and it is long past time that this freak show was retired.

    I couldn't agree more and stopping political appointments such as Dorries and Tom Watson should be relatively easy to achieve

    What comes after is of course much more complex
    There is a simple answer. Nothing.

    New Zealand functions perfectly well with unicameralism, as do many other countries.

    We could then use the Lords chamber as a bingo hall or strip club.
    I have no problem with that ( not the strip club though)
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,624

    Excellent policy from Keir

    Yeah addressing the issue right at the top of peoples concerns.

    FFS mate he has gone along with the £54bn black hole and austerity 2 this week and said we employ too many foreigners in the NHS this week and ruled out inflation matching pay offers. He has said he is happy to kiss a Tory and has many Tory friends.

    I see Mrs SKS can clearly say she has done the same this very week

    How can you give a stuff about the 2nd chamber with all this shit going on?
    Why can't he focus on the nation's priorities. Like Palestine.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 7,100
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    The main christian church in the UK? I'm puzzled by your logic. What is the largest christian church in the UK? And how would not having the monarch as supreme governor mean that that title goes to the Pope?
    As in most other Christian nations on earth the Roman Catholic church is the largest church, in Northern Ireland and Wales now too and probably within a decade or 2 Scotland (given the Church of England has a higher percentage lead in England over the RC church than the Church of Scotland does over the RC Church in Scotland).

    Protestants might be more counting Pentecostal evangelicals etc but being the largest Christian denomination again in England would be a huge coup for the Vatican
    What does that have to do with the Monarch being supreme governor of the Church of England?
    Everything as it stops the Pope being the head of our largest Christian denomination, which is the main reason Henry VIII made himself SG of the C of E
    But if the Monarch wasn't supreme governor it would be the Archbishop of Cantebury I assume? It's not going to be the Pope surely?
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,648
    edited November 19
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
    The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
    Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
    Plenty of African and Eastern European migrants are Catholic and Catholics tend to have higher birthrates.
    About 10% of the population. They need to get down to some hardcore banging to be numerous enough to reverse the reformation. Knickers Off For Francis '22
    If the RC church became the largest church in England again the Reformation would be reversed effectively and disestablishment most likely leads to that
    What is the mechanism for Reestablishment of the Papal primacy? Clue - there isn't one
    However many RCs there are the Pope is their head regardless of the State religion.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 6,926
    The UK is not a religious country and the public does not support the total charade of Bishops in the House of Lords.

    Techne poll earlier this year:

    19% support Bishops in House of Lords
    62% do not support Bishops in House of Lords

    If it is such a good idea, why is Iran the only other country to have places in its Parliament reserved for representatives of religions?

    It's beyond comical and there is overwhelming support for ending this total nonsense.

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1599924/Justin-Welby-poll-bishops-woke-news-welby
  • TresTres Posts: 1,338
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
    The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
    Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
    Plenty of African and Eastern European migrants are Catholic and Catholics tend to have higher birthrates.
    About 10% of the population. They need to get down to some hardcore banging to be numerous enough to reverse the reformation. Knickers Off For Francis '22
    If the RC church became the largest church in England again the Reformation would be reversed effectively and disestablishment most likely leads to that
    in the 21st century that's like fighting over being the tallest dwarf
Sign In or Register to comment.