I'm not, I'm suggesting the religion of christianity already has HOL representation because a roughly proportionate representation will already exist in teh Lords. What you are suggesting by having a number of reserved seats is for misrepresentation for a certain belief system in our 'democratic' process.
If your argument is that the particular institution of the church of england should have representation, then how many other clubs and groups should also have access?
4 seats for The Football fans alliance, another 2 seats for the All England Lawn Tennis Association another 5 seats for the vegan society, maybe 10 seats for CAMRA, maybe another seat for the British Guild of LARPers, 10 seats for the freemasons, and another 3 seats for the association of Dance Tutors.....I mean where does it end, there will b 20,000 Lords at this rate. Why should this particular group have any special treatment above other special groups?
We are talking about Lords reform, are we not?
My basic point is that Hereditary and Life Peers and a wholly appointed HOL as it is at the moment, brings with it a number of problems. We end up with political appointments perpetuating a status quo, for short term gain sometimes and they are representative of the establishment and who the establishment wants, not necessarily the people. So that needs to change.
That said, there are drawbacks with elected chambers and benefits to appointed representatives. The short termism of the HOC is a huge reason why we get terrible legislation being proposed in the first place and very poor quality debates. It becomes about optics, it invites populism. Do you disagree?
An appointee, who doesn't have to worry about the whip being withdrawn, being de-selected or being turfed out of a job in five years or less, can make better long term decisions for the country because they do not have to make short term decisions for their own future. They can and some evidence suggests they do.
What is more, many excellent members of the upper chamber, most in fact, would not stand for election. Many politicians who are sent there have had enough of that. Non politicians usually didn't become politicians because they didn't want to go through all that rigmarole. So we would lose a lot of valuable expertise.
It should be abolished and replaced by a second elected chamber using PR.
Doubling up the drawbacks and also, since PR is a more representative and fairer system of Democracy, would soon lead to a constitutional crisis because the HOL could then legitimately claim to represent the will of the people. The Commons really only became the ultimate power in Parliament because of the crisis around Asquith and Lloyd George's people's budgets and Land Tax proposals of that Pre WW1 Liberal Government and the elections called (and King's threatened intervention) to settle it.
