Calling people knowledgeable about C of E

I think it's the Church's Synod.

wikipedia says

"The Church of England comprises 44 dioceses, each led by a bishop. The diocesan bishops of Canterbury and York are archbishops, who also have oversight over their respective provinces. The occupants of the five "great sees"—Canterbury, York, London, Durham and Winchester—are always spiritual peers and Lords of Parliament. The Bishop of Sodor and Man and the Bishop of Gibraltar in Europe may not sit in the House of Lords regardless of seniority as their dioceses lie outside Great Britain. (The former, however, sits on the Legislative Council of the Isle of Man ex officio.) Of the remaining 37 bishops, the 21 most senior sit in the House of Lords. Seniority is determined by total length of service as an English diocesan bishop (that is to say, it is not lost by translation to another see).[1][2]

*Theoretically, the power to elect archbishops and bishops is vested in the diocesan cathedral's college of canons. Practically, however, the choice of the archbishop or bishop is made prior to the election. The prime minister chooses from amongst a set of nominees proposed by the Crown Nominations Commission; the sovereign then instructs the college of canons to elect the nominated individual as a bishop or archbishop.*"

That could be clearer.

"The occupants of the five "great sees"— Canterbury, York, London, Durham and Winchester—are always spiritual peers and Lords of Parliament. The Bishop of Sodor and Man and the Bishop of Gibraltar in Europe may not sit in the House of Lords regardless of seniority as their dioceses lie outside Great Britain. (The former, however, sits on the Legislative Council of the Isle of Man ex officio.) Of the remaining 37 bishops, the 21 most senior sit in the House of Lords. Seniority is determined by total length of service as an English diocesan bishop (that is to say, it is not lost by translation to another see).[1][2]

Theoretically, the power to elect archbishops and bishops is vested in the diocesan cathedral's college of canons. Practically, however, the choice of the archbishop or bishop is made prior to the election. The prime minister chooses from amongst a set of nominees proposed by the Crown Nominations Commission; the sovereign then instructs the college of canons to elect the nominated individual as a bishop or archbishop.*"

So, essentially, as expected, the C of E is not a particularly democratic organisation. And even if it were, within its own confines, so to speak, it is not democratic as regards that part of the UK population which has no truck with it, which is most of the population.

So... I'm getting to the point, honest!... the fact that there are bishops in the House of Lords who are elected by a few somebodies or other, but not by me, nor by the vast majority of UK citizens, is undemocratic and should be stopped.

Whether this is done piecemeal or wholesale does not bother me, so long as it is done, along with, in due course, all other undemocratic nonsenses within our government.

Actually, on second thoughts, I think I prefer piecemeal. Wholesale tends to be a revolution and I'm not keen on those. History does not speak well of revolutions as they tend to get a bit violent. I'll stick with piecemeal. You?

So unless a bishop is appointed to one of the Big Five dioceses, he just waits until he gets further up the queue and can step into a dead man's shoes to take his seat in the upper chamber.

And to become a bishop or archbishop in the first place, the Cathedral canons put his name on a list (which means they would know him - and the clergy best known to Cathedral canons are those who officiate at the cathedral) and then the Crown Nominations Commission picks their favourite from the list.

If he is appointed to Canterbury, York, London, Durham or Winchester he bypasses the queue. The seat in the Lords is part of the job description.

The fact that the House of Lords is FULL of people who were not elected by you or me is the issue, surely? And, by the way, you do not have to be a member of the CoE or even a Christian, to become involved in the democratic structures of the CoE, such as they are.

At least at the moment we have bishops in the House of Lords who speak up for the poor and destitute. That is part of their job description, whoever elects them.

Yes, lily, agreed. The bishop thing is most often quoted because it is the most obviously undemocratic example most people know about. That is all. People also argue for the abolition of the HoL and its replacement by a properly elected second chamber.

Many elected MPs speak up for the poor and destitute too, jd.

'The most obviously undemocratic example' ? You must be joking! The whole upper chamber is a glaring example of lack of democratic process, except for the bishops and the hereditaries who at least are there under the original dispensation. If we had stuck with the original HoL at least we could have argued tradition. What we have now is a dog's breakfast.

Ah yes the bishops in the Lords... The only other advanced state where that is allowed is Iran... great example!

I do not think we should get bogged down in whether there are other things that need reforming, as that is irrelevant. The HoL needs reforming and the removal of the bishops is one step, that has the added benefit of reinforcing the important principle that church and state should not be one.

But bags surely none of the members of the House of Lords are elected democratically? In fact, looking at the rigmarole these bishops have to go through to get there seems a more in depth process than the partisansip, hypocrisy and cronyism that is in existence for most of the rest of them.

I agree with djen and * lilygran*.

Until we reform the system completely I would think the bishops are probably the best of an undemocratic bunch.

Is disestablishing church from the state should the queen stand down as supreme govenor of the CofE or abdicate and her entire family who are titled have the right to sit in the Lords

Yes, roseq, that is right about all members of the HoL being unelected democratically. I haven't said (or implied) otherwise.

I think that, in principle, this should change but when and how we should do it is beyond me at the moment and will be until I have heard the views of people (politicians, lawyers, etc) who are more knowledgable about such things than I am. I should think it will be a gradual change when it comes, possibly spread over several years, or even decades.

Are our elected MPs so marvellous then?

I think some of us on this thread are quite knowledgable about the constitution, bags. Why pick on the bishops?

Why not pick on the bishops? As a well defined group they illustrate the injustice very well.

It reminds me of when I complained to my parents because a teacher at school have picked on me out of a group of girls who were a tiny bit late (we got a bus a few minutes later than the usual one and were still back in time for our school lunch so there wasn't really a problem) back from our swimming lesson at a public swimming pool. My father said: "Were you late?" I said: "yes". He said: "Then, according to the rule the teacher was using, you should have been in trouble. You were. You cannot complain."

The same applies to the HoL bishops. It also applies to any other group of lords in that house.

galen, we can remove them though at another election. That's the important difference, as you are fully aware, I'm sure.

Picking on the bishops is not really my choice. It has been done many times and I just 'picked up' on that as a wrong that needs to be righted. But if you all prefer, you can talk about all members of the HoL instead. It amounts to the same thing except that the others are not chosen on religious grounds rather than loosely secular ones (business, knowledge of law, politics, etc) which fact is quite significant and probably why the bishops are picked on.

The real point is the lack of democracy of the Lords though, as several people on here and many people not on here have pointed out many times.

What's the alternative? Farage's lot?

That's to the MPs I mean

If we are looking at bisops as a particular group in the H Of L, then I think they have as much right to be there as the next Lord or Baroness.

In fact, they should be, as a group, well-educated, experienced and aware of the social problems of the country and should be responsible people a force for good. Was there mention the other day of women bisops being 'fast-tracked' so we could see some in the H of L before long.

Unless they change the whole system of the upper house I see no reason whatsoever why the system that chooses bishops, which seems a fairly stringent process, should be singled out to be discontinued.