VERSION|0.5.1|NAME|HarryR|DATE|1368537054|CONTENT|The calm, sagacious tone of this website is sometimes ruffled by disgruntlement at the allocation of seats ( and votes) in the House of Lords to bishops of the established religion by Constitutional right simply by their being bishops of the established religion.

An outrage in a supposedly democratic, meritocratic and professional age. 

OTOH other members of the HofL have earned their position by the usual way of being useful to the powerful of the day in some way. Perhaps by accumulating expertise and building a social network that makes it sensible to keep them engaged in debates even if not responsible for policy. 

Others seem to be there simply because their ennoblement is a sop to a constituency of some kind. There are probably many of these, some more transparent than others.

For now, I&#039;m thinking of the religious life peers such as Lords Ahmed and Sacks. Have these guys done anything other than lecture the rest of us and represent narrow, even sectarian, interests? I&#039;ve never heard anything about political activity by either of them that wasn&#039;t within a religious context.

How many other peers are there who owe their position only to their significance in their religious communities?

Presumably, many of the Established Bishops, if disestablished, would soon find themselves ennobled as individuals in the same way.|IP-ADDRESS|89.204.130.185|MODERATIONFLAG|