This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2013/may/10/richard-dawkins-house-of-lords

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Richard Dawkins wants to revive the Victorian establishment Richard Dawkins wants to revive the Victorian establishment
(5 months later)
Richard Dawkins is at it again. He says he wants the bishops out of the House of Lords, which is not a complete surprise. The novelty is that he wants them replaced with elected members of the secular professions instead: philosophers, doctors, scientists, academics and so on.Richard Dawkins is at it again. He says he wants the bishops out of the House of Lords, which is not a complete surprise. The novelty is that he wants them replaced with elected members of the secular professions instead: philosophers, doctors, scientists, academics and so on.
"Replace bishops in Lords by representatives elected by Royal Society, British Academy, Roy Coll Physicians, RA etc" he tweeted, and suggested "The Noble Lady the Member for the Royal Society of Literature", "the Royal College of Nursing", "For Oxbridge", "For the Police Federation"."Replace bishops in Lords by representatives elected by Royal Society, British Academy, Roy Coll Physicians, RA etc" he tweeted, and suggested "The Noble Lady the Member for the Royal Society of Literature", "the Royal College of Nursing", "For Oxbridge", "For the Police Federation".
The electorates, of course, would be the other members of these professions, not the vulgar public. "Commons electorates are limited to geographically resident adults. My proposed Lords electorate would be limited to non-geographic elites."The electorates, of course, would be the other members of these professions, not the vulgar public. "Commons electorates are limited to geographically resident adults. My proposed Lords electorate would be limited to non-geographic elites."
This is how things were still run when he was born: the MPs elected by members of the universities were only abolished in 1948. They were handed out in a deliciously establishment way: Oxford and Cambridge had two seats each, London one, as it was almost a proper university, and seven provincial establishments had two more seats shared between them.This is how things were still run when he was born: the MPs elected by members of the universities were only abolished in 1948. They were handed out in a deliciously establishment way: Oxford and Cambridge had two seats each, London one, as it was almost a proper university, and seven provincial establishments had two more seats shared between them.
The Attlee government abolished them on simple democratic reasoning: it was wrong for the privileged to have two votes, one for a geographical constituency and one for an elite, non-geographical one. When you think about it, a wholly hereditary House of Lords may be less of an offence against democratic principles, as its members are in effect chosen by genetic lottery. It may not be egalitarian, but at least no one has a vote in their selection, rather than some people having more votes than others.The Attlee government abolished them on simple democratic reasoning: it was wrong for the privileged to have two votes, one for a geographical constituency and one for an elite, non-geographical one. When you think about it, a wholly hereditary House of Lords may be less of an offence against democratic principles, as its members are in effect chosen by genetic lottery. It may not be egalitarian, but at least no one has a vote in their selection, rather than some people having more votes than others.
Of course, only a tiny minority of people are egalitarian about subjects they actually understand. "Elitist" may be a boo word among Guardian readers, but "populist" is an even worse insult here. Quite right too.Of course, only a tiny minority of people are egalitarian about subjects they actually understand. "Elitist" may be a boo word among Guardian readers, but "populist" is an even worse insult here. Quite right too.
The undemocratic and inegalitarian features are precisely what makes Dawkins' proposal attractive. We want scientific decisions to be made by properly qualified scientists, decisions about prison policy to be made by properly qualified criminologist, good teachers to run education and so on. And I don't think that the argument from democracy – that seemed to powerful in 1948 – would work nearly as strongly now.The undemocratic and inegalitarian features are precisely what makes Dawkins' proposal attractive. We want scientific decisions to be made by properly qualified scientists, decisions about prison policy to be made by properly qualified criminologist, good teachers to run education and so on. And I don't think that the argument from democracy – that seemed to powerful in 1948 – would work nearly as strongly now.
But there are still two things to be said about Dawkins' proposal. The first is that it shows how very Anglican and reactionary his style of secularism is. Back when the establishment of the Church of England had bite (roughly, the mid-19th century) you had to subscribe to certain theological opinions to be part of the governing elite.But there are still two things to be said about Dawkins' proposal. The first is that it shows how very Anglican and reactionary his style of secularism is. Back when the establishment of the Church of England had bite (roughly, the mid-19th century) you had to subscribe to certain theological opinions to be part of the governing elite.
What Dawkins wants to revive is the Victorian establishment, with the theological polarity reversed. "Yes. Some Christians do good. So what? Does that make their supernatural beliefs true? Let's get our priorities right", he tweeted. Correct beliefs again become more important than correct behaviour. That philosophers or members of the British Academy may suppose one another entirely mistaken about almost everything does not seem to worry him. They are after all the right sort. That, too, is rather Anglican.What Dawkins wants to revive is the Victorian establishment, with the theological polarity reversed. "Yes. Some Christians do good. So what? Does that make their supernatural beliefs true? Let's get our priorities right", he tweeted. Correct beliefs again become more important than correct behaviour. That philosophers or members of the British Academy may suppose one another entirely mistaken about almost everything does not seem to worry him. They are after all the right sort. That, too, is rather Anglican.
There is a more important criticism, however. He tweets as if Margaret Thatcher had never lived. One of the central parts of her legacy is that she broke the power of the establishment that Dawkins wants to re-enfranchise. The prime minister now cares far more for the opinions of the Daily Mail than of the Times. I am entirely with Dawkins in deploring this but what do our opinions matter? There is nothing sillier in the world than a romantic conservative. If you are going to deal with power, you have to recognise first where it is and what it wants. The last thing that power wants in the world today is to be told what to do by a bunch of pointy-head intellectuals, chosen by others whose heads are all pointed the same way.There is a more important criticism, however. He tweets as if Margaret Thatcher had never lived. One of the central parts of her legacy is that she broke the power of the establishment that Dawkins wants to re-enfranchise. The prime minister now cares far more for the opinions of the Daily Mail than of the Times. I am entirely with Dawkins in deploring this but what do our opinions matter? There is nothing sillier in the world than a romantic conservative. If you are going to deal with power, you have to recognise first where it is and what it wants. The last thing that power wants in the world today is to be told what to do by a bunch of pointy-head intellectuals, chosen by others whose heads are all pointed the same way.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.