Why is Sandi Toksvig so interested in the C of E?

[Sausagenbacon]

and why does Justin Welby bother with her?

www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/26/sandi-toksvig-laments-untenable-church-of-england-stance-on-gay-marriage

She's not a christian, but feels entitled to have a chummy chat with the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is wet enough to indulge her.

I'm not particularly invested in the subject, and I am an Anglican, but I do think there is something frankly, pitiful about it.

I expect an article in next week's Guardian with a sad-faced Sandy talking about how the local Mosque/Synagogue won't marry her and her partner, and how 'unsafe' she now feels. Or not.

@echoesacrosstheether you could've saved yourself the bother of all those individual posts by collating then into one wide-ranging post that covered all of the issues you're concerned with... 😉

Seriously though, while you make good points, other posters have it right regarding the pace of change, in my opinion. One step forward on a longer journey.

"The fewer individual vested interests that remain in the Lords when we finally get to the point of reform, the more chance that the reform will be really meaningful."

@JassyRadlett, how could there be possibly fewer individual vested interests? The vested interest of inherited /wealth originated privilege would just replace that of religious privilege. Not fewer interests but just perhaps just less diverse ones...

@MeganTheeScallion, sorry, I'll tell my brain that😂.

Why can't someone focus on one particular issue? Especially something as big as change in the house of Lords.

"Why can't someone focus on one particular issue? Especially something as big as change in the house of Lords."

@AnorLondo because this is about privilege essentially. The whole argument of privilege is undermined if one set of blatant privileged people are allowed to remain whilst another are booted out.

The CofE is being spoken out against on one aspect of the church (that not all of the church agree with). Yet the House of Lords is allowed to remain as long as there is reform.

This lays the whole petition open to criticism in that it only is tackling the 'low hanging fruit'. The real source of privilege ie inherited wealth is ignored because there is too much at stake criticising this...

And let's not forget inherited wealth exists because of bloodlines. Which further undermines gay marriage as it focuses the importance of marriage upon producing an heir...

It's a fairly established approach to campaigning for change.

If it's a change that will have lots of voices resisting it from different directions, you neutralise as many of them as you can before going for the big change.

If you go straight for abolition of the Lords as is, whatever political party is driving it has the CofE, the hereditaries, the cross benches, and probably two other political parties opposing it as the main groupings of vested interests.

The life peers are the big change. That would be the last part to go in any reform.

The remaining hereditaries are a bit of a joke and wouldn't have much credibility in a public debate. Still, if there was an opportunity to get rid of the last ones (or even get more minor reform that they don't get replaced as they die out) then that would reduce the noise. The previous Lords reform on hereditaries has already done a lot of the work here in rendering the remaining ones a lot less relevant in public life.

The other minor group are the bishops, who would create a separate centre of gravity from the life peers in any public debate and would make the campaign more challenging. The CofE is a well-resourced, well-funded operation that is accustomed to issues-based and political campaigning, and would be more of a challenge than the hereditaries. Taking the CofE out of the equation earlier would make the final campaign a lot more straightforward.

So yes, minor reform as a precursor to major reform can make the major reform easier and more likely.

I am a massive supporter of Lords abolition and a fully elected upper chamber. I've signed petitions on it, written letters about it, spoken to my MP about it, vote for parties that support it (within the constraints of a FPTP nightmare system.

But I've been around the block enough times to know there's more than one way to skin a cat, and that first, ultimate success often comes in a series of smaller steps, and second, the more that individual elements of this ludicrous institution are undermined, the more the whole is destabilised.

It's the old question of how to eat an elephant.

"The life peers are the big change. That would be the last part to go in any reform."

@JassyRadlett

And whilst they exist bishops could simply be made Life Peers. Especially if you take into consideration what you say here:

"The CofE is a well-resourced, well-funded operation that is accustomed to issues-based and political campaigning,"

It is obvious that if there are any priorities tackling the seats the Life Peers hold should be the primary one. They are often described as the 'metropolitan elite' entrenched in this county's roots of traditional privilege, wealth and power.

It is obvious that if there are any priorities tackling the seats the Life Peers hold should be the primary one. They are often described as the 'metropolitan elite' entrenched in this county's roots of traditional privilege, wealth and power.

Being the primary goal doesn't meant that strategically they should be the first thing done. In fact, it's probably the opposite. Tackling the whole first is less likely to be ultimately successful for the reasons I've outlined.

Deal with the margins first. Get everyone used to the idea of change in the Lords and remind them of the ridiculousness of the institution by shining a spotlight on a couple of truly ridiculous bits. Get rid of the bishops (we're a multicultural, multi-faith society), abolish the hereditaries (or at least phase them by abolishing the elections for new hereditaries when one goes). Through those things you soften up the electorate for manifesto commitment for greater constitutional reform and a fully PR upper house with increased powers of review (ie closer to an Australian system where the upper house has powers to reject legislation, appropriations and budget measures, and are regionally representative to ensure geographical balance in lawmaking.)

If the bishops all became life peers, then actually I'd see that as a positive step forward as long as they weren't 'reserved' seats for the church. They're then part of the mass but with no 'reserved' seats or a one in/one out principle it's harder for them to argue for special treatment or to be made a strategic concession in the ultimate abolition.

I want the whole thing done. But it's all about the way you eat that elephant.

She was interviewed this morning. She made interesting valid points I felt x

If I were running a campaign strategy on this I'd go in order of ease of achieving it. Hereditaries first, they're ridiculous and embarrassing and the previous round of reform has shown there's really no peril in showing them the door.

Bishops next, as a sign of modernisation because we're an inclusive society and welcome voices from
across the spectrum of faiths; you'd probably make some strategic life peer appointments (the two CofE Archbishops, then Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu representatives to show you're open to having a range of faith voices in the upper house, as long as it exists in the current form.

And then take the big bite. You've already primed the audience through stages 1 and 2 for the idea that the institution is both faintly ridiculous and possible to change without the sky falling.

@JassyRadlett sounds sensible but that's not what Sandi Toksvig is proposing. I think there is a danger by starting the petition in such a short time after her discussion with Welby, it might come across as sour grapes over his slower timescale for plans on church reform with regards to gay marriage.

The privilege within the House of Lords is more far reaching than this one issue, which, whilst obviously important, will not be fully resolved unless the other sources of privilege and inequality are tackled.

Because whilst the House of Lords is not truly representative of society the bishops have as much right to be there as anyone else..or at least as much as the hereditary peers. I think it weakens her argument that the church needs to reflect society (to be guaranteed seats in the House of Lords) by singling them out over hereditary peers who certainly don't represent society.

You don't tell people your plan at the beginning! That would kill the whole thing!

I don't know what her long-term strategy is, but given that she's a patron of the Humanists she has a particular interest in dismantling the privilege of established religion. That's reasonable if that's her priority, we all have different ways of coming at things.

But argument is that her pushing this isn't harmful to the goal of wider Lords reform/abolition - in fact I think it's helpful.

I also think that her conversation with Welby was timed exactly for this purpose - by showing the church so out of touch with wider society, you garner support from those sympathetic to equal marriage to getting the church out of the legislature.

I don't think we're going to agree on this and that's fine! Campaigning isn't an exact science.

I don't know what her long-term strategy is, but given that she's a patron of the Humanists she has a particular interest in dismantling the privilege of established religion. That's reasonable if that's her priority, we all have different ways of coming at things.

@JassyRadlett

Indeed but this is exactly why I do think it could work to the detriment to a larger goal of the dissolution of the House of Lords.

Simply because her motives and vested interests are too transparent. The church is not setting itself up as being representative of society, rather as an authority over society and currently the House of Lords is exactly the same in that respect.

Her motives come across rather as simply an attack on the CofE which will serve to alienate many people within the church, many who actually support and campaign for gay marriage within the church.

Tbh, I'm not surprised. She is not above capitalising upon her own privilege as someone who is well know within the mass media...

I imagine that she feels a duty to use the platform that she has to speak up.

@MrsBennetsPoorNerves, understandably. But it just doesn't feel right that we go straight from one set of privileged people appointing themselves as an authority over the governing of this country to another equally privileged set doing exactly the same. It's hardly democratic is it?

Someone staring a petition about something they care about is not "appointing themselves as an authority over the governing of this country". I don't think you care about same-sex marriage or the House of Lords, you just have some kind of grudge against Sandi Toksvig or anyone who is against the CofE being the state religion. You are determined to find fault in her campaign, next you'll be complaining she's not trying to single-handedly bring about world peace.

@AnorLondo, not at all. I just think her actions are pretty hypocritical.

Having a discussion with Welby, failing to persuade him to reform the church according to her preferred timescale so using her privilege as a celebrity to campaign against the privileged position the church holds.

I suspect her target audience is not people within the church, and her Welby chat was a tactic to be able to say 'look at how out of touch these guys are' to her actual audience.

"I suspect her target audience is not people within the church, and her Welby chat was a tactic to be able to say 'look at how out of touch these guys are' to her actual audience."

@JassyRadlett, I think you are right. It's what I don't like. Just seems a bit disingenuous to me.

Well, it stops her opponents saying 'Welby's working towards it, give him time...)

So should celebrities not be allowed to campaign?