It’s the Daily Mash that gave us “The Guardian, wrong about everything. Always” and there is, as we know, great truth in that. This is more than just the usual Gell Mann Amnesia thing, where we read any newspaper article upon something we know about and note that they don’t. Yet by the time we move on to some subject we’re not expert in we assume the newspaper does know about it.
The Guardian manages more than this. Take this:[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””] The Lords plays a crucial role in scrutinising government legislation, but its critics have long complained the chamber is bloated, anachronistic and inefficient. Peers are mostly appointed by the prime minister of the day. About 100 peers are senior members of the judiciary, Church of England bishops, or aristocrats who inherited their seats. [/perfectpullquote]
Well, no actually. There’s no one in the Lords who inherited their seat there. The aristocrats are in fact elected to be there. They’re the only people who are elected to be there. Which is something that we all really should know, no?
The aristocrats have inherited their titles, yes. Along with which they have inherited the right to stand for election to the House of Lords. The electorate being the other elected peers already in the Lords of their declared party. Thus Matt Ridley’s election result.
Seriously Guardian, at least try to notice reality would you?