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?
The language we use matters - it provides clarity to our own thoughts and enables…
It is now generally acknowledged that the structure of the NHS needs to be overhauled…
In the film Apollo 13, a loss of oxygen causes the crew to start inadvertently…
There's an idea out there which seems intuitive but then so many ideas do seem…
When we think about the darkly opaque goals of modern central bankers as they relate…
As the papers recently filled with the distressing images of desperate souls looking to escape…
View Comments
Peers are mostly appointed by the prime minister of the day.
Is that true? Maybe in a technical sense, but isn't it then the monarch who makes the ultimate appointment? But in reality their names are put forward by the leaders of all political parties (except UKIP or Brexit, obviously).
I'd also say peers are not "mostly appointed by the prime minister of the day". An innocent would take that to mean that most of the current peers were appointed by Teresa May.
It would be closer to say the PM generally puts forward between 10 and 50 people for appointment to the lords as "Life Peers" each year and other parties a smaller number. Of the 800 strong House Of Lords currently 700 are Life Peers.
Still too many, still probably the wrong way, but at least accurate to what actually happens.