It’s been a very long time since a new Liberal Democrat peerage was created, in fact, my perhaps sketchy research suggests that the last Liberal Democrat life peer to take their seat was Andrew Stunell on 26 October 2015, whilst the last by-election for a Liberal Democrat hereditary peer was in April 2016, when John Thurso was elected to replace Eric Avebury.
But, following the retirement of crossbench peer Viscount Falkland in March, a vacancy has arisen. As he was one of the hereditary peers elected to be a Deputy Chairman of the House in 1999, the vacancy is to be filled by an election of the whole House. And, as he then sat on the Liberal Democrat benches, the expectation is that his replacement will sit on the Liberal Democrat benches.
Accordingly, three candidates have emerged, two of whom come from undoubtedly liberal backgrounds; Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor and Earl Russell (Conrad’s son, John), whilst the third, Lord Belhaven and Stenton, has offered a perfectly acceptable manifesto.
Here are the manifestos:
Belhaven and Stenton, L. (Liberal Democrat)
I support individual freedom, equality, social justice, environmental and agricultural sustainability/protection, a market economy with strong government regulation, active engagement with the EU, free trade without tariff barriers. Banning conversion therapy.
50 years’ business experience in insurance, outsourcing, speech recognition and AI technology. 20 years working alongside NHS services and procurement.
Strong interest in improving healthcare and social care provision, trade liberalisation, sustainable immigration management & human rights, taxation reform, incentivising business productivity.
Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E. (Liberal Democrat)
Since my early years I have had a keen and personal interest in politics, espoused with the traditions and beliefs of a liberal. My working life started aged 19 in shipping, finishing in political risk insurance.
Should I be elected, I would undertake to be a regular attender and to devote my maximum time and efforts to the Liberal Democrats and to the business of the House.
Russell, E. (Liberal Democrat)
I have been active in the Liberal Democrat Party as a Parliamentary and London Assembly candidate, a London Borough Councillor and campaign manager.
As a professional photographer specialising in political events and conferences, charities and landscapes my work is much used on social media and has been exhibited.
I am committed to work in the House with my experience of local government and knowledge of environmental issues and international relations.
The rules for hereditary by-elections are drawn so as to make it quite hard for voters to discern which candidate is most qualified, as manifestos are limited to 100 words, and familiarity is a definite advantage.
Of course, the question of whether such elections should even take place is an entirely reasonable one, and there have been a number of attempts to finish what the Labour Government started in the late nineties, but this anachronistic process remains.
The ballot takes place online on 12 and 13 June, with the result expected to be announced on 14 June.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
GUEST POST Why have the Lib Dems given up fighting most parliamentary by-elections?
A medieval street at the heart of Swansea's social life
Nonconformistradical
Jason Connor
expats
13 Comments
I don’t know what the rationale was for retaining a group of hereditary peers, and perhaps instead of this bizarre by-election process, we should just have let nature its course to eventually reduce their number to zero.
So in this case it’s merely by a gentlemen’s agreement that the replacement is to be a Lib Dem. Fine, let it be so, but obviously the two big parties can afford to be gracious in this case. Let’s hope that after the next election we get the chance to put an end to this farce and have a properly constituted elected 2nds chamber with defined powers.
Alex Mcfie. I totally agree with you on this subject.
A second chamber should be impartial and not self serving.
Not jobs for the boys.
Could not agree more. We should not be aligning ourselves with totally out of date procedures in a totally out of date second chamber.
@theakes: I wasn’t suggesting Lib Dem peers don’t participate in the process. It’s the system so we have to play by it, in the same way as we participate in elections fought under the out of date FPTP system.
Alex,
There have been a number of attempts to abolish the hereditary Peer by-elections, but they’ve always come from Private Members’ Bills in the Lords and have been filibustered by two Tory peers in particular, the Earl of Caithness and Lord Trefgarne, time and time again. Without Government support, such bills have little chance of getting through.
The Liberal Democrat frontbench have always supported the proposed abolition, as Lord Tyler explained the last time this came before the House (https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2020-03-13/debates/3A70DCBE-B1B7-4EDF-9320-3BD38CE5647C/HouseOfLords(HereditaryPeers)(AbolitionOfBy-Elections)Bill(HL)#).
Are we really going to support this totally out of date and frankly offensive practice? – which goes against every liberal value and principle. It’s time for us to make a stand.
We are the party of radical Lords reform; personally for me that is an elected second chamber with a ten year limit.
This particular election is also highly discriminatory, there is no female candidate to represent the 52% of the population who are women!
@Catherine Boyce
“Are we really going to support this totally out of date and frankly offensive practice?…”
In this case, given there appears to be no chance of removing the unelected peers in the forseeable future – not participating might – if we have a chance of getting another liberal-minded peer – be cutting of our nose to spite our face.
This contest has been described by the Electoral Reform Society as time “to finally overhaul this feudalistic farce and back a fairly-elected second chamber.”
Indeed it is a farce and a practice that runs contrary to our most basic values as Liberal Democrats.
I am puzzled about the way the three candidates have been introduced. “Accordingly, three candidates have emerged, two of whom come from undoubtedly liberal backgrounds; Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor and Earl Russell (Conrad’s son, John).” The third candidate is almost dismissed with the faint praise, “a perfectly acceptable manifesto”
The politics of a person’s great, great grandfather does not by itself confer any merit. In any event the illustrious ancestors cited were Liberals not Liberal Democrats and we have evolved since then. Do political values pass along the bloodlines along with the inequity?
The election of hereditary peers should be an abomination to Liberal Democrats and as you have rightly pointed out, previous attempts to abolish it have failed. If candidates simply did not come forward and as we have so few hereditary peers then the practice will simply (and literally) die out.
This is not just a ceremonial position. Each Liberal Democrat hereditary peer taking up a place in the House of Lords will, through an accident of birth, get to vote on our laws for their lifetime and also get a sitting allowance of £300 per day.
Members might also like to be reminded that women are not eligible for the seats.
Amanda,
Whilst I don’t disagree with you in terms of how these vacancies are filled, you might be being a little harsh on one of the candidates, whose commitment to the Party over many years is evident from his manifesto.
But I tend not to offer much in the way of commentary on what is a piece of reporting – we do reporting as well as opinion – which is why the article is written as it is. It perhaps doesn’t help that I write like the bureaucrat I am…
Mark Valladares I’m not sure whether ‘outsourcing’ ought to be classified as a great Liberal principle, Mark….. and as for Amanda’s comment, she’s bang on the mark about gender inequality. Not one of the 92 hereditary peers is female.
@ David,
Whether or not outsourcing is a great liberal principle – not something I suggested, by the way – rather depends on whether or not the public/customers get a better service as a result.
As for the point that the posts aren’t open to women, I’d have to agree with that – there don’t appear to be any Scottish hereditary peeresses on the current eligible list. And given that I’ve served on the Management Board of Unlock Democracy, an organisation dedicated amongst other things to an elected Upper House, you wouldn’t be surprised to hear that I support such a goal, in line with party policy.
Mark. Thanks for responding to my comment but you have misunderstood what I said and misrepresented me as being unfair to one candidate. That is not fair to the debate here about this anachronism/farce.
I made a comment on your reporting of the three candidates where you positively referred to the ancestors of two of them and, in my view, “dismissed the third with faint praise”. This gave the impression that having ancestors who were Liberals somehow bestows merit on what is merely an accident of birth. I apologise if that was harsh but I certainly hadn’t singled out any candidate and dismissed their work either for the party or for society at large. There’s no reason why your post shouldn’t demonstrate bias or your beliefs of course, but it struck me as odd and more opinion than reportage.
But thank you anyway for bringing this ridiculous situation to our attention.
@ Amanda,
It is perhaps the way you expressed yourself that led me to think you were being a bit harsh on John Russell. However, I’m happy to accept that this wasn’t your intent.
There is no doubt that the hereditary peers are a bit of a democratic abomination, but they exist and, if we don’t take the opportunities as they arise, we end up with even more Conservative Peers than there already are.
Presumably, if there’s a change of government in 2024, the incoming administration can seek to complete the task of abolishing the hereditaries, and Liberal Democrat Peers will doubtless support that.