Peers who are currently trying to block a referendum on the use of the Alternative Vote in General Elections are about to use AV to replace one of their own members in the House of Lords.
The BBC’s James Landale reports:
The cause of this absurdity is the late Lord Strabolgi, a legend in the House of Lords, who died last December, aged 96.
He was one of 92 hereditary peers who were allowed to remain in the Lords in 1999 when all the others were kicked out.
It was agreed then that when any of the 92 died, there would be a by-election in the Lords to choose a replacement.
Normally the replacement peer is elected by other hereditaries from his or her own party or group.
But because Lord Strabolgi was one of the 15 so-called Deputy Speakers, the rules state that all members of the House of Lords can vote to choose his replacement.
So if AV is good enough for the House of Lords, they know what to do…
Read the full piece here.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Another myth exploded: Queen Victoria and the lesbians
Lloyd George Society Chair - Welsh Lib Dem Peers face extinction
The cinema in a church that became a curry house
Tackling flooding in Sunniside
Latest voting intention and leadership ratings opinion polls
Margot Wilson
Alex Macfie
Dennis Delice
paul barker
6 Comments
“Peers who are currently trying to block a referendum on the use of the Alternative Vote” Yawn.
Just think how annoyed you are when someone misinterprets your own intentions?
Are the candidates the heredities who where culled in 1999? If so do those heredities still get a vote? If so, if they’re no longer with us does the eldest son get a vote instead?
Err… so what?
Are internal elections within the Lords so structurally similar to constituency Westminster elections that we should expect them to use the same voting system?
Honestly, there are many brilliant reasons to support AV. Concentrate on communicating those. You don’t need to resort to this sort of childish, superficial whining against those who disagree with you.
For one thing they voted against the bill, while a lot will have done so based on opposition to changing the electoral system, some people did so because they had problems with the legislation, such as the cost, or lack of a clause which relies a certain turnout.
Also surely you understand that different elections merit different systems. A lot of people think that AV is the best system for electing single member, but would argue that a parliamentary election is about choosing a government and therefore that either a plurality or proportional system should be used, depending on how they view it. Not that I think that, but I think you’re wrong to get so indignant on such a shaky premise.
Hilary Benn was elected to Parliament in the Leeds Central by-election which had a turnout of less than 20%. Should we mandate minimum turnout in all elections so that Ministers would have to rubber stamb the election of MPs or councillors on elections with less than 40%?
Paul – Any hereditary peer can stand for the by-election, and all currently-sitting members of the house can cast a vote.
Personally, this seems perfectly fair to me – the best 92 hereditaries, from a body of around 750 people, are co-opted into parliament. It’s high time that the life peers had to go through a similar ‘whittling-down’ process.