THE “ludicrous” election of four new hereditary peers to the House of Lords has shown how a “few dozen aristocrats” have more sway than thousands of voters, campaigners say.
Three Tory hereditary peers – Lord Sandhurst, the Earl of Leicester and Lord Altrincham – will take their seats after being elected last week, from an all-male list of candidates by a select group made up entirely of men.
The Electoral Reform Society said the total of 36 votes cast by Conservative hereditary peers in the poll was in stark contrast to the thousands of voters who were able to pick just one MP on the same day.
Boris Johnson’s Tories suffered a humiliating by-election defeat on Thursday, with the Liberal Democrats scoring a surprise win in Chesham and Amersham by overturning a majority of more than 16,000.
Willie Sullivan, senior director at the Electoral Reform Society, said: “On Thursday, 38,000 voters went to the polls, to pick one MP. On the same day, three hereditary aristocrats were put into the Lords by just 36 Conservative hereditary peers. “It’s hard to overstate just how ludicrous this is. It is less than a thousandth of the Chesham and Amersham mandate, with an average of just 12 votes per Lord. He went on: “These aristocrats can now vote on our laws (and claim £323 per day, tax free), not for five years, but for life.
“This process is an insult to voters, who head to the polls in their thousands to be heard, while our legislature keeps being packed by a handful of unaccountable Lords.
“It would be funny if the stakes were not so high. How is it that a few dozen aristocrats can still – in 2021 – have more sway than thousands of voters?”
A separate hereditary peers’ by-election was also held following the retirement last year of the independent crossbencher Countess Mar – who was the only female hereditary peer.
A total of 317 votes were cast in that poll of the whole House, which was won by Lord Londesborough. Ten candidates – again all men – had contested the vacancy.
There have been repeated demands in the Lords to scrap the by-elections used to fill hereditary peer vacancies.
The House of Lords says all members – including the 92 hereditary peers – take their role “very seriously, shaping and voting on laws that affect all of us”.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel