House of Lords Reform — Remove Hereditary Places once Reform has taken place — rejected — 7 Mar 2007 at 17:09
John Maples MP, Stratford-on-Avon voted with the majority (No).
The majority Noes rejected an amendment to a motion that proposed removing the remaining hereditary peers in the House of Lords. The amendment would have meant that hereditary peers would only be removed after elected members took their place in the Lords. However, it was defeated.
-  Theresa May MP, 7 March 2007, House of Commons
Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.
What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.
What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.
What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.
|Party||Majority (No)||Minority (Aye)||Both||Turnout|
|Con||8||173 (+1 tell)||0||92.9%|
|Lab||309 (+2 tell)||5||0||89.8%|
|LDem||0||62 (+1 tell)||0||100.0%|
|John Bercow||Buckingham||whilst Con||no|
|John Maples||Stratford-on-Avon||Con (front bench)||no|
|Andrew Turner||Isle of Wight||Con||no|
|Gwyneth Dunwoody||Crewe and Nantwich||Lab||aye|
|Louise Ellman||Liverpool, Riverside||Lab||aye|