Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill — Ending of by-elections for hereditary peers — 26 Jan 2010 at 18:30

The majority Ayes passed a motion which said that the by-elections for hereditary peers in the House of Lords should be removed.

This vote is on whether the clause that removes by-elections for hereditary peers in the House of Lords (and therefore the hereditary principle) should stand part of the Bill.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The House divided: Ayes 318, Noes 142.

Debate in Parliament | Source |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your (UK) electricity and/or gas to Octopus Energy or tip us via Ko-Fi.

Party Summary

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.

PartyMajority (Aye)Minority (No)BothTurnout
Con1 141 (+2 tell)074.6%
Independent4 1083.3%
Lab265 (+2 tell) 0076.5%
LDem41 0065.1%
PC2 0066.7%
SNP5 0071.4%
Total:318 142074.7%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

Andrew TyrieChichesterCon (front bench)aye

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive