Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill — Ending of by-elections for hereditary peers — 26 Jan 2010 at 18:30
Dominic Grieve MP, Beaconsfield voted in the minority (No).
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.
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 (Aye)||Minority (No)||Both||Turnout|
|Con||1||141 (+2 tell)||0||74.6%|
|Lab||265 (+2 tell)||0||0||76.5%|
|Andrew Tyrie||Chichester||Con (front bench)||aye|