# Why are Lords specifically enfranchised in Scotland? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 3, 2014, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-lords-specifically-enfranchised-in-scotland/677823 "2014-01-03T19:04:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Baron\_Greenback](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baron_greenback/32/48_2.png) [@Baron\_Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baron_Greenback)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-lords-specifically-enfranchised-in-scotland/677823/21 "2014-01-14T23:27:05Z")
> [@Malden\_Capell](#): > > The right to vote for an elected hereditary peer is limited to those hereditary peers of the same party as the deceased peer. So only Conservative hereditaries would be able to elect a new hereditary into the House in place of a dead Conservative hereditary, and so on. Is that definitely right? The initial post-reform ballot to allow some hereditaries to sit was broken down along party lines, with the allocation being in proportion to the pre-reform party affiliation (and cross-bench, of course). There were a grand total of two Labour hereditary peers in that first cohort. There can’t possibly be an electorate of one when the first of them dies. ---
**Author:** ![Malden\_Capell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/malden_capell/32/5274_2.png) [@Malden\_Capell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malden_Capell)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-lords-specifically-enfranchised-in-scotland/677823/22 "2014-01-14T23:35:17Z")
> [@Alan\_Smithee](#): > > So if I’m a non-elected Conservative hereditary peer, I can vote for MP and vote for Conservative hereditary-peer members of the House of Lords. I can also stand for election as MP. Furthermore, I can stand for election (or whatever they call it) as Conservative elected hereditary peer in the House of Lords. Only if I am actually elected as a hereditary-peer member of the House of Lords would I lose any rights, namely those of voting for MP, standing for election as MP, and serving as MP. I would also lose those rights if I were appointed a life peerage. Almost got it - if you’re not a sitting excepted hereditary peer, you cannot vote for a replacement hereditary. With the seat comes the vote. Otherwise, you’re absolutely right. > [@](#): > > This means that as a peer with no particular role in Parliament via either House, I nevertheless hold greater political power by way of being able to vote for members of both Houses simultaneously. That may be a matter of opinion, actually. I wouldn’t pass up being in the Commons, and the Lords certainly has influence! Although opting to go from being a sitting MP to being an excepted hereditary would be seen as a bit of a blow to your power. > [@](#): > > BTW, how is the party makeup of the Lords decided? As a non-elected peer, could I finagle a spot in the HoL by starting my own party and electing myself to membership? Presumably not, since there are only 92 elected members. But if I got at least 1/92 of the total number of hereditary peers to join my party and vote for me? Party makeup is down to gentlemanly convention that no single party has a majority there; in the last ten years, they have sought to make party balance in the Lords broadly approximate to voter share in the last election (as the system used to elect the Commons does not correlate to voter share terribly well), so, for example, the Tories and Labour are the two main parties and so are at the moment fairly equal (Labour has slightly more), while the Lib Dems are a smaller but still relevant block. There’s also the Crossbenchers: Members with no party label. They are, as a group, broadly the same size as the Labour and Tory factions, and arguably are being treated as a group ‘representing’ those who didn’t bother to vote. This convention only really governs the major parties. Smaller parties it’s pretty fluid, although there aren’t many or they stand as Independents or Crossbenchers. We’ve currently got three UKIP Members in there, and until a few years ago there was a Green. There’s some Welsh and Northern Irish as well. The House of Lords has also been graced by a [Communist.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wogan_Philipps,_2nd_Baron_Milford) The BBC’s democracy pages have a very useful graphical breakdown of party balance. Look at the [right hand side of this page](http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/house_of_lords/). ---
**Author:** ![Baron\_Greenback](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baron_greenback/32/48_2.png) [@Baron\_Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baron_Greenback)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-lords-specifically-enfranchised-in-scotland/677823/23 "2014-01-14T23:46:08Z")
> [@Alan\_Smithee](#): > > So if I’m a non-elected Conservative hereditary peer, I can vote for MP and vote for Conservative hereditary-peer members of the House of Lords. No, you have no say in the Lords hereditary mini-election now. You did when reform first happened, in order to populate that category of member, but no longer. > [@](#): > > I can also stand for election as MP. Yes, you can stand as an MP. > [@](#): > > Furthermore, I can stand for election (or whatever they call it) as Conservative elected hereditary peer in the House of Lords. Yes. > [@](#): > > Only if I am actually elected as a hereditary-peer member of the House of Lords would I lose any rights, namely those of voting for MP, standing for election as MP, and serving as MP. I would also lose those rights if I were appointed a life peerage. Correct. You can renounce your peerage though. I don’t know if there is a mechanism for elected-hereditary peers to resign from the Lords, but I imagine that one would be found if the situation arose. > [@](#): > > This means that as a peer with no particular role in Parliament via either House, I nevertheless hold greater political power by way of being able to vote for members of both Houses simultaneously. No. ---
**Author:** ![Malden\_Capell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/malden_capell/32/5274_2.png) [@Malden\_Capell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malden_Capell)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-lords-specifically-enfranchised-in-scotland/677823/24 "2014-01-14T23:50:40Z")
> [@Baron\_Greenback](#): > > Correct. You can renounce your peerage though. I don’t know if there is a mechanism for elected-hereditary peers to resign from the Lords, but I imagine that one would be found if the situation arose. I would wager an elected-hereditary could renounce their peerage _a la_ the Viscount Stansgate, but in this day and age why they would after going through the rigmarole of being elected in… By the end of this Parliament, we may finally have on the Statute Book provisions to allow Lords to retire, and, presumably, regain the right to vote and stand for MP. ---
**Author:** ![APB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@APB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2014, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-lords-specifically-enfranchised-in-scotland/677823/25 "2014-01-15T00:03:44Z")
> [@Alan\_Smithee](#): > > Wait, so hereditary peers are permitted to vote both for representation in the House of Lords (whenever a hereditary member dies or retires, correct?) AND for representation in the House of Commons? And to stand for election in either House? Yes, if they’re not members of the Lords. Which has been questioned from two opposing principles. Either, so one argument goes, everyone should be represented in only one House, which would mean that all the hereditaries are barred from voting in elections for the Commons, on the grounds that they get to vote in elections for the Lords. Much in the way that Scottish and Irish peers were barred from voting in elections for the Commons in the days when they instead voted for Scottish and Irish representative peers. Or all peers, including those with seats in the Lords, should have the right to vote in elections for the Commons, just as the members of upper houses in most Western democracies have the right to vote in elections for their lower houses. This [recent briefing note by the House of Lords Library](http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/briefing-papers/LLN-2013-016/extension-of-franchise-house-of-lords-bill-hl) sets out the legal issues in some detail. The arguments have been surprisingly long-running. [QUOTE=Malden Capell] I would wager an elected-hereditary could renounce their peerage a la the Viscount Stansgate… [/QUOTE] Except that there are currently time limits on when an hereditary can renounce their peerage, which would almost certainly have elapsed by the time they got the chance to get elected to the Lords. (Unless it was the death of the previous holder that had created the vacancy.) ---
**Author:** ![Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tapioca_Dextrin)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2014, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-lords-specifically-enfranchised-in-scotland/677823/26 "2014-01-15T00:19:46Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > And the Queen. Actually, [she can](http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandGovernment/Queenandvoting.aspx), at least in theory, but doesn’t. > [@](#): > > Although the law relating to elections does not specifically prohibit the Sovereign from voting in a general election or local election, it is considered unconstitutional for the Sovereign and his or her heir to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Baron\_Greenback](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baron_greenback/32/48_2.png) [@Baron\_Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baron_Greenback)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2014, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-lords-specifically-enfranchised-in-scotland/677823/27 "2014-01-15T00:26:10Z")
> [@Malden\_Capell](#): > > By the end of this Parliament, we may finally have on the Statute Book provisions to allow Lords to retire, and, presumably, regain the right to vote and stand for MP. That’s what I meant really - “I don’t want to have any part of the legislature any more, but not give up my family’s historic advantage in getting prime restaurant bookings” ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2014, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-lords-specifically-enfranchised-in-scotland/677823/28 "2014-01-15T01:00:52Z")
> [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](#): > > Actually, [she can](http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandGovernment/Queenandvoting.aspx), at least in theory, but doesn’t. That was discussed in the opening scene of the movie _The Queen_. One simply doesn’t vote when one is the monarch, does one? ---
**Author:** ![Malden\_Capell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/malden_capell/32/5274_2.png) [@Malden\_Capell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malden_Capell)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2014, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-lords-specifically-enfranchised-in-scotland/677823/29 "2014-01-15T07:45:45Z")
> [@APB](#): > > Except that there are currently time limits on when an hereditary can renounce their peerage, which would almost certainly have elapsed by the time they got the chance to get elected to the Lords. (Unless it was the death of the previous holder that had created the vacancy.) Ah - I didn’t realise there was a time limit! Makes sense though. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2014, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-lords-specifically-enfranchised-in-scotland/677823/30 "2014-01-15T14:53:51Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > That was discussed in the opening scene of the movie _The Queen_. One simply doesn’t vote when one is the monarch, does one? Not much point, really. Buckingham Palace falls within the [London and Westminster constituency](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cities_of_London_and_Westminster_(UK_Parliament_constituency)), which is a very safe Conservative seat (and by “very safe” I mean it’s gone Tory in every election since it was drawn in the fifties.) So if Her Majesty wanted to actually influence politics and/or to flex long-dormant monarchial muscles she’d just refuse to invite the majority leader to form a government. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Ximenean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/aca169/32.png) [@Ximenean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ximenean)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2014, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-lords-specifically-enfranchised-in-scotland/677823/31 "2014-01-15T15:48:46Z")
Request for clarification: are we saying that peers who are not members of the House of Lords have a vote in the by-elections that come up when one of the 92 places for hereditary peers becomes vacant? I didn’t realise that those people had any role in Parliament any more. ---
**Author:** ![Malden\_Capell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/malden_capell/32/5274_2.png) [@Malden\_Capell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malden_Capell)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2014, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-lords-specifically-enfranchised-in-scotland/677823/32 "2014-01-15T15:56:21Z")
> [@Ximenean](#): > > Request for clarification: are we saying that peers who are not members of the House of Lords have a vote in the by-elections that come up when one of the 92 places for hereditary peers becomes vacant? I didn’t realise that those people had any role in Parliament any more. No. They can stand for election to fill a vacancy, but only those hereditary peers of that party that are already in the House may vote. ---
**Author:** ![Ximenean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/aca169/32.png) [@Ximenean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ximenean)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2014, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-lords-specifically-enfranchised-in-scotland/677823/33 "2014-01-15T16:12:09Z")
OK, thanks. \*\*APB \*\*seemed to be saying that they could vote in House of Lords elections. ---
**Author:** ![Schnitte](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/schnitte/32/9033_2.png) [@Schnitte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Schnitte)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2014, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-lords-specifically-enfranchised-in-scotland/677823/34 "2014-01-15T18:05:41Z")
> [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](#): > > Actually, [she can](http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandGovernment/Queenandvoting.aspx), at least in theory, but doesn’t. Well, if it is, as your link says, “considered unconstitutional” for her to vote, then she can’t do it, not even in theory. The statement in your link that the law does not explicitly bar her from voting means, I’d say, that there is no statute that includes a specific provision excluding her from elections. But in a country with a largely unwritten, conventions-based constitution such as the UK, something may be unconstitutional even though it is not written down anywhere, and if it’s unconstitutional, then she can’t do it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-lords-specifically-enfranchised-in-scotland/677823.md?page=1)