57 Tory MPs vote for full-elected Lords

Liam Fox and George Osborne (and David Davis)* were among 57 Tory MPs who voted for a fully-elected Lords tonight.  David Cameron wasn't one of them.  The 57 are all listed below:

1. Richard Bacon (Norfolk South)
2. John Bercow (Buckingham)
3. Graham Brady (Altrincham & Sale West)
4. James Brokenshire (Hornchurch)
5. Douglas Carswell (Harwich)
6. James Clappison (Hertsmere)
7. Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells)
8. Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe)
9. Derek Conway (Old Bexley & Sidcup)
10. David Curry (Skipton & Ripon)
11. Quentin Davies (Grantham & Stamford)
12. David Davis (Haltemprice & Howden)
13. Stephen Dorrell (Charnwood)
14. Alan Duncan (Rutland & Melton)
15. Philip Dunne (Ludlow)
16. Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East)
17. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley)
18. David Evennett, (Bexleyheath & Crayford)
19. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield)
20. Mark Field (Cities of London & Westminster)
21. Dr Liam Fox (Woodspring)
22. Roger Gale (Thanet North)
23. Robert Goodwill (Scarborough & Whitby)
24. James Gray (Wiltshire North)
25. Damian Green (Ashford)
26. John Greenway (Ryedale)
27. Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon)
28. Greg Hands (Hammersmith & Fulham)
29. Nick Herbert (Arundel & South Downs)
30. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford & North Hykeham)
31. Philip Hollobone (Kettering)
32. Jeremy Hunt (Surrey South West)
33. Michael Jack (Fylde)
34. Greg Knight (Yorkshire East)
35. David Lidington (Aylesbury)
36. Anne Main (St Albans)
37. Malcolm Moss (Cambridgeshire North East)
38. David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale & Tweeddale)
39. Dr Andrew Murrison (Westbury)
40. George Osborne (Tatton)
41. Owen Paterson (Shropshire North)
42. Andrew Pelling (Croydon Central)
43. John Penrose (Weston-Super-Mare)
44. Eric Pickles (Brentwood & Ongar)
45. John Redwood (Wokingham)
46. Andrew Selous (Bedfordshire South West)
47. Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield)
48. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills)
49. Caroline Spelman (Meriden)
50. Bob Spink (Castle Point)
51. Desmond Swayne (New Forest West)
52. Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth & Horncastle)
53. Andrew Tyrie (Chichester)
54. Ed Vaizey (Wantage)
55. Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne)
56. David Wilshire (Spelthorne)
57. Rob Wilson (Reading East).

The overall Commons majority for a fully-elected Lords was 113 (337 votes to 224).  An 80% Lords had been endorsed by a narrower 305 to 267 majority.

* Added at 23:38

Comments

[Andrea]

Duncan, Greg Clark, Dunne, Gray, Greenway, Michael Jack, Main, Moss; Reedwood, Tapsell and Wilson also voted for a fully appointed House though.
I suppose they voted for the 100% elected one when the 80% option has also been approved to try and wreck everything

[Ted]

Andrea - Tapsell's point of order seemed to point to that in his case. Some though may just have had the view that there wasn't a halfway house, either fully appointed or fully elected. I quite like your version with a small number of life senators appointed from ex-leaders. Thatcher, Major and, yes, even Blair should still have a place in parliament.

[houndtang]

Traitors all.

[Ted]

pleased to see my MP in the list. !00% or none was my view.

[Andrea]

"Tapsell's point of order seemed to point to that in his case. Some though may just have had the view that there wasn't a halfway house, either fully appointed or fully elected"

Ted, yes, your supposition makes sense.

[malcolm]

But how many believe an elected Lords is actually a good thing?Nick Robinson appears to believe that many people voted for a wholly elected Lords (including Dennis Skinner)in the knowledge that this would never be acceptable to the Lords themselves and therefore no changes would actually be made.

[DrFoxNews]

Liam Fox and George Osborne were among 57 Tory MPs who voted for a fully-elected Lords tonight. David Cameron wasn't one of them.

Interesting how the Shadow Defence Secretary gets name-checked here and not his more senior shadow cabinet colleague David Davis.

Mike Smithson at PoliticalBetting refers to this site as CONtinuityIDS, but surely DrFoxNews would be more appropriate, given the pro-Fox (Dr and News) agenda?

[Andy Stidwill]

How did Cameron vote?

[Andrea]

"Nick Robinson appears to believe that many people voted for a wholly elected Lords (including Dennis Skinner)"

Skinner voted against the fully elected Lords. He voted to totally get rid of it in the first vote of the night

[Fred Baker]

In my opinion it is not the prerogative of the commons to vote on this constitutional issue.
Even the Privy Council Office (dating back to the 12th century) may be facing closure.

This all stems from Blair trying to do something (all else having gone badly wrong) to put his mark on the history of the United Kingdom.

I am uncomfortable with foreigners (those who have interests in other countries such as Scotland, Wales etc) getting a vote on the issue at all.

The job of the Upper House is to get some control over crazy government legislation as we have been victims of all too often under the Blair maladministration.

If the upper house were elected we would then have two crazy governments at this time, instead of one. We need people in the Upper House who not power crazy. That is mainly why the aristocracy and clergy made such a job of it.

[Matt Davis]

If we have to mess with the Lords at all, and I am not at all convinced that we should, then at least a 100% elected version gives the appearance of proper democracy and will halt Loans for Lordships and the like.

What is going to be needed though are some parameters set as to who can qualify to stand for an elected upper house and also a revision of the current constitutional superiority of the Commons over the Lords. If both have been elected then both will be able to claim as much democratic legitimacy as the other.

What's the betting that ultimately nothing changes?

[Editor]

Sorry DrFoxNews - in my rush to get things up I missed DD's name. I've added his name now.

In my experience most times things happen for reasons more associated with cock-up than conspiracy!

[Editor]

I'm hearing from a few contacts that some people voted for 100% elected in order to make any reform LESS likely. The theory is that once the 80% motion passed, some opponents of any reform voted to confuse matters by voting for the 100% option. The theory is that the Lords are more likely to oppose a 100% option than an 80% option where they all lose their seats. I have no idea if the theory holds water but I pass it on to y'all...

[Shaun Bennett]

I understand the argument that voting for a 100% elected chamber could make reform less likely. However, I think that it is a very irresponsible and dangerous game to play with the constitutional arrangement of this country.
Obviously by looking more democratic than the government, we get some good publicity out of it and catch Labour unawares (we did the same thing after the Great Reform Act of 1832 and successfully painted the Liberal's as the party of the well off, defending the status quo while the Tories became the party of reform).
I believe that Andrew Bonar-Law also played a little loosely with the constitution by apparantly calling for Irish Unionists to justly take up arms against the Liberal government in the early 20th Century.
So playing party games on issues like this is not a new thing for the Conservative party. However, if I had been able to vote in this, I would have backed a fully appointed House of Lords, as I believe that that is the best possible option on offer.

[Yet Another Anon]

I don't see the point of an advisory vote, why not simply have a vote on something substantive and the most supported option is what is enacted, or have a range of options and put them to a referendum including the option of moving to a single chamber parliament.

[Peter Hatchet]

Very sad result.

I'm very disappointed to see such dignified parliamentarians such as David Davis, Liam Fox & Alan Duncan vote for a fully-elected house.

We will have a wholly Americanised, partisan and self-obsessed Senate which will lose all the dignity the Lords had. We'll lose the experience and talent of the Law Lords, Bishops and existing peers. We could lose all the ancient titles of Dukes, Earls, Viscounts and Barons. We'll also have (another) encroachment of PR into our system.

An elected Lords was - and is - unecessary and undesirable.

Very, very sad.

[Derek]

If the hereditary principle is to be swapt away - how long before the monarchy follows? It is obvious that once the lords have been finally disposed of the monarchy is next. However much one admires and respects the current incumbent, the principle of inheriting a head of state is just as indefensible as an inherited member of th upper house. - Discuss!

[Don Hoyle]

The agenda of 'Ever Closer Union' has struck again.

[James Maskell]

I dont support the fully-elected Lords option due to the duplicity of the Commons that will in effect be created. Im happy to accept a proportion being elected, but to suddenly go from the system we have now immediately to one of a fully-elected Lords would be absurd. Looking at the names, I cant see them doing it because that was genuinely their view. There clearly were political tactics going on here.

[TaxCutter]

May I just record my thanks to all those who did vote for this, and meant it.

[DrFoxNews]

Sorry DrFoxNews - in my rush to get things up I missed DD's name. I've added his name now.

In my experience most times things happen for reasons more associated with cock-up than conspiracy! - Editor

Spoilsport.

[Martin Wright]

I start from the position of having liked the old pre-labour system of a mixture of heriditary and life peers with an admixture of bishops and law lords. Although the idea of an elected (in whole or in part) second chamber is superficially appealing, I have my doubts about it in practice, particularly the 100% elected option. It's bad enough looking at all those labour hacks in the House of Commons - just imagine all the superannuated party hacks we'll get in a 100% elected upper house.

A major constitutional reform like this needed a proper Royal Commission, extensive research and consultation before any changes were made.

[Dave J]

"We could lose all the ancient titles of Dukes, Earls, Viscounts and Barons."

Whether one thinks any particular reform of the HoL is a good or a bad thing, this has nothing to do with abolishing the peerage itself. Most of the hereditaries may no longer have seats in the Lords but they didn't lose their titles. Indeed, the fact that the institutions have lost this connection could be an argument for eventually creating new hereditary peerages, which I believe hasn't been done since the early 80's.