?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

The by-election in the House of Lords

(All staments taken from the official House of Lords Notice of 15 September.)

Why you should vote for Merlin Charles Sainthill Hanbury-Tracy, 7th Baron Sudeley, in his own words:



Why you should vote for Hugh Francis Savile Crossley, 4th Baron Somerleyton, in his own words:



Why you should vote for John David Clotworthy Whyte-Melville Foster Skeffington, 14th Viscount Massereene and 7th Viscount Ferrard (who if elected will sit by virtue of his junior title, Baron Oriel), in his own words:



Why you should vote for Francis David Ormsby-Gore, 6th Baron Harlech, in (some of) his own words:



Why you should vote for Charles Rodney Muff, 3rd Baron Calverley, in his own words:



Why you should vote for Anthony Nicholas Colin Maitland Biddulph, 5th Baron Biddulph, in his own words:



Why you should vote for John Anthony Cadman, 3rd Baron Cadman, in his own words:



[Edited] The winner of this election, which will be decided by the votes of an unelected legislature, will join the ranks of about 90 men and two women who, by virtue of the fact that their ancestors were politicians, will sit in the parliament of an EU member state and a nuclear power for life.

Comments

( 18 comments — Leave a comment )
parrot_knight
Sep. 22nd, 2014 08:59 pm (UTC)
The seventy-five word limit presumably dates back to a time when all the candidates were old Lords hands and knew each other.
ceemage
Sep. 22nd, 2014 09:02 pm (UTC)
If, by that, you mean back to 1999, yes.
parrot_knight
Sep. 22nd, 2014 09:06 pm (UTC)
Yes, I am thinking of 1999.
coth
Sep. 22nd, 2014 09:10 pm (UTC)
We ask more of TAFF & GUFF/DUFF candidates!
qatsi
Sep. 22nd, 2014 09:30 pm (UTC)
Such a difficult choice. I'm so fortunate not to have the responsibility for making it myself.
celestialweasel
Sep. 22nd, 2014 10:05 pm (UTC)
Does 'All Members of the House who have taken the Oath, and who are not subject to
statutory disqualification, suspended from the service of the House, or on Leave of
Absence, are entitled to vote in this by-election.' not mean what it looks superficially like it means, then?
nwhyte
Sep. 23rd, 2014 03:44 am (UTC)
What do you mean?
celestialweasel
Sep. 23rd, 2014 07:19 am (UTC)
You said 'which will be decided by the votes of about 90 men and two women whose ancestors were politicians'

The PDF says
'All Members of the House who have taken the Oath, and who are not subject to
statutory disqualification, suspended from the service of the House, or on Leave of
Absence, are entitled to vote in this by-election.'

which superficially looks to me like all the Lords can vote, not just the 90 hereditary ones sitting.
pwilkinson
Sep. 23rd, 2014 01:23 pm (UTC)
And the paragraph preceding that one contains the words: 'Therefore, under Standing Order 10(3), the electorate will be the whole House.'

Looking at the whole preamble, it looks as if the deceased Lord Methuen was elected in a sub-category of hereditary peers with experience of House of Lords procedures, so election by the whole House as it then was would have been a sensible way to proceed. By now, of course, the sub-category makes no sense and the reason for it has been jettisoned - but, in the common way of British tradition, the sub-category still exists.

Mind you, looking at the election statements, I suspect that nwhyte is some way from being the only person to have assumed that the electorate is confined to hereditary peers.

steepholm
Sep. 22nd, 2014 10:30 pm (UTC)
John David Clotworthy Whyte-Melville Foster Skeffington has the silliest name, if that matters?
slemslempike
Sep. 23rd, 2014 09:14 am (UTC)
I might go for the simplicity of Lord Muff and snigger like a teenager.
getawaywithit
Sep. 22nd, 2014 11:01 pm (UTC)
Looking at the full list, and although he has a disturbingly normal name, I like the cut of Geoffrey Michael Layton, 3rd Baron Layton's gib. His statement sounds like a man ready to harrumph for Britain.
uitlander
Sep. 23rd, 2014 05:35 am (UTC)
That's the best argument I've read for dressing them all up as foxes, then releasing them back into their native grouse moors and after a 15 minute head start releasing the hounds to "select" a winning candidate.
whswhs
Sep. 23rd, 2014 01:59 pm (UTC)
Well, I think on the basis of those statements alone I rather favor Oriel; he actually gave a statement of ideological position, not just vague blather.
redfiona99
Sep. 23rd, 2014 04:13 pm (UTC)
The thing I don't get is why you'd apply for a job and then not submit a statement.
whswhs
Sep. 23rd, 2014 07:30 pm (UTC)
I check candidate Web sites for elections here in San Diego before the election. I've seen a few candidates who had no Web site, and a lot whose Web sites very carefully didn't take any positions on anything more controversial than being in favor of good schools and financially responsible government.

A number of years ago, back when California still allowed write-in votes, I got mail from a candidate who was running for some local office. She spelled out in detail that the two ballot candidates were respectively in favor of the right to abortion, and opposed to abortion but not seriously committed to doing anything about it, whereas she was seriously anti-abortion. I was tempted to send her a note of thanks for helping me decide who to vote for—which was the candidate who was in favor of the right to abortion. . . .

I think a lot of people run for office who are Not Clear On The Concept.
chickenfeet2003
Sep. 24th, 2014 11:46 pm (UTC)
What I want to know is if a Scottish upper class twit is elected will they be allowed to vote on English laws? English twits for English laws!
redfiona99
Sep. 25th, 2014 03:22 pm (UTC)
I just wanted to say I think your icon is perfect for your comment.
( 18 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

November 2019
S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by yoksel