Age Analysis

Lord Tyler

Hot news!   I have just had a reply from the indefatigable House of Lords Library team giving me the most recent breakdown of Peer’s ages.   There are just 2 under the age of 40 and 29 over the age of 90, though by my count 12 of the latter are amongst those who have “taken leave of absence” (out of a total of 48 from all age groups).  

The full analysis of the age groups is below.  The average age, despite the recent introduction of several younger recruits to the Liberal Democrat benches, remains stubbornly over 70.  The total population listed here (as at last week) comes to 846, with more arrivals almost daily.

Some wish to introduce an age limit, with forced retirement.    I believe that would constitute unacceptable age discrimination, and in any case there are shining examples on all sides of the House of individual Peers who make a major, well-informed and relevant contribution which younger colleagues conspicuously fail to emulate.

The only sensible solution to all the imbalances and over population problems – in a representative democracy – must surely be for the electorate to decide who is most suitable to legislate on their behalf, irrespective of age!

Age Range Number of Peers














Total number of Peers


Average age


5 comments for “Age Analysis

  1. 31/10/2014 at 7:57 pm

    We all know the point you are trying to make it, but an age breakdown is a strange way to go about it. Prior to 1999, there would have typically been peers in the 21-29 age bracket: hereditary peers. Does the previously younger age profile of members mean you think the old hereditary system was better? Or is age just not a sensible way to assess these things?

  2. James Hand
    01/11/2014 at 11:47 pm

    I agree re unacceptable age discrimination – but a duplicated elected house would likely see the removal of many of those “shining examples on all sides of the House of individual Peers who make a major, well-informed and relevant contribution”. An evolutionary electoral system, however, could see many of them stay –

  3. maude elwes
    03/11/2014 at 10:54 am

    @ Lord Tyler:

    I feel you have missed the important quota we need, and age does come into it, that is experience and being fit for purpose, which eliminates those who have not reached an age of maturity needed to be able to say, we’ve seen it all before. You must include only human beings who can find enough go in them to face an election process that would remove any who back party lines and an ethos the public find so abhorrent they should not be there in the first place. And I am not talking of what is acceptable to lobbyist and financial greed experts. Example, the clinging to the crazy idea that we must all jump to a politically correct tune.

    Think about this, how many of you are in that place who go along with a party line you know the citizens, in the majority, are presently rebelling against? How many of you dare not speak what you feel, or know is wrong, in the way we are being led? And ask why you are putting up with that kind of subjugation. Childish policies that cannot be advanced by persuasion and thereby enforced through oppressive manipulation of fear and incarceration is not the basis for a modern democracy. Using policemen or private armies to batter demonstrators and trying to hide it from the public, through a ban on reporting, is not going to make life easier for any of us.

    The result is rejection by the masses of those who collude in the oppression. Which is why we are witnessing a massive change in political affiliation toward UKIP and the Greens. Think about it seriously, what are UKIP and the Greens? What is their platform? Old Labour and old Conservative ring any bells.

    The further both these parties reverse the mantra of the last thirty years of drivel instigated by Global finance, the greater their advance will be. Right across Europe, not just in the UK.

    So, the point is, we need those in the Lords who have been around long enough to have seen it all before. And anyone under fifty should be in the Commons not the Lords. That is the place for experimentalists. The second chamber must be reserved for wisdom and the worthy. And those who are of any age, who remain wise and have something to offer us all, should not be banned from their seat. Although I agree a cut off point for the mundane and those who are clearly only their because of their connections, rather than their ability for service, should be chopped at any age. And not based on their gender or any other PC moment you might have.

    What we need is a form of Lords driving licence. Not be allowed to take the test until fifty, and a revision of ability and usefulness every five years thereafter. Followed by election when taken in. With a ban on all those pushed into the Lords as some kind of payment for past loyalty card use. That would smarten the group already in there up. Would it not?

    Morality is another issue that should be in the forefront. The importance of it is grossly underrated as a need for public acceptance. Watch this report and you will see the impact a sense of morality has on every one of us.

  4. maude elwes
    05/11/2014 at 11:33 am

    Age concern!

    Shall we analyse what makes a ninety year old man have a heart? And why that heart is seen as a threat to multi billionaires? And last, but not least, are we in the UK going to be expected to go along with incarcerating a man doing what he was taught to do, his Christian duty, at the age of ninety? Will the Salvation Army be in line for mass imprisonment for running a food bank?

    As we blindly follow those nuts in the USA, I have no doubt this nasty crew we presently have in tow will avidly try to convince us that standing aside and allowing starvation in our society is for the good of us all.

  5. MilesJSD
    28/11/2014 at 12:49 am

    “Analysis” but essentially Exhaustive Scrutiny, needs to be launched, for all ages and other ‘levels’ of Peoples.

Comments are closed.