Thanks to all those who’ve been in touch with queries about us having our funding withdrawn. Hence, unfortunately, the lack of any analysis of the expenses votes. We were also hoping to do lots of pre-election analysis, as well as work on the state of the parties when the new parliament met. Sadly, it looks like we might have to put all that on ice, although we’re still looking around at alternatives. Lots of you have said how useful the site's been -- but unfortunately that seemed to cut no ice with the research council...

2 May 2009.

The key to explaining the government's defeat over the Gurkhas lies in finding out who abstained. A total of 27 cross-voters (and it is 27 -- the BBC have included Bob Wareing, but he no longer takes the whip) would not be enough to defeat the government, without a substantial number of absences. So if we were journalists with lobby passes, we'd be asking about both authorised and unauthorised absences. The last time the Government went down to defeat in the Commons, over Racial and Religious Hatred, it was at least partly because too many MPs had been allowed to leave Westminster. Did the same happen here?

But those cross-voting are interesting as well. All except Joan Humble and Stephen Pound had already rebelled against Brown, but they now bring to 119 the number of Labour MPs to vote against the whip since Gordon Brown became PM. And it's interesting that both Ian Cawsey and Shona McIssac, who both rebelled recently over ports for the very first time, did so again today. Other non-usual suspects included Nick Raynsford and Andrew Smith (who rebelled over Heathrow, casting their first rebellion against Brown), and Nick Palmer and Gordon Marsden, who have both only defied Brown once before.

Once they do it for the first time, it's easier to do it again -- as today proved.

29 April 2009.

Including today's there have been 32 rebellions on assorted Opposition Day motions since 1997. None of them had resulted in government defeats - for reasons we explained before here. So a defeat on a Opposition Day - however nominal in theory - is not to be shrugged off lightly. For the Brown government to have suffered its first defeat on an Opposition Day motion, and with a nominal majority in the 60s, is terrible.

The largest rebellion on an Opposition Day since 1997 was the 28 who rebelled over Heathrow expansion in January of this year.

More to follow, maybe, once we see the division lists. Trouble is, we're having to go a bit slow, as a result of having our funding withdrawn, so this might be the last rebellion we deal with. More on that also later...

UPDATE: We've been told that there were 27 Labour rebels who voted against the Government. If so (and we're always sceptical until we've seen the full division list), it's not even the largest revolts suffered by Brown since he became PM, not even the largest on an Opposition Day motion. So the interesting bit is going to be not who voted against the whip, but those who simply stayed away. A total of 27 cross votes is not sufficient to defeat this government, without a substantial number of abstentions.

UPDATE 2: We've now been told it's 28 Labour cross-votes. But that still just makes it the same as over Heathrow, and not the largest rebellion Brown's faced either.

Last month, the ESRC's Genomics Forum organised a retrospective conference on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. Details here. For those interested in the parliamentary part of the process, there was an interesting presentation by Phil Willis (with his slides here), as well as one by one of us. The latter takes about 30 minutes, although if you stripped out the um's and ah's, it'd be down to about five minutes or so.

16 April 2009.

1 April saw two previously loyal Labour MPs – Ian Cawsey and Shona McIssac - cast their first ever dissenting votes. The issue? Retrospective rating charges on firms operating in British ports. A Conservative Opposition prayer tried to annul these rules, but when the Tory frontbench didn’t move their own motion, four Labour MPs plus UKIP MP, Bob Spink divided the House. The common link between all four rebel Labour MPs? They all represented constituencies with large ports: Frank Field (Birkenhead), Ian Cawsey (Brigg and Goole), Shona McIssac (Cleethorpes) and Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby). Austin accused the Government of 'impotence turned into a chorus of castrati'. Sounds painful to us.

The day also saw the largest Conservative rebellion of the session so far: 18 Tory backbenchers opposed the programme motion for the Geneva Conventions and UN Personnel (Protocols) Bill. Many of these renegade Tory MPs had spent the afternoon filibustering during the Second Reading of the Bil, angry that so much legislation of this kind is being passed through the Commons with the minimum of debate.

3 April 2009.

Exactly a year since they last raised the issue, the Conservatives moved an Opposition Day motion yesterday calling for an inquiry into the war in Iraq. And almost exactly the same number of Labour MPs supported them in the aye lobby as they did a year before.

Thirteen Labour backbenchers voted in favour of an inquiry to be led by an independent committee of privy counsellors, up just one from the dozen Labour MPs who rebelled on the issue twelve months ago. David Taylor and Paul Truswell cast deliberate abstentions in both lobbies, as the Government won the vote by 303 votes to 265, a majority of 38. A dozen Labour MPs then opposed the subsequent Government amendment to the Tory motion, which recognized that ‘a time will come when an inquiry is appropriate’ but declining ‘to make a proposal for a further inquiry at this time’, Taylor again abstaining by double voting. This time, the Government won by 36.

26 March 2009.

Earlier this week, the Report stage of the Coroners and Justice Bill saw four separate rebellions, involving a total of 28 Labour MPs. There was a revolt by Corbyn and McDonnell over the Bill’s third programme motion, and one Labour MP – Paul Farrelly – voted against the Bill’s Third Reading.

But the more interesting splits came over matters of death and sex.

The largest rebellion on Monday saw 19 Labour MPs support a Liberal Democrat amendment that would have prevented some inquests being held in private and without a jury. The Government won the vote by 263 votes to 229, more or less halving their majority to 34. Ministers appear to have averted defeat by offering a number of concessions: instead of the jury being removed automatically (as the Government originally proposed), a High Court judge will now consider whether to remove the jury; and the grounds on which a certificate can be issued by the Secretary of State permitting an inquest without a jury were also altered, removing the catch-all ‘real harm to the public interest’ provision.

On Tuesday, when the Report stage of the Bill resumed, MPs debated matters of sex rather than death. Ten Labour MPs with strong religious beliefs supported David Taylor's amendment that would have had the effect of reinserting a free speech saving clause to an offence prohibiting incitement of hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation. The offence had already been created by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, but the Government, then up against a end-of-session deadline to pass another piece of legislation - the Offender Management Bill - had accepted an amendment in the name of Lord Waddington, the former Tory Home Secretary, that would have allowed discussion or criticism of sexual conduct’ or ‘the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct’. On Tuesday, the Government sought to remove Waddington’s free speech amendment, provoking Tom Harris to speak and vote against the Government on a three-line whip for the first time since he became a Labour MP in 2001. Harris believed that removing the Waddington amendment would raise ‘public concern that a person who voices an opinion that is not considered to be politically correct could end up being questioned by police.’ The ten Labour rebels were joined by two Liberal Democrats – Sir Alan Beith and Tim Farron - in the aye lobby alongside nearly the whole of the Conservative parliamentary party, apart from John Bercow, who voted with the Government in the no lobby. The amendment was heavily defeated by 328 votes to 174. Harris explains his position on his (excellent) blog.

Nick Brown apparently gave a very entertaining speech last week to the lobby, which included a reference to a rather good book on backbench behaviour.

He was said to be calling for tighter discipline from Labour MPs – with an especial attack on Labour MPs who were not pulling their weight. He noted that a hardcore rump of five per cent of Labour MPs are responsible for a quarter of all ‘unauthorised absences’ from the Commons. ‘Idleness creates a burden on the rest of the people’, he said.

Indeed it does.

But we suspect a subtext here. For sure, some of those unauthorised absences will be lazy MPs, popping home to watch Eastenders rather staying late to vote on the Sheep Farming (Wales) (No 2) Bill.

But unauthorised absences can also be caused when MPs absent themselves from a vote because they want to abstain. So, whilst some of this is a crackdown on the lazy, it’s also a crackdown on those who absent themselves from the lobbies on principle. When it comes to actual votes cast, the relationship is even sharper than Brown noted. Almost *half* of all rebellious votes cast against the whip since 2005 have come from just five per cent of Labour MPs. The subtext here, we suspect (but then we’re old and cynical) is to equate rebellion with lazy, with not pulling your weight, with not being comradely.

If the Commons allowed an abstention option, as the Modernisation Committee recommended in one of its earliest reports back in the early days of the Blair Premiership, then a crackdown on no shows wouldn’t be a problem. Absent that, it might just result in more people casting votes in both lobbies (as David Taylor does regularly), a practice that has been deprecated by the Speaker. It might, however, also cause MPs who would have been happy absenting themselves, turning up in order to vote against the whips. Is that really what they want?

24 March 2009.

Yesterday, the first decent-sized cracks appeared among Labour backbenchers over the Government’s support for people during the recession, with a total of 36 Labour MPs rebelling during the Report stage of the Welfare Reform Bill.

In the largest revolt, 30 Labour MPs supported Dr Lynne Jones’ clause that would have removed the lower rate of jobseeker’s allowance for 18-25 year olds. (Treasury Select Committee chairman, John McFall appears to have cast a deliberate abstention by voting in both lobbies.) Conservative frontbench support for the Government ensured that the new clause was defeated by 408 votes to 85.

Twenty-six Labour MPs then supported John McDonnell’s amendment that would have rendered the ‘work for benefit’ proposals scheme in the bill an offer rather than an imposition. One Conservative MP – Richard Shepherd – supported the rebels in the aye lobby, but once again the Conservative frontbench sided with the Government, resulting in a 396–76 defeat for the amendment. Finally, 29 Labour MPs supported a Conservative frontbench amendment that would have prevented the work-related requirements in the bill from applying to a single parent with a child under five. Gordon Brown’s old Treasury colleague, Geoffrey Robinson appears to have cast a deliberate abstention by voting in both lobbies. Despite this large Labour rebellion, the Government won the vote by 260 votes to 217, a comfortable majority of 43.

Yesterday’s Labour rebellions were overwhelmingly comprised of a fairly predictable bynch. All except one MP – David Clelland – had already defied the whip under Gordon Brown’s leadership, and even Clelland has slight form from the Blair era.

18 March 2009.

After nearly a week of expressing their objections, two dozen MPs who were unhappy with allowing the UK Youth Parliament to debate in the Chamber of the House of Commons this summer finally got want they wanted yesterday: a longish debate (2 hours, 22 minutes) and a vote - or a series of votes on the issue.

And then they lost decisively.

Twenty three MPs (including tellers) supported an amendment in the name of Christopher Chope calling for the Youth Parliament to speak in Committee Room 14, rather than the main Chamber, but this was defeated by 207 votes to 21. The twenty Tory backers of the amendment included: former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith; the former Shadow Home Secretary, David Davis; and the former multiple leadership candidate, John Redwood. But perhaps the biggest surprise was to see Tommy McAvoy, the longest serving Labour whip voting in favour of the amendment, a clear sign that the vote was free on the Labour side (Tory backbenchers had a free vote, although according to Chope that luxury was not extended to their frontbench). Colin Burgon was the only other Labour MP to support the amendment, while Bob Russell was the only Liberal Demcrat MP to do so. The DUP's Gregory Campbell also voted in the aye lobby.

When the main question was put, nineteen MPs (not 18 as shown in Hansard) - 15 Conservative, two Labour, one Lib Dem and 1 DUP, voted against, with 205 voting in favour.

17 March 2009.

A group of ten renegade Conservatives evoked the spirit of the late Eric Forth on Wednesday when they tried to hold up the business of the House of Commons by raising points of order, and calling divisions on normally uncontentious issues. The reason? The idea of members of the UK Youth Parliament sitting on the hallowed green benches during the summer recess.

Tory backbench opposition the teenage hordes meant that the House was treated to a division on the Child Support Regulations 2009, with six Tories voting against the Government, while the rest of the Conservative frontbench abstained. And while no-one had raised any objections to a European take note motion on ozone depleting substances during Committee, eight Tory MPs found a reason to do so, calling yet another division. When the motion to allow the Youth Parliament to sit on the green benches was read out, honourable members shouted ‘Object’.

Earlier, the House was treated to another old-fashioned Conservative split over Europe on the subject of energy security. While two Europhiles – John Gummer and Ian Taylor – supported the Government’s motion, five Euro-sceptics – William Cash, Mark Field, John Hayes, John Redwood and Richard Shepherd – voted against, as once again the Conservative frontbench abstained. Alan Simpson was the only Labour MP to vote against the motion. The most obvious name missing from the aye lobby was Kenneth Clarke. Now that the hon. Member for Rushcliffe has rejoined the Tory frontbench, he has to behave himself on all matters European.

13 March 2009.

Tuesday saw the Government come to Parliament to ask for the renewal of control orders, for the fourth time since they were introduced in the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. In 2006, the orders were agreed without a division. In February 2007, just two Labour MPs rebelled. A year later, just three did. This time, the number of rebels had risen to 16. The rebellion also saw Diane Abbott and Andrew Mackinlay cast deliberate abstentions in both lobbies. With the Conservative frontbench abstaining three Tory backbenchers – Douglas Hogg, Richard Shepherd and Robert Walter – also voted against the renewal order.

Both Opposition parties also boycotted the introduction of Regional Select Committees, objecting to the fact that each committee will have an in-built Labour majority, regardless of the political representation in each region. As a result of the Opposition boycott, a series of motions were passed in which only Labour MPs were appointed to the new regional bodies. Can’t see that working well.

The final division of the evening was on a motion that the new Chairman of the Committee on Members’ Allowances, Don Touhig, should be paid in line with chairmen of other select committees. Labour split 229/9 in favour, the Conservatives split 11/27 against (with most Tory MPs sitting out the vote), while Lembit Opik was the only Lib Dem MP to vote in favour of the motion, as 30 of his colleagues voted against.

5 March 2009.

The Heathrow rebellion on 28 January 2009 saw 28 Labour MPs vote against their party line, after a lot of work by the whips to limit the revolt. Yesterday, 24 February, there was a ten minute rule bill, moved by Lib Dem MP, Susan Kramer, which proposed to amend the Planning Act 2008 to require parliamentary approval for the construction of ‘new major airports and additional runways at existing major airports’. Despite Kramer’s Bill gaining a Second Reading by 247 votes to 203, without Government time it will fail. It is, however, interesting because of the light it throws on the real divisions within the PLP on the issue, given the private members bills are unwhipped.

Yesterday 23 Labour MPs backed Kramer’s bill. Of the 23 Labour MPs who supported Kramer’s Bill, 15 had voted against the Government on Heathrow on 28 January. But a further eight who backed Kramer’s Bill either voted for the Government on 28 January or abstained/did not vote: Hugh Bayley (for), Colin Challen (dnv), Katy Clark (dnv), Bill Etherington (dnv), Martin Linton (for), Paul Truswell (dnv), Dr Rudi Vis (dnv) and Mike Wood (dnv). Take the 15 Heathrow rebels from 28 January who also voted for the Kramer Bill together with these eight and then add the 13 Labour MPs who voted against Heathrow on 28 January but either missed or sat out yesterday’s debate (12 of them did not vote yesterday, only one - Nick Raynsford - supported the Government), then we reach the magic total of 36, just enough to have defeated the Government in January. You can see how hard – and how successfully – the whips worked at dividing and conquering.

There was one further, tiny, rebellion as well: Alan Simpson was the only Labour MP yesterday to support a Conservative Opposition Day motion calling for ‘unambiguous labelling’ of food, stating the country of origin to enable British consumers to show their preference for home-grown food.

25 February 2009.

The Post Office is a tricky one for the Government whips (Exhibit A: the 108 Labour MPs who have signed Geraldine Smith’s EDM warning the Government that selling a minority stake in the Royal Mail would risk fracturing ‘one of Britain’s greatest public services’) because for most Labour MPs it sees a toxic combination of ideological predispositions reinforced by constituency pressure.

Since Labour entered Government in 1997, anything that involved the privatisation, part-privatisation or ‘marketisation’ of public services has proved unpopular with Labour backbenchers: from the part-privatization of National Air Traffic Services in the first Blair term, to foundation hospitals and tuition fees in the second, through to trust schools and probation service reform in the current Parliament. Moreover, this particular issue gets the public worked up in a way which none of those other issues did: plenty of Labour MPs reported being under serious pressure from constituents during recent post office votes, as well as knowing full well the damage rival election candidates can inflict with the issue.

So far the issue has seen votes cast in anger on four occasions since 1997, three of these in the last session. And although the number rebelling on each occasion has been relatively small – the largest saw 19 vote against their whips – they were all on Opposition Day motions, where the numbers rebelling are always small.

Yesterday’s Opposition Day debate saw a Conservative motion calling on the Government to implement rapidly the Hooper review, supporting the partial privatization of the Royal Mail. So no surprise no Labour MPs rebelled. But the Government whips will know that the issue has not gone away. Of these 108 Labour MPs, just over three-quarters have rebelled against Gordon Brown’s leadership already. We think the Tory tactics are clever: by supporting the Government now, they will help maximize the Labour rebellion when it comes on a vote of substance.

UPDATE: There was, however, a small Conservative rebellion, as picked up by ConservativeHome.

UPDATE 2: A closer inspection of the day's division lists reveals that both Wintertons plus Sir Patrick Cormack were in attendance earlier in the day during a vote on Housing waiting lists, but mysteriously disappeared on both votes on Royal Mail. So there's at least a handful of unhappy Conservatives over this issue.

12 February 2009.

Six Conservative MPs broke ranks yesterday against a second money resolution for the Banking Bill. Last year, the Government asked for £40 billion from taxpayers to bail out the banks, but now we need another £200 billion. Mark Hoban, the Conservative frontbench spokesperson, couldn’t see what all the fuss was about, and called on his troops to abstain, as did Colin Breed, the Lib Dem spokesperson.

John Redwood didn’t agree, calling it 'the biggest, most important and most dramatic money resolution I have ever seen in the House of Commons', while Richard Shepherd argued that the Commons was being marginalised 'in the undertaking of its most fundamental duty, which is the supply of money.' These two were joined by Bill Cash (appropriately enough), David Heathcoat-Amory and Peter Bone and Philip Davies - both new boys from the 2005 intake - in voting against the resolution. A trio of other mavericks joined them in the no lobby: whipless Tory MP, Andrew Pelling; UKIP MP, Bob Spink; and former Labour MP, Robert Wareing. The resolution was carried overwhelmingly by 273 votes to 7.

11 February 2009.

Yesterday would have been Martin Linton's first ever vote against the whip, except it seems he was planning to rebel on a vote that never came. A standard whips trick is to try to split rebels between different votes, allowing them all to claim to have rebelled, but minimising the numbers at any one time. Classic divide and conquer stuff.

We all make mistakes, but maybe Linton would have been better off following the advice given by a character in Andy McSmith's novel Innocent in the House: 'It's very ill-advised to admit a mistake in this place. I did that in my first year: went through the wrong lobby by mistake, owned up; they made me look a terrible fool: the man who rebelled because he got lost in the lobby. With hindsight, I should have said I was driven by my conscience. Rather be a trouble maker than a chump'.

29 January 2009.

We were right to be skeptical. It was the largest Labour rebellion on an Opposition Day since 1997, as opponents of the Third Runway have noted. Wonder where they got that little factoid from? (And there have now been 29 rebellions on Opposition Day motions since 1997 – not a lot of people know that). But Gordon Brown has suffered larger rebellions, and smaller majorities, in his time at Number 10.

This wasn’t just a rebellion of the usual suspects. There were three backbenchers – Nick Raynsford, Martin Salter and Andrew Smith (a close ally of Gordon Brown) – defying the whips for the first time since Brown became Prime Ministers (although they all had form before). The two MPs who resigned as PPSs – Andrew Slaugther and Virendra Sharma – were rebelling against the Government for the first time. You don’t have to be a genius to work out why some MPs were unhappy: as well as John McDonnell’s high profile opposition due to his Hayes and Harlington constituency encompassing Heathrow, three other MPs represent West London constituencies: Martin Salter (Reading West), Virendra Sharma (Ealing Southall) and Andrew Slaughter (Ealing, Acton and Shepherd’s Bush). The rebellion also included no fewer than three former Environment ministers: Michael Meacher, Chris Mullin and Nick Raysnford.

Given all the hoo-ha about John Grogan’s EDM, it’s worth looking to see which EDM signatories voted against the Government, and which didn’t. It’s a fairly stark calculation. Of the seven who signed the EDM and who’d voted against Gordon Brown’s government on 20 or more occasions already, all voted against this time. Of the 10 EDM signatories who’d rebelled between 10 and 19 times before, seven (so 70%) voted against this time. Of the 23 who’d rebelled between one and nine times before, just five (22%) voted against this time. And of the 11 who’d never voted against the Brown government before, just three did so this time – but they were Salter, Slaughter and Raynsford, two with constituency interests, one former Environment minister.

28 January 2009.

Airports can be tricky things for governments. The Heath government suffered a Commons defeat in 1973, over the passage of the Maplin Development Bill (you'll notice the lack of an airport at Maplin), and in 1984 the Government abstained on an Airport Inspector's Report in order to avoid defeat. Will tonight's vote result in the first Commons defeat of the Brown government?

We're sceptical, but it'll certainly be close. We're sceptical because it doesn't look as if all the Opposition parties will vote against - thus making the Government's real majority higher than its notional one - and because this is an Opposition Day motion, and MPs of all stripes hate voting against their party on Opposition Day motions.

We've noticed before the lack of any correlation between EDMs and eventual voting patterns. Just because MPs sign an EDM saying one thing does not actually mean that they will vote in the lobby for an Opposition Day motion saying it. Almost exactly a year ago, there was a Conservative Opposition Day motion on Higher Education, which contained exactly the same wording as an EDM to which 86 Labour MPs had added their name. Yet when the Opposition Day vote came round, the rebel ranks consisted solely of David Taylor, casting one of his now familiar double vote abstentions. So just because more than 50 Labour MPs have signed an EDM with the exact same wording as today's motion certainly does not mean they'll all vote for it. Some will back the Government, others will abstain. And maybe enough to save the whips' blushes.

The largest Labour rebellion on an Opposition Day motion since 1997 consisted of 19 MPs, and came over post offices in March 2008. It seems at least certain that that record will be broken today.

Two other records worth looking out for (although we wonder whether these might survive): the largest rebellion under Brown's Premiership thus far is 45, and the smallest majority thus far is nine.

Well, not quite. Ken Clarke might be the most rebellious Conservative MP, but as he was quick to point out yesterday, nearly all of his 33 dissenting votes under David Cameron’s leadership came over the issue of Lisbon. ‘I have not been rebelling on a whole range of issues’, he said on the PM programme on Radio 4 yesterday. He also mentioned the Iraq votes, back in 2003, adding ‘I can’t recall anything else I've rebelled on’.

Memory’s a terrible thing. So consider this a public service. It’s true that 26 of his 33 rebellious votes occurred on the Lisbon Bill. And there was a deferred division relating to Diplomatic and Consular protection for EU citizens which also saw him support the Government on the issue of Europe.

But there were six others – covering intellectual property rights, Northern Ireland, the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, sexual orientation, the Al-Yamanah (Saudi) Arms Agreement, and the Terrorism Bill. It’s worth noting that in five out of six cases the Conservative frontbench line was to abstain. Still, it’s not Jeremy Corbyn territory.

20 January 2009.

Anyone arriving here as a result of this piece, on ConservativeHome, might want to read the paper on which it's based. It's here (pdf, 37k), the result of the recent Nottingham University Centre for British Politics conference on the Conservatives. It gives the list of the currently most rebellious Conservative MPs -- headed by one K Clarke. It also discusses the shape of the parliamentary party after the next election (there will be just loads of newbies) and the problems and opportunities presented.

8 January 2009.

As a New Year treat, from Hansard (18 December). It's a long quote, but worth it.

The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Chris Bryant): My predecessor warned me that these debates were slightly odd events, to put it mildly. I have taken part in many European affairs debates, and I have likened them to an episode of “Dad’s Army”, with people constantly saying, “They don’t like it up ’em, you know!” However, today’s debate reminded me rather more of an episode of “’Allo ’Allo!”, as I shall explain.

For instance, we certainly have Colonel von Strohm—the seemingly very bluff but actually extremely bright man who organises everything—and that would definitely be the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall). We also have Herr Flick, who is constantly scheming and a great enforcer of discipline, and I think that that is my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar). We certainly have Lieutenant Gruber, in the person of the extremely dapper, precise and keen-to-please right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay). Unfortunately, he is not in his place at the moment, for which absence he has offered his apologies. Above all, we have General von Klinkerhoffen, the heavyweight with the warm heart who is much nicer than his politics—definitely the right hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin).

Everyone has been wonderfully eloquent today so the debate lacked Officer Crabtree, the man who gets all his words wrong, but that role would probably fall to the leader of the Liberal Democrats, who sadly has not been able to take part in the debate. We have not had a Helga or a von Smallhausen, and we certainly have not had a Louise of the resistance, because she would say something only once. However, we have had Madam Edith, who invites everyone into her café and then warbles away to them eloquently. That is the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning). [ Interruption. ] I did not hear what the hon. Lady just shouted at me.

Angela Browning: I am very grateful that I was not cast as Grandma.

Chris Bryant: Well, I think she used to get rather worried about the knobs at the end of her bed.

And to think that they say that the quality of parliamentary discourse is in decline....?

2 January 2009.

Here's something to make you chuckle over the Christmas break... (Although why are you reading this over Christmas? Surely even the sort of anoraks who lap this stuff up have something better to do over Christmas? We certainly do...)

From the website of the Campaign for Conservative Party Democracy:

Tuesday 9th December. Hansard Society - "When Gordon Took The Helm". This was a meeting of the academic political establishment. I put forward the view that Parliament had broken down (see David Starkey last week). The academics did not agree. Professor Philip Cowley of Nottingham University even suggested that if I were a student of his I would be expelled for even suggesting such a thing. Who would want to be a student of him if he displays such arrogance when lecturing?

I seem to recall it being much more dramatic than that. It began with failing the student, then expelling. Then ensuring they were prohibited from going to any educational establishment in the UK ever again. Then the widespread revenge killing of the culprit's wider family.

It was, as you might have thought was obvious given the above, meant to be a joke... Arrogance is a terrible thing, whether it comes from pompous academics or po-faced campaigners lacking a sense of humour.

23 December 2008.

Last week saw a highly partisan debate over the terms of an internal inquiry into the arrest of Damian Green. An amendment in the name of former Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell that would have widened the remit of the inquiry was rejected by a Government majority of just four votes (with the main Government motion was carried slightly more comfortably by a majority of 23). On what was at least supposedly a series of free votes, 29 Labour MPs voted for Campbell’s amendment (along with Geraldine Smith, who voted in both lobbies). The 29 included Charles Clarke, Dennis MacShane, and Alan Williams, the Father of the House.

An earlier Government motion restricting the debate to three hours was overtly whipped. An Opposition amendment that would have doubled the length of time for debate to six hours was supported by five Labour backbenchers. This was the first Labour backbench rebellion of the new session, and the 600th since New Labour came to power in 1997.

13 December 2008.

Not us! We're more excited by the fact that last night saw a further two Labour backbench rebellions, bringing the total for the session up to 103. During the Lords amendment stage of the Planning Bill four Labour MPs supported a Lords amendment that would have amended the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to guard against so-called 'garden grabbing'. The four were: Jeremy Corbyn, David Drew, John McDonnell and Paul Truswell. Earlier, the same four opposed the bill's fourth programme motion.

25 November 2008.

Some fascinating votes last Wednesday on Commons reform. Most concerned the establishment of a series of regional select and grand committees for English regions, an idea mooted in The Governance of Britain at the very start of the Brown premiership. From the get-go the proposals have been fairly controversial, only passing the Modernisation Committee on the casting vote of the chairman - which, for ModCom, means the Leader of the House, Harriet Harman. And then only after a last minute change to the composition of the Committee, to ensure enough Labour MPs would back the proposals.

Commons modernisation - a process that began in 1997 - has long since ceased to be a cross-party affair. Most recent reforms have been enacted thanks to the bulk vote of the PLP - albeit on free votes - voting down the combined votes of the Opposition (again, usually on free votes). And for the most part, last week's votes fitted that pattern. Almost all Labour backbenchers voted for the reforms - and for the European Scrutiny Committee's deliberations to be held in private - almost Conservative and Lib Dem MPs voted against.

However, there were two intriguing votes that show this is not always an iron rule. One came over the issue of payment - with an amendment in the name of Labour backbencher, Andrew Mackinlay to prevent regional select committee chairs from being paid. As expected, most Lib Dem and Conservatives voted for Mackinlay's amendment, most Labour MPs against. But 19 Labour MPs broke ranks, just enough to ensure that it was passed, by a majority of just two. The bulk vote of the PLP doesn't always get its own way.

The second interesting vote came over the issue of topical questions on a Thursday afternoon. The only point of difference occurred over whether the Liberal Democrat frontbench should be allowed the same amount of time to speak (ten minutes instead of six) as the Official Opposition during topical questions. The Government frontbench appeared to support the proposal - and both Harriet Harman and Chris Bryant did just that in the division lobbies. But most Labour backbenchers simply absented themselves, allowing the Tory frontbench amendment opposing the new measure to be carried by 165 votes to 87. Two Government ministers, Kevin Brennan and Tom Watson, decided to register their abstention, voting in both lobbies. Why vote, when you can leave the Tories to do your dirty work for you?

The only other innovation, agreed without a vote, was to establish a Speaker's Conference to identify the reasons for the under-representation of black and minority ethnic people, women and disabled MPs. Given that the most obvious change in representation at Westminster over the last forty years has been the decline of working class representation, we'd start looking there if you genuinely want to improve representation. Not half as trendy, though.

20 November 2008.

Two more revolts last night -- both on the Counter-Terrorism Bill. That takes us to 99 for the session, more than in all but one other session in the post war era. And we're not over yet.

UPDATE: Scratch that. There were actually four revolts that night - making it 101 for the session as a whole. All small beer - four rebels, two rebels, four rebels, and five rebels - but they all count. And there's still the Planning Bill to look forward to next week as well...

What’s the difference between a parliament and a session? In definitional terms, the former is the period between two general elections, whereas the latter is essentially just a parliamentary year, usually running from November one year through to November the following year.

Yet here’s a thing. In the first Blair Parliament, between 1997 and 2001, there were 96 separate rebellions by Labour MPs. In the current session, between November 2007 and November 2008, there have also now been 96 separate rebellions. And the session's not finished yet. In other words, the difference between a parliament and a session is that a session under Gordon Brown sees more Labour rebellions than a Parliament under Tony Blair.

Number 96 came over a Liberal Democrat Opposition Day motion expressing concern at the Government’s plans to end the Post Office card account scheme in 2010. Seven Labour MPs supported the motion, and David Taylor cast a deliberate abstention by voting in both lobbies. The Government won the vote by 278 votes to 240, a majority of only 38, suggesting that there were several abstentions as well. This was the second post office rebellion this year – one in March saw 19 Labour MPs back a Conservative Opposition Day motion – and the issue causes concern on the Labour benches, with MPs reporting getting considerable grief from constituents over planned post office closures.

The subsequent vote on the Government amendment then saw both Paul Truswell and Ivan Lewis voting in both lobbies. Truswell’s may be a deliberate abstention, but Lewis is the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at DfID. There’s an error – on someone’s part – lurking there somewhere.

Earlier in the day, Richard Shepherd was the only Conservative backbencher to support another Liberal Democrat Opposition Day motion, this time calling upon the Government to introduce ‘an immediate substantial cut in income tax’. The Conservative frontbench line was to abstain.

UPDATE: Rebellion number 97 came on 12 November, during a deferred division, when four Labour MPs voted against the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2008. There were also some splinters amongst the Opposition Parties. Two Conservatives opposed the order (the rest backing the Government), and two Lib Dems backed the Government (the rest opposing the Order). One of this former group was Philip Hammond, Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, so we assume this was a free vote on the Conservative side. Or else he just put his cross in the wrong box. Presumably anyone shadowing the Treasury has a lot else on their mind at the moment.

11 November 2008.

Last night's meeting of the PLP hosted a heated debate over a proposal from the Chief Whip that anyone who had voted against the party whip during the last year would be prevented from taking up a place on a select committee when spaces became available.

As is our way, we don't pass judgement on such a proposal -- except to note that we've calculated that 104 Labour MPs have voted against the whip during the present session. So you can expect 104 Labour MPs not to be huge fans of the idea...

UPDATE: One of the problems of a global (well, sort of) economic collapse, allied to the election of the first ‘largely-Hawaiian’ President of the US, is that stories like this, which would normally receive considerable coverage, get hardly a mention. Two exceptions here and here.

The introduction of the public bill committees, replacing standing committees, was one of the last Commons reforms during the Blair era. One of us went so far as to describe them as having ‘at least the potential to do more to improve the quality of the parliamentary scrutiny of Bills than any other Commons reform in the last twenty (or more) years'.

But the key word there is 'potential'.

We're not aware of any systematic research on how the procedure has been utilised, but the anecdotal evidence is that things are fairly patchy, with the evidence taking sessions - they key innovation of the process - not being used to their full potential.

Having sat in on one last week, it was clear that things could certainly be better. It wasn't just that the first ten or so minutes of an hour-long session with three academic experts was lost in a mass of points of order (these things happen), but that once the questions started they were too unfocussed. Too many were generalised, and fairly long-winded, discussions about the subject area. In other words, the committee was functioning a little bit too much like a standard select committee, asking generalised questions about the subject area, rather than focussing on the bill itself. It took at least half the evidence session until the questions began to focus in on specific parts of the bill. In addition to which there was the standard flaw with too many committee sessions: as so often, too many of the questions were overly long (as were some of the answers); very little of the questionning would have impressed Perry Mason.

9 November 2008.

Forget all this guff about US politics. The real action on 4 November came on the Employment bill, which produced the largest rebellion of Gordon Brown's leadership so far.

A total of 45 Labour MPs (not 44 as reported by the BBC) supported a Labour backbench new clause that would have placed a duty on employers to co-operate with trade unions when conducting a ballot for industrial action. The move failed by 408 votes to 53, a whopping Government majority of 355. An earlier and much more publicized amendment to expel BNP members from trade unions was not put to a vote, thus preventing a further large Labour rebellion (15 Labour MPs had put their names to an amendment on this subject).

Both the Liberal Democrat and Conservative frontbenches voted with the Government on McDonnell's new clause, but two Liberal Democrat MPs, Paul Holmes and John Leech (a frontbencher), defied their party's line to vote for the new clause. No Conservative MPs rebelled on McDonnell's clause, but Andrew Pelling, who had the Tory whip withdrawn in September 2007, also voted for it, as did former Labour MP, Robert Wareing and Respect MP, George Galloway, together with two independents and three Plaid Cymru MPs.

It was another example of the increasingly powerful trade union group of MPs flexing its parliamentary muscles. In the last session, they secured major changes to the Companies Bill, and supported Andrew Miller's Temporary and Agency Workers Bill. And it was the largest rebellion on a trade union issue since 23 April 1980 when 48 Conservative MPs supported an amendment in the name of Tory right-winger John Gorst which tried to extend the right to vote on whether to be in a closed shop.

Perhaps most significantly, it was not merely composed of the usual suspects: it produced eleven new Brown rebels, of whom two had until yesterday never voted against their party's whip: Dr Nick Palmer, who was, until recently PPS to Malcolm Wicks, and Andrew Miller.

As a result of the rebellion, 107 Labour backbenchers have now defied Gordon Brown's leadership at least once, and there have now been 95 Labour backbench rebellions in the current session, equalling the 95 rebellions during the 2005-06 session. And there's more to come...

6 November 2008.

You couldn’t make it up. As MPs debated the Report stage of the Climate Change Bill yesterday, it was snowing outside, for the first time in October since the 1930s. It fell to veteran Tory MP Peter Lilley to point this out, as the Bill received its Third Reading by a massive 463 votes to 3.

Including tellers, five Tories voted in the no lobby: Philip Davies, Christopher Chope, Peter Lilley, Andrew Tyrie and Ann Widdecombe.

Earlier, eight Labour rebels supported a Conservative frontbench new clause to the Bill that would required the new Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change to establish a greenhouse gas emissions performance standard for any new electricity generating station. Three Tory backbenchers – Chope, Philip Davies and Ann Widdecombe – went in the other direction, and voted with the Government against the Tory new clause.

In a third Tory rebellion, Chope and Davies were the only Conservatives to oppose a Liberal Democrat new clause that would have required the new Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change to report to Parliament on international aviation and shipping emission levels. Estranged Conservative Andrew Pelling voted with the Lib Dems in the aye lobby, as the Tory frontbench abstained.

A fourth Tory rebellion saw six Conservative MPs oppose a Government motion that sought to add 22 Government amendments to the Bill all in one go. In a rare example of dissent from the minor parties, the Tory rebels were joined by DUP MP Sammy Wilson, who acted as a teller for the noes.

Maverick MP George Galloway also made a rare appearance in the division lobbies, keeping warm from the cold outside. His two votes of the night were both cast against the Government.

29 October 2008.

As well as the rebellions, there were four (well, four and a bit) interesting free votes during the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. Four separate amendments, designed by opponents of the bill to close perceived loopholes, were all defeated - but each produced splits within the three main parties.

The splits followed the normal pattern.

Despite all the talk of this as a non-party issue, in every vote the (vast) majority of each of the two main parties could be found in opposing lobbies. Never less than 82% of Labour MPs who voted opposed each of the four amendments. Never less than 65% of Conservative MPs (and in three of the four votes, no lower than 72%) who voted supported each of them.

Meanwhile, on most votes, the Lib Dems split much worse than the other two big parties. In three of the votes, the majority of Lib Dems supported Labour MPs in opposing the amendments, but never more than 63% were in any one lobby (the party splitting 40:60, 41:59, and 37:63). The first vote of the night was the exception: 90% of Lib Dem MPs backed the amendment to only allow embryos subject to cytoplasm to be used, with the Lib Dems voting with the Conservatives.

The 'a bit' of the opening sentence refers to the Bill's Third Reading, where there was again a free vote for Lib Dem and Conservative MPs, but not for Labour. The direction was again similar: the majority of Conservative MPs voting against the Bill(49/86), with the majority of Lib Dems in favour (30/16).

28 October 2008.

A handful of rebellions last week, after a few weeks of strained bi-partisanship in which there have been no rebellions by any party. A trio of Conservative MPs – William Cash, Laurence Robertson and Charles Walker – were the first to break ranks, joining the Liberal Democrats and the smaller parties in opposing a deferred division on Competition Policy relating to the Enterprise Act 2002.

Amidst masses of free vote splits (about which more later, perhaps) over the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, there were also some Labour rebellions. Some 14 Labour MPs opposed the Bill’s second programme motion. The Government’s decision, on a whipped vote (the other two parties were given free votes) to put amendments on liberalizing abortion to the back of the queue yesterday caused both longstanding supporters of women’s right to choose – Diane Abbott, Ann Clwyd and Fiona Mactaggart - as well as around a dozen MPs from the left of the Party to rebel against the Government. (Paul Truswell also cast a deliberate abstention by voting in both lobbies).

And then on Third Reading there was what we assume was another rebellion by Labour MPs. Whereas the other Labour splits on the Bill on free votes involved 50-plus Labour MPs deviating from their party’s norm, including loads of ministers, just 16 Labour MPs voted to oppose the Bill’s final reading. They included Ruth Kelly, casting her first vote against the whip. The list of possible rebels does, however, also include Robert Flello, who, as far as we know, is still PPS to Hazel Blears.

26 October 2008.

We’re back, after a short hiatus, partly the result of the recess, but also because of this. The latter may result in a slightly lower level of activity over the next few months, but we’ll do our best to keep on top of things.

We had been looking ahead to a really lively spillover period, but government retreats, especially over the anti-terrorism legislation have removed much of the potential for fun. There will still be plenty of opportunities for trouble ahead, though – and it will be interesting to see how the new whips office, headed once again by Nick Brown, will deal with them. Brown’s return got lots of coverage – but we were just as struck by the promotion of Tommy McAvoy, to Deputy Chief Whip, and the appointment of John Spellar to fill McAvoy’s position as Pairing Whip. That breaks McAvoy’s continuous service in the same position, which he’d held since Labour entered Government in 1997, and with those three in the key posts, it isn’t going to possible to do a good cop/bad cop act when chatting to potential malcontents.

Those who’ve just arrived in, or just moved from, the whips office might want to take note of a very interesting piece by Hopi Sen, who noticed the increasing career longevity of those who’ve done time in the whips office – what he calls the ‘Whip diaspora’. One of Tony Blair’s ambitions when he became Labour leader in 1994 was to try to make the Labour whips office function much more like the Conservative whips office – as a training ground for higher office. There was a rather good book - published a few years ago but still in print, don’t you know – which looked at whether he’d succeeded. The answer: up to a point. Yes, more whips go on to other posts in government, and they are good at holding on to office. But if you look at the very highest levels of government, it’s still noticeable that there are relatively few ex-whips in there, especially those who’ve come up through the ranks since 1994. All roads to high office have yet to run through the Labour Whips Office.

13 October 2008.

What will the PLP look like after an election defeat? There’s a rather good piece in the latest issue of Prospect – ‘The resilient moderates’ – that looks at precisely that. At the moment, though, it requires a sub to view. Or else you could pop into a newsagent and read it quickly whilst the owner’s not looking.

The core argument, though, is that whilst many of the loyalists sit for marginal seats, and will get washed away earlier in a defeat, they are at least counter-balanced by the retirements, which are disproportionately leftists.

Under most circumstances the overall ideological effect of retirements and defeats roughly cancel each other out. Labour can, for example, lose every seat it currently holds with majorities of up to 25%, and overall the proportion of the PLP who supported McDonnell for the leadership or Jon Cruddas for the Deputy Leadership will remain almost identical to the situation if it loses not a single seat.

The piece concludes that if the balance of the party does shift ideologically after an election defeat it will not be because of a huge change in its personnel. It will be because of the lessons those remaining draw from that defeat.

10 August 2008.

This morning one of our findings (that Brown suffered more rebellions in his first month than any other post-war Prime Minister) was used as a question on The Wright Stuff. Uncredited, of course. But still...

There's a thing that the academic funding bodies talk about called 'knowledge transfer'. Does knowledge transfer get much better than this?

28 July 2008.

On Thursday, 19 Labour MPs backed an amendment in the name of Andrew Mackinlay which urged the Government to staff the secretariat of the Intelligence and Security Committee with officials under the authority of the Clerk of the House. The Labour rebels were joined by three Tories - Brian Binley, David Heathcoat-Amory and Philip Hollobone (the Conservative frontbench line was to abstain). In a thinly attended House, the amendment failed by 32 votes to 205.

Not much in this, you might think – relatively small fry and all that – except that it constituted Gordon Brown’s 100th backbench revolt since becoming Prime Minister (90 so far this session; 10 at the end of the 06-07 session). It’s worth remembering that Tony Blair suffered just 96 rebellions in the four years of his entire first term.

This session has already seen more government backbench revolts than all but four sessions in the post-war era. Given that there’s still all of the spillover to come, after the party conferences, we can see it easily toping the 93 of 1992-93, the 95 of 2005-06, and the 96 of 1977-78, although there’s still a long way to go before the monster 128 revolts of the 1971-2 session. So the whips will be able to argue that even though things get worse than John Major during Maastricht, Blair at his most unpopular, and Callaghan with his party riven, they ain’t quite as bad as Ted Heath when he was trying to join the EEC. Sometimes, you take your comforts where you can find them.

21 July 2008.

Yesterday, Jeremy Corbyn was the only Labour MP to oppose two separate deferred divisions relating respectively, to the biometric registration of immigrants and civil penalties for biometric registration. The Tory frontbench line was to abstain on both votes, but in the first division, one Conservative - Mark Francois - voted in favour of biometric registration - while a single Tory - John Baron marked his cross against the measure.

For us, though, the biggest story of the day is this, from Ben Brogan's blog. For what it's worth, although it's being denied, we've heard similar stories, and from multiple sources.

The best story of the day, though, comes direct from Hansard. Nothing can beat this.

10 July 2008.

Just one rebellion to report on the Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Bill. Two Labour MPs - Mark Fisher and John McDonnell - objected to the Bill being rushed through the Commons in a single day. Fisher was particularly angry: 'We are rushing things through totally artificially. We do not need to finish today, or at 10 o'clock, yet we are saying that we will accept that. That is not right. Surely that demonstrates that one of the things which is so desperately wrong with this Parliament, and recent Parliaments, is that we are becoming completely supine before the view of the Executive.' Lib Dem MP Mike Hancock cast a deliberate abstention by voting in both lobbies. The bill itself was not divided upon at Second or Third Reading. Indeed, there was only one other division on the whole bill, which saw no rebellions.

9 July 2008.

Yet another Government concession prevented a large number of Labour MPs from backing a Tory amendment during the Report stage of the Finance Bill calling for a halt to the retrospective element of the new increases in Vehicle Excise Duty. The rebels, on this occasion led by Ronnie Campbell, accepted an assurance from ministers that the Government would look again at the issue at the time of the pre-Budget Report. In the event, only six Labour MPs defied the Government, and the rest of the Bill sailed through without any further rebellions. As we said a few days ago, the pattern is set for the rest of the Parliament: threat followed by concession followed by collapse of stout party.

On the other side of the House, just two Tory backbenchers, Philip Davies and Douglas Hogg, supported an SNP amendment that would have introduced a fuel duty rebate. Both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat frontbenches abstained. Mike Hancock cast a deliberate abstention by voting in both lobbies.

3 July 2008.

A promise from Jane Kennedy, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to use the pre-Budget report to look at a further compensation package for the 1.1 million people still set to lose out from the abolition from the 10p rate was enough persuade two Labour rebels - David Taylor and Dr Lynne Jones - not to move their amendments during the Report stage of the Finance Bill.

Taylor's amendment, signed by 20 Labour backbenchers, sought to introduce a taper mechanism to compensate everyone affected, while Jones's amendment had proposed that taxypayers be given a choice to opt in or out out of the 10p rate, allowing those who lost out to stay with the old system. As a result of the minister's soothing words, there were no Labour rebellions last night on any of the five divisions.

2 July 2008.

First, find your issue. Then, threaten to revolt. Then the Government does a deal, and your revolt crumbles from 60+ to a much more manageable 20 or so. After yesterday’s much diminished rebellions over the Planning Bill, we suspect that this will be the pattern for the rest of the Parliament.

It’s not clear this is a bad thing, mind. As Frank Field said during yesterday’s debate: ‘I was pleased to hear that one of the charges against the Government is that they have been busy buying off opposition on the Government benches. I suggest that that is the House of Commons working effectively, and the more effective we make the House of Commons, the better’.

There were seven separate rebellions last night, six of them during the Report stage of the Planning Bill. But the Government staved off a likely defeat by accepting two amendments in the name of Clive Betts, requiring the the new planning quango, the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC), by law to take account of communities’ views, and to hold public hearings if compulsory purchases are involved. Such was the measure of success of the Government’s concessions that only six Labour MPs went on to oppose the Third Reading of the Bill.

Seventeen Labour MPs supported John Grogan’s amendment that would have required any decision by the IPC to be confirmed by the Secretary of State, and a related amendment, this time in the name of Paul Truswell, which attempted to restore the right of interested parties to make oral representations to planners, saw 16 rebel. At worse, the government’s majority fell to 42.

The whips also helped things along by allowing several Labour backbenchers the night off: for instance, four of the eight MPs who voted against aspects of the Planning Bill on 2 June did not vote last night. Despite rumours of mass Conservative absences, for the Henley by-election, around 180 Conservatives voted last night.

There were also a series of very tiny revolts over other aspects of the Bill: three Labour MPs objected to the Bill’s programme motion; two backed a Liberal Democrat clause that would have introduced a precautionary principle statement before planning consent could be given to building more mobile phone masts; and one, Paul Flynn, backed a Tory frontbench amendment that would have transferred the powers over planning from Regional Development Agencies to local authorities.

A total of 27 Labour MPs have now voted against the Planning Bill, but crucially for the outcome of yesterday’s vote, only 19 did so last night.

On a completely different topic, a deferred division earlier in the day saw one MP from each of the three main parties rebel: Tory Euro-enthusiast Kenneth Clarke supported a motion taking note of EU documents relating to the diplomatic and consular protection of EU citizens in third countries, while Labour Eurosceptic Dennis Skinner and Lib Dem John Hemming voted against.

26 June 2008.

A happy coincidence saw a holiday in Spain (‘una cerveza por favor’) coincide with one of the quietest weeks in the Commons for ages. There were only three divisions all week.

This week, however, sees a couple of draft terrorism orders scheduled to go through the Commons on Tuesday - small beer, but they might keep things ticking along – followed by the Planning Bill on Wednesday.

A few weeks ago the Government took the unusual step of postponing the second day of this Bill’s Report stage, when they realised they were in trouble. It’s not clear they’ve done enough to get out of it since.

The Bill’s not been attracting that much media attention (notable exceptions notwithstanding), but the relatively low-key coverage might well be contributing to the government’s difficulties. Loads of coverage of the possibility of defeat concentrates minds. If you take a look at the rash of Government defeats in the Callaghan period, they were mostly on relatively minor issues. Backbench discontent is a bit like molten lava. If stopped from erupting in one place (like 42 days), it’ll often simply emerge through the next crack in the surface (planning).

The hope for the whips might be that enough Tory and Lib Dem MPs get stuck campaigning in Henley rather than returning for the vote. If we were the Labour whips, we’d schedule the key vote as early as possible, to present Opposition MPs with a dilemma. But if we were an Opposition MP, then we’d all return suddenly, having been absent for the whole day, and ambush the government. All good clean fun...

23 June 2008.

Amidst all the furore over 42 days in the Commons, most commentators missed the fact that yesterday, the House of Lords voted by 280 votes to 218 against a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Eight Conservatives defied their party whip against a referendum. How's this for a list of distinguished Tory rebels?

* Lord Bowness, former Vice President of the European People's Party's Group on the Committee of the Regions
* Lord Brittan of Spennithorne, former Tory Home Secretary and former Vice-President of the European Commission
* Lord Garel-Jones, former Minister of State at the Foreign Office under John Major
* Lord Heseltine, former Deputy Prime Minister
* Lord Howe of Aberavon, former Chancellor of the Exchequer and Home Secretary
* Lord Hurd of Westwell, former Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary
* Lord Patten of Barnes, former Conservative Party Chairman, Governor of Hong Kong and Member of the European Commission
* Lord Tugendat, former vice-president of the European Commission

But if David Cameron is slightly embarrassed by the splits on his side, that is nothing to the embarrassment endured by Nick Clegg: 65 Lib Dem peers voted with the Government against a referendum. One Lib Dem peer - Lord Burnett, the former Lib Dem MP - voted in favour of a referendum.

Only two rebels emerged on the Labour side: Lord Gilbert and Viscount Simon.

We’ve done lots more analysis of the 42 days rebels. But given David Davis’s decision to resign his seat and fight a by-election, we guess no one’s interested...

12 June 2008.

We’ve learnt never to draw too many firm conclusions until we’ve seen the full division lists – because there are usually one or two little gems lurking there – but based on the PA lists of 36 rebels which most media are using, you can see the remarkable job that the government did dampening down discontent on its own benches.

Of the 49 Labour backbenchers who voted against the Government in November 2005, when they went down to defeat on the Terrorism Bill, only 29 did so today.

Perhaps even more strikingly, of the 48 backbenchers who the whips had identified as noes – in a list leaked to a Sunday paper back in April, just 25 voted against the government. And note this: of the 39 backbenchers who the whips had down as wavering then, just seven voted against the government.

The main story will be the DUP what won it -- but the extent to which the government dampened down troubles on their own benches is extraordinary. Champagne corks a-plenty tonight in the whips office – and the Home Office – we suspect.

11 June 2008.

The Government comfortably survived Day One of the Report stage of the Counter-Terrorism Bill, though its majority fell to 23 at one point. Nineteen Labour MPs supported a Andrew Dismore’s new clause, which would have deleted a procedure giving the Home Secretary the power to decide that inquests should be dealt without a jury and with a special coroner if it was in the interests of national security. Dismore argued that this measure should be debated in the forthcoming Coroners Bill, rather than being tagged on belatedly to a bill dealing with anti-terrorism measures. His clause was defeated by 287 votes to 310.

A subsequent Liberal Democrat amendment that would have required the Lord Chief Justice or a senior judge to appoint coroners in these special cases attracted the support of four Labour MPs. However, there appears to be something fishy with the recording of this vote. Not only is the Lib Dem MP, Mike Hancock recorded as voting in both lobbies (which isn’t surprising), but Tory MP Greg Hands is recorded as having voted with the Government in the no lobby, while eleven Conservative MPs – including five Tory frontbenchers – are recorded as having voted in both lobbies. Either there was a right cock-up with the whipping, or Hansard will issue a correction shortly.

There were three other small Labour rebellions. As she is prone to do, Lynne Jones, , was the only Labour MP to oppose the Bill’s second programme motion. Two further rebellions related to control orders, which were introduced as part of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005: six Labour MPs backed another New Clause in the name of Andrew Dismore that would have required the Director of Public Prosecutions to certify that there was no reasonable prospect of prosecution before a control order could be made; and four Labour backbenchers then supported a Conservative frontbench amendment that would have removed the retrospective element in the Bill relating to control orders.

All this was the foreplay. The main action’s later tonight. For what it’s worth, the mood at Westminster seems to be that the Government will win, helped by the DUP and a handful of Conservative dissidents, the latter being mainly no-shows rather than Widdecombe-esque cross votes. We’ll see later tonight.

We don’t know.

And we don’t know because – aside from not knowing quite how many would-be rebels have been persuaded by the stream of concessions – we don’t know the following:

1. What will the DUP do? Will they all turn up? And if they do, do they vote against the Government (as they did in 2005 when they contributed to Tony Blair’s first defeats) or have they been offered enough to keep them with the government? Nine more votes in the Government lobby would make a hell of a difference.

2. What will the Tories do? There will be very few Conservatives who will do what Ann Widdecombe has said she’ll do, and vote with the Government. But there might be others who, quietly, will stay away from the vote. On a tight vote, a slightly under par Conservative turnout could be crucial.

3. What other concessions are planned? We’ve already had the announcement of a compensation package, but does Jacqui Smith have anything else, saved up for the debate itself. We’d not be surprised if she does. Last minute concessions can be enough for the waverers.

4. How will the rebels split? We’re pretty sure that there are still enough Labour MPs unhappy about this to defeat the government – but how many will vote against and how many will merely abstain?

We’re also not all that convinced that a defeat is quite as damaging for the government as some are claiming. It is in the whips interests to claim that a defeat now will be catastrophic – it puts the willies up the more impressionable backbenchers. But every Prime Minister since Heath has been defeated in the House of Commons at some point, even Thatcher when she had a much larger majorities. And there are worse issues to lose on than this, where the majority of the public are on the side of the government.

It seems that David Cameron hasn't convinced all his MPs about the harmful effects of climate change. Yesterday, five Conservative backbenchers voted against the Second Reading of the Climate Change Bill. While 49 Conservative MPs backed the Government in the aye lobby, Christopher Chope, Philip Davies, Peter Lilley, Andrew Tyrie and Ann Widdecombe were the only MPs from any party to vote in the no lobby. The Government won out by 344 votes to five. Six Conservatives - Chope, Lilley, Davies, Tyrie, plus Philip Hollobone and David Wilshire - then voted alongside the Liberal Democrats against the Bill's programme motion, as the Tory frontbench abstained. The progamme motion was carried by 252 votes to 42.

10 June 2008.

Last night, four Conservative MPs joined three DUP MPs plus UKIP's Bob Spink in opposing the draft Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 2008, which will have the effect of reducing the age of consent for homosexual sex in the Province from 17 to 16. Ann and Nicholas Winterton voted against the order alongside two of the 2005 intake of Tory MPs - Peter Bone and Philip Hollobone. The Conservative frontbench line was to abstain, and the motion was therefore carried overwhelmingly by 279 votes to six.

4 June 2008.

Last night saw the narrowest squeak for the Government since Gordon Brown took over last June, as the Government's majority was cut to just fifteen. Some 24 Labour MPs voted against the Government during the Report stage of the Planning Bill. David Drew, one of Labour's leading rebels, narrowly failed in pressing his New Clause 1 that would have given the Secretary of State a specific duty when designating or reviewing national policy statements in relation to climate change. The new clause failed by 241 votes to 256. A subsequent Tory frontbench amendment that would have subjected national policy statements to approval from both Houses of Parliament failed by 223 votes to 277. This time around, only Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell voted against the Government. 3 June 2008.

With a bit more time to analyse the abortion votes, we've moved onto the way that women MPs voted. In a system in which the ties of party normally swamp any other differences, the issue of abortion has been one of the few to produce a gendered dimension in the voting. In the past, women MPs have, all other things being equal, been less likely to support reductions in the availability of abortion. And so it proved again in 2008.

On all of the IVF and abortion votes, women MPs were more likely to vote than men. The difference ranged from six percentage points (the two IVF votes) to 16 percentage points (the vote on information and counselling). Moreover, in almost every case, women MPs proved to be more opposed to restrictions on abortion than male MPs. For example, of the male Labour MPs who voted, 76% opposed a reduction to 22 weeks. For the women Labour MPs the figure was 89%, a difference of 13 percentage points. On every vote, on IVF and abortion, women Labour MPs proved more ‘liberal’ than male Labour MPs, by differences ranging from three percentage points to 15. The position for the (much smaller number of) Conservatives and Lib Dems is similar, if a bit more complicated. Out of the seven votes on IVF and abortion, Lib Dem women MPs proved more liberal than Lib Dem male MPs on six (the exception was the vote on abnormalities and counselling); out of the same seven votes, Conservative women MPs proved more liberal than Conservative male MPs on six (the exception was the vote on IVF needing a ‘father and a mother’). In other words, on all of the more conventional time limit votes on abortion, women of all three main parties were more liberal than their male counterparts.

If just male MPs had voted earlier this week, then the result on 22 weeks would still have been the same – but the majority would have been just six, instead of 71. This is, however, a slightly false counterfactual, and it is not the same as saying that a House filled entirely with men would have almost passed a reduction. Removing all women MPs from the calculation currently involves removing more Labour MPs than any others, and Labour MPs are the most ‘pro-choice’. In an imaginary world, with no women MP, then they would have been replaced by male MPs of the same party. Another back-of-the-fag-packet calculation shows that this would have produced a majority against reduction of around 40, which is a substantial reduction on the 71 achieved, but not enough to make the result close – and certainly not enough to claim that women decided the outcome.

Comparisons with the last time there was a realistic chance of amending the abortion law, in 1990, are also revealing. For one thing, it is noticeable how the range of time limits has changed. In 1990, the Commons voted on options ranging from 18 weeks to 28 weeks. In 2008, the range was 12 weeks to 22 weeks, although 24 weeks was included by default. In 18 years, therefore the range of options has shifted downwards by four to six weeks.

The second thing that is noticeable is how the parties have shifted (somewhat). Labour are (almost) as solid in a pro-choice direction as they were in 1990 (although there is a slight drop . The Lib Dems are also largely the same. They split over 22 weeks then, as now. The biggest change is in the Conservatives.

You can see this clearly using a measure called the Index of Party Unity (which is simply the majority percentage, minus the minority percentage, divided by 100). A united party will score 1.0, a party split down the middle will score 0.0. In 1990, the Conservative IPU on 22 weeks was 0.28, indicating that the party was heavily divided on the issue (roughly two-thirds in one lobby, one third in the other). The party scored 0.06 on 20 weeks, indicating a split right down the middle. The Conservatives IPUs now are 0.67 and 0.55 for 22 and 20 weeks respectively, indicating that the party’s MPs are now much more cohesive on the issue. In other words, the battle lines are much more obviously party political than they were two decades ago.

22 May 2008.

Various other duties have delayed our publishing the breakdown of last night’s votes. The key vote – the 22 week time limit which was defeated by 71 – also saw some of the sharpest party divisions. Of the Conservatives to vote, 83% backed a reduction to 22 weeks, compared to just 20% of Labour MPs.

We’ve done some back-of-the-fag-packet calculations – assuming turnout and the behaviour of the various parties stays the same – and we calculate that in any future parliament, then once the two main parties get roughly equal numbers in the Commons then a 22 weeks limit will be passed.

The various other parties basically cancel each other out (the Lib Dems split heavily on 22 weeks, 42:58, and the various Ulster parties anyway cancel out the Lib Dems slight pro-choice surplus). Indeed, because Conservative MPs are slightly more in favour of 22 weeks than Labour MPs are against, it is possible that 22 weeks could be passed even if there were still slightly more Labour MPs than Tories after the next election.

Based on the new parliamentary boundaries, this would require around a 4.3% swing for the Conservatives to become the largest party – distinctly achievable, given the current poll ratings.

We stress that these are pretty crude calculations – there’s just too many imponderables to do anything more sophisticated – but given the sort of behaviour seen last night, it looks unlikely that a 24 week time limit would survive any half-decent improvement in the Conservatives’ electoral fortunes.

On paper at least, this argument also applies, to the voting on IVF and ‘fathers’. In both of the two votes on the issue, the party divisions were even starker than on abortion. Some 92% of Conservative MPs backed the amendments, compared to just 18% of Labour MPs. However, the Lib Dems were largely opposed to the amendments, which provided another source of ‘liberal’ votes apart from Labour. But the end result is about the same: once the two main parties become roughly equal – indeed, again, even if there remain slightly more Labour MPs than Conservatives – then any future vote could become very close. However, we suspect that whatever the situation on paper, this issue is slightly different in practice; the nature of the IVF issue will make it very difficult to reverse once the practice has become established.

A time limit of 20 weeks for abortion – the Dorries amendment – is somewhat further away. Although the majority of Conservative MPs back it, they do so less strongly than 22 weeks (a quarter are opposed), Labour are even more opposed to 20 weeks than 22, and whereas the Lib Dems split fairly evenly on 22 weeks, they are 75% opposed to 20 weeks. But a majority Conservative government with a working majority (25+?) would see a vote on 20 weeks becoming very close.

Several years ago, we wrote a paper (sub required, sadly) on free votes which noted what it called ‘Tory pragmatism’ on these issues. By this we meant that Labour MPs tended to take more absolutist stances on the issues, whereas Conservatives tended to be more nuanced. You see exactly this with the abortion voting. The proportion of Labour MPs voting for the ‘liberal’ position does vary depending on the exact proposition, but not by much: 94% of Labour MPs opposed 12 weeks, 93% opposed 16 weeks, 85% opposed 20 weeks, and 80% opposed 22 weeks. So the difference between the proportion backing the most moderate and the most extreme options was just 14 percentage points. But for the Conservatives the difference was a whopping 46 percentage points. Some 37% of Conservatives backed 16 weeks, rising to 43% for 16 weeks, to 77% for 20 weeks, and 83% for 22 weeks. Most Labour MPs were against a reduction – any reduction – in the abortion time limits. Most Conservatives were in favour of a reduction – but only a minority favoured the most dramatic reductions.

We should also add that we find the argument – put forward by some – that Labour MPs trooped through the lobbies in favour of the current laws on abortion to shore up the position of the Prime Minister not very convincing. The idea that Corbyn, Jones, McDonnell et al, who voted for the 'Government' position throughout the course of last night, want to shore up the Prime Minister is difficult to credit. Rather, they did so because a clear majority of them happen to agree about the need (as they see it) to protect the rights of women. Moreover, the turnout of the various parties was almost identical: 85% of Labour and Conservative MPs voted on 22 weeks, for example, along with 87% of Lib Dems. It makes it difficult to sustain arguments about underhand whipping.

One last thing – before the football comes on... George Osborne voted for the liberal option not just once, but in 13 separate votes spread over two days. On eleven of those occasions, he was in with a minority of his party.

More to follow.

21 May 2008.

We've not seen the division lists of the multiple abortion votes this evening, ending with a fairly substantial rejection of any reduction in the time limits. But we note the large turnout - more than 540 on the final vote, including the tellers - and that means lots of Labour MPs. And we'll put money on that being the crucial factor explaining the outcome.

The downside of this for the pro-choice movement is that things could look very different after the next election. So, the best way to understand tonight's votes: no reduction in the time limits for abortion - at least for the next two years.

20 May 2008.

Half-a-dozen fascinating votes yesterday, as MPs battled with the intricacies of embryology. The votes revealed lots of division within the parties – none of the votes saw any of the three main parties united, and only once did any of the parties achieve what Lowell called a ‘party vote’, with 90% or more of those voting in the same lobby. The rest saw the parties splinter at best, or split almost right down the middle at worst.

Yet at the same time, the votes revealed – yet again – one of the fundamental truths of these supposedly ‘non-party’ issues: party is fundamental to the outcome. For despite the party splits, Labour MPs voted overwhelmingly in a pro-research direction. On every vote, the majority of Labour MPs voted for the bill in its original format, and against any of the various restrictive amendments. Ditto for the Lib Dems. Even though they split heavily on some votes, the majority of Lib Dem Mps voted against each of the possible restrictions. The opposite was true of the Conservatives. Again, despite some splitting within the ranks of the Parliamentary Conservative Party, the majority of Conservative MPs voted for each of the possible restrictions. In other words, despite these being ‘cross-party’ issues, every vote saw the majority of Labour and Lib Dem MPs in one lobby facing the majority of Conservative MPs.

With just one exception, around one in five Labour MPs voted in a restrictive direction in every vote (the exception was the limiting of tissue typing to serious or life-threatening medical cases, where support fell away). This was enough to show why the Government (eventually) thought it sensible to offer a free vote to their troops but never enough put the outcome of the votes in serious doubt; the closest vote of the day saw a majority of 93.

The other two main parties split more variably. Lib Dem splits ranged from 22:78 to 46:56. On the Conservative side the splits ranged from 80:20 to 55:45.

George Osborne voted in a minority of his party on every vote. David Cameron only voted on the first vote – but again, he was in a minority of his own party. We make that five times that has happened now during his leadership.

Amidst all the hoo-ha over the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, this is worth reading, in case there is anyone out there who thinks a) there is a clear cut category of issues called 'issues of conscience', and b) free votes are automatically positive. 18 May 2008.

Not much to report from last night's report stage of the Education and Skills Bill - except that the turnout looks very low. Around 270 Labour MPs, and just 115 Tories and 40ish Lib Dems. Are they all out campaigning?

14 May 2008.

Yesterday’s Second Reading vote on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill was passed by 340 votes to 78. The vote was whipped on the Government side, but free for the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.

After pressure from three Catholic Cabinet ministers – Des Browne, Ruth Kelly, and Paul Murphy – the Government conceded that key aspects of the Bill should be subject to a free vote on the Government side during the Bill's Committee stage, but this will not be the case for the principle of the legislation at Second or Third Reading, as Alan Johnson, the Health Secretary, made plain.

In the event, both Des Browne and Paul Murphy supported Second Reading, while Ruth Kelly was absent. Nine Labour MPs defied the Government whips against the Bill, including Tom Clarke, who was voting against his close ally, Gordon Brown, for the first time. One Labour MP – Paul Truswell – cast a deliberate abstention by voting in both lobbies. The Liberal Democrats split decisively 37/6 in favour of the Bill’s Second Reading.

Of much greater interest was the split on the Conservative side. In a low turnout, the Conservatives divided 37/49 against Second Reading, with David Cameron voting in the aye lobby. This is the fourth time since he became Tory leader where Cameron has voted against the majority view of his parliamentary party. The others were votes cast in favour an 80% elected House of Lords (where the Conservatives split 80/103 against); gay adoption (where the Conservatives split 29/85 against); and the abolition of blasphemy (where the Conservatives split 37/51 against). In each case, the party leader found himself in a minority of his party.

The Bill’s subsequent programme motion wasn’t free on the Government side either. This time, seven Labour MPs voted against the Government whip. Only one Conservative – Peter Bottomley – took advantage of his party’s free vote stance throughout the Bill’s passage to vote in favour of the programme motion, while the Liberal Democrats, also on a free vote, split 3/44 against.

13 May 2008.

The House of Lords flexed its muscles again yesterday, as the Government was forced to make concessions on its plans to introduce a new offence of inciting hatred on grounds of sexual orientation. The issue became tied up with the Government’s need to get its legislation removing the right to strike for prisoner officers through. The Government accepted a freedom of expression clause in the name of former Home Secretary, David Waddington, qualifying the new sexual orientation offence. Two Labour MPs – Clive Betts and Jeremy Corbyn – rebelled in protest, while a third – John McDonnell – cast a deliberate abstention by voting in both lobbies. The Conservatives supported the Government in the lobbies, but one Tory – John Bercow – voted against the compromise, dubbing the Waddington amendment ‘superfluous and undesirable’. Colin Breed was the only Liberal Democrat MP to vote in favour of the compromise, while the rest of his party protested in the no lobby.

Earlier, in a deferred division, the Government brought forward a money resolution on the Temporary and Agency Workers (Equal Treatment) Bill, despite the fact that it opposed this piece of backbench legislation on Second Reading. There are precedents for money resolutions without Government support, including the Rights of Savers Bill, which came before the House a couple of years ago. For some unknown reason (if anyone knows why, please let us know!), David Chaytor cast his first dissenting vote against Gordon Brown by voting in the no lobby. Meanwhile, Patrick Mercer was the only Conservative MP to support the money resolution. The vote also provoked a rare split in the Democratic Unionist Party, with Jeffrey Donaldson and Peter Robinson voting for the money resolution, while three of their colleagues – Gregory Campbell, Dr William McCrea and Sammy Wilson – voted against.

Earlier, Bob Spink, enjoying his new role as Britain’s first UKIP MP cast deliberate abstentions in two consecutive votes on Conservative Opposition Day motions, both on the Civil Service.

8 May 2008.

Last night saw a quartet of interesting votes during the Lords amendment stage of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, the most noteworthy of which was a sizeable Conservative split over the abolition of the blasphemy laws. On a free vote, 37 Conservative MPs - including David Cameron and 20 other members of the Tory frontbench - supported a Lords amendment abolishing the common law criminal offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel; 57 Conservatives - including Shadow Home Secretary, David Davis, together with 15 other members of the Tory frontbench - voted in the no lobby. By contrast, Labour and the Liberal Democrat MPs were wholly united in favour of abolition.

Earlier in the evening, the Conservatives again granted a free vote to their side over a Lords amendment to the Bill that would have inserted a freedom of expression clause, qualifying the new criminal offence of inciting hatred on grounds of sexual orientation. But on this occasion, only three Conservatives – John Bercow, Michael Gove and John Greenway – voted against the Lords amendment, while the remainder of Conservative MPs supported it. Both Labour and the Liberal Democrats were whipped, and both experienced minor rebellions. Three Labour MPs – Jim Dobbin, Peter Kilfoyle and David Taylor – supported the Lords amendment. Two Liberal Democrat MPs – Alan Beith and John Pugh - also defied their frontbench line in support of the amendment. The vote also saw a rare split within the ranks of the SNP: three SNP MPs joined the Government in opposing the Lords amendment, but one – Angus MacNeil, the MP for the Western Isles – voted in favour. They don’t like that sort of thing in Na h-Eileanan an Iar.

The Bill also saw another small Labour rebellion as five Labour MPs, including Keith Vaz, the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, supported a Lords amendment that would have amended the Data Protection Act, adding sanctions for the ‘reckless, intentional or repeatedly negligent’ disclosure of information contained in personal data to another person. Two other Labour backbenchers – Katy Clark and Jeremy Corbyn – cast deliberate abstentions by voting in both lobbies, as did former Labour MP, Robert Wareing.

Lastly, John Pugh was the only Liberal Democrat MP to support a Lords amendment that would have left out Clause 10, which prevents magistrates’ courts from ordering suspended custodial sentences for summary offences.

7 May 2008.

Another mid-size rebellion tonight, during the Report stage of the Energy Bill. We’ve been told that it’s 35 Labour rebels on the feed-in tariff, putting solar energy back into the national grid. It’s been reported as the largest rebellion under Brown – but if is 35, then it ain’t that. (The total to beat is 37, over the Offender Management Bill). More on this to follow.

UPDATE: It was actually 36 Labour rebels, plus Clare Short and Robert Wareing, neither of whom now count for our figures. Alan Simpson's New Clause 4 would have made the Secretary of State to require designated energy suppliers to introduce a renewable energy tariff for specified producers of renewable energy within one year of the passing of the Act. The rebellion produced four new Brown rebels - Paul Farrelly, Fabian Hamilton, Chris Mullin and Dr Rudi Vis - although all four were occasional rebels under Blair. It brings to 85 the number of Labour MPs to have defied the whip under Brown.

UPDATE 2: We've now been told that the figure is 38 - which would make it the largest rebellion, Hansard having missed off Jeremy Corbyn (how could you miss him?!). We're a bit confused, since that would - we think - only make 37, but those behind the rebellion are convinced the figure is 38... We'll look into it.

UPDATE 3: Whoops! The title 'And another one' was well chosen for this. Just as Hansard missed Corbyn, we missed David Heyes. So it was 38 after all -- and it was the largest rebellion against the Brown Government to date.

30 April 2008.

There were, in the event, no Labour votes cast against the Government last night, with the Government winning by 264 votes to 307 on the Tory 10p amendment, and then 304-262 on the clause stand part vote. But there were a sizeable number of Labour abstentions. Of Frank Field's 39 rebel signatories, 17 (44%) did not vote last night, most will have been abstentions. A further eight Labour MPs who had signed EDMs criticising the policy also did not vote, including Kelvin Hopkins, Lynne Jones and Bob Marshall-Andrews. The Government might have defused the worst of the problem, but there’s still unhappiness, bubbling away beneath the surface.

29 April 2008.

This – from Matthew Norman in the Independent - is funny, if a bit harsh:

Despite a healthy majority in the mid-60s, where Major's was down to single figures, he now has approximately a six times greater chance of winning gymnastics gold in Beijing on the asymmetric bars than of getting his nonsensical 42-day detention period on to the statute book. From this day forth Gordon is a legislative quadriplegic, paralysed from the neck down and reliant on uncaring backbench carers for the most basic of his parliamentary needs.

This – from John Kell’s blog – is much more thoughtful (although Jacqui Smith wasn’t Chief Whip at the time of the 90 days detention defeats). We also don’t buy the line that a defeat over 10p tax would have led to a general election; it would have been hugely damaging, but it wouldn’t have been a vote of confidence.

Still, the important point about 10p is this: here is a government with what traditionally would have been considered to be a comfortable working majority, and yet it is forced, effectively, to change a key part of its budget as a result of backbench pressure. So, come on Simon Heffer and all the rest of the parliament-is-in-decline merchants: when was the last time that happened?

28 April 2008.

Amidst all the fun and games over tax, a rebellion on Tuesday has gone unremarked.

21 Labour MPs supported Jim Cousins's amendment to the Pensions Bill that would have implemented the restoration of the earnings link with pensions in 2009-10 at the latest. The long-running campaign to restore the earnings link succeeded in the Pensions Act 2007, but the Government insisted that the change would not be implemented until 2012.

The good news for the Government is that the rebellion was not as large as in April 2000, when 40 Labour MPs voted to restore the link. Nor did the rebellion produce any new rebels. The whips have quite enough of them to be dealing with at the moment without any more being produced.

And yesterday in a deferred division, three Conservative backbenchers - William Cash, Richard Shepherd and David Tredinnick - voted against a draft order bringing in biometric registration for immigrants. The Conservative frontbench line was to abstain. It was Tredinnick's first dissenting vote against David Cameron's leadership. Jeremy Corbyn was the only Labour MP to oppose the measure.

24 April 2008.

At least no Labour MPs voted against the Second Reading of the Finance Bill last night - which would have been a first since 1997. Frank Field supported the Government - although we see that the names of Corbyn and McDonnell are both missing from the division list. Were these abstentions? The Government's majority was 75.

UPDATE: We've also noticed that David Taylor cast his now usual deliberate abstention on the 10p rate amendment.

22 April 2008.

Here are four slightly different views on what’s going on:

Labour whips see the vote as a "confidence issue," meaning a Government defeat could trigger a general election – Telegraph

Government whips have warned that defeat in the budget vote would trigger a confidence vote in the government the next day – Guardian

That is why government whips are correct to treat the vote as tantamount to a confidence issue - The Times

Labour whips told rebel MPs that a defeat next week, three days before the local elections, would be seen as a vote of no confidence in Mr Brown – an implicit threat that he would resign and call a general election – Telegraph

This is all a bit confused. Put simply, a vote in the Commons is only a formal vote of confidence if either the Government or the Opposition say it is. (There’s a very helpful Commons library note on this here). Treat with a pinch of salt all claims that it is ‘tantamount’ to one, or that the Labour whips ‘see’ it as one, until someone senior goes public and says so explicitly. Until then, this is just part of the process of ramping up the pressure on the rebels. And the idea that Gordon Brown will fight an election on a platform of removing money from the low paid strikes us as, well, a little unlikely.

The Guardian’s claim is also distinct: a defeat on the Finance Bill will lead to a vote of confidence ‘the next day’. John Major did something similar in 1993, following defeat on the Social Protocol of the Maastricht treaty but it is not clear in what form any further vote would be. Would it be to revisit the tax cut but as an explicit vote of confidence or would it simply be a motion of confidence in the Government (in which case the 10p rate would remain)?

If they decide that the only way they’ll get it through is to make it a vote of confidence – as Major did in 1994 with the EC (Finance) Bill – then that’ll be made explicit beforehand. More likely, we suspect, are some further promises to buy off enough of the rebels.

The whips need to be careful here too. Because if they go around saying that it is tantamount to a vote of confidence, but, say, 20 Labour MPs still vote against, then what do you do with the 20? When Major had eight MPs abstain on a vote of confidence, he removed the whip – with disastrous results. If the whips call the government’s bluff, this tactic runs the risk of undermining the nuclear option of a genuine vote of confidence.

None of this isn’t to argue that a defeat wouldn’t be hugely damaging. As we pointed out yesterday, it would be the first time in at least 90 years that a government with a majority of this size has gone down to defeat on a Finance Bill. It would leave a huge hole in the budget – and in the Prime Minister’s credibility and authority. But that’s not the same as it being a vote of confidence.

UPDATE: Note this, from Bloomberg: 'Asked if Brown viewed next week's vote as a confidence motion, meaning Brown would feel obliged to call an election if he lost it, his spokesman Michael Ellam replied that it was ''an important vote.'' Quite. So not a vote of confidence then, whatever the whips say to the more guilable of backbenchers.

Amongst the many things that has made the 10p tax revolt so tricky is that MPs have been away from Westminster for the last fortnight, where many of them have been getting Grade A grief from constituents. They have also been away from soothing words from ministers and whips, anxious to explain the policy and offer reassurance. We’re not sure how large any rebellion during the Finance Bill will be, but we’ll put the house on the fact that it won’t be as large as the 73 who have so far signed EDMs expressing doubts about the policy. It never is.

However, what if – and it’s still a big if at this point – they do go down to defeat? Jackie Ashley in today’s Guardian argues that Brown could be gone within days, if that happens.

Since the First World War, there have been 15 Government defeats on the Finance Bill which have occurred on the floor of the House. All except one of these – during Lloyd George’s coalition Government in 1921 – occurred under Labour Governments. None led to a Prime Ministerial resignation or a general election.

However, there is a crucial distinction: all the Labour defeats occurred when the government had a tiny, or in some cases a non-existent, parliamentary majority. Most were simply the result of Opposition parties mobilizing against them. Almost none saw backbench dissent on the Labour side; only one can realistically be said to have been caused by backbench dissent.

This time, the Government has a majority of over 60. No Government with a majority that size has lost a vote on a Finance Bill on the floor of the House in 90 years. That’s why it would be quite so damaging if it happened – and partly why we suspect it won’t happen.

21 April 2008.

That Richard Dawkins bloke, he know nothing. Proof that there is indeed a divine being came with yesterday's Sunday Times, and its leaked list of Labour MPs' views over 42 days detention. The pdf - with every MP - is here. And it's glorious! Our favourite comments are 'usually persuadable' (John Cummings) and 'hopeless' (Roger Godsiff).

We've no idea who leaked this, but our guess is that it is someone from the Whips' Office, in a desperate attempt to make the Generals realise the depth of the hole they are in.

We also suspect it's been cleaned up - most of the comments seem, well, rather polite.

One final point: lots of the coverage (including the Sunday Times) has said that the list indicates that at least 50 Labour MPs will vote against the Government. It doesn't. It indicates that the whips fear at least 50 Labour MPs may not vote with the Government -- it doesn't indicate whether they will abstain or vote against. In parliamentary arithmetic, it's a crucial distinction.

UPDATE: Readers of this site have pointed out two other interesting little snippets. First, the list includes Bob Wareing, even though he is whipless. It doesn't include Clare Short, however. Second, it doesn't include the whips themselves, a group which includes Sadiq Khan, who voted against 90 days when it came up in November 2005.

Gwyneth Dunwoody, who has died aged 77, was not only the oldest female Labour MP and the and longest-serving woman MP ever, as the rest of the media have already pointed out, but she was also the oldest rebel Labour MP. By the end of her life, she had voted no fewer than 118 times against various Labour Governments over the last forty years or so – with 84 of those votes being against the Blair government.

First elected for Exeter in 1966, Dunwoody rebelled only twice during Harold Wilson’s second administration, unsurprisingly since she spent the bulk of the period serving as Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (1967-1970). Eventually, she was re-elected as the Labour MP for Crewe in February 1974, and she rebelled on 23 occasions from then until Labour lost power in 1979.

During the Tony Blair’s first Parliament, from 1997-2001, Dunwoody defied the party whip on 40 occasions. In particular she spoke up, as chair of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Select Committee, against the privatization of National Air Traffic Services (NATS), where she voted against the Government on seven occasions.

During the 2001 Parliament, she clocked up 27 rebellious votes, defying the whip over a whole range of issues including faith schools, competition policy, the abolition of trial by jury, foundation hospitals, asylum and immigration policy, top-up fees, identity cards, gambling legislation, anti-terrorist measures, but not over the war in Iraq: in many ways, she remained an old-fashioned traditionalist, and was particularly strong in defence of the Cheshire Regiment, based in her constituency. But her most famous act of rebellion wasn’t officially a rebellion at all. In 2001, the Government whips tried to crowbar her out of her job with the Transport Select Committee, where she had become a fierce critic of the Government. On a free vote, Labour MPs voted to reinstate ‘Saint Gywneth’, as she briefly became known.

So far this parliament, she had voted against the whip 26 times, including eight times against the Lisbon Treaty. A defender of the rights of backbenchers, Dunwoody spoke out against the timetabling of the Lisbon Bill. She was strongly of the view that the Executive had become too powerful at the expense of backbenchers, and made dozens of speeches during the Blair period to that effect. During the debate on the programme motion, she claimed, ‘… this House is marginalised too often – it is not even held in contempt, but marginalised. We have become the backcloth for the Executive to parade around our Parliament, the country and the world.’

But most of all, Dunwoody will be remembered most for being as tough as old boots. She once terrified one of us by showing her impersonation of a plane coming in to land, complete with sound effects and waving arms. At times, she had the finesse of a mallet, bludgeoning her opponents with a searing speaking style in Commons debates. For that quality alone, she will be missed.

18 April 2008.

Some bright spark at Conservative HQ has crunched our numbers, and worked out that Gordon Brown has suffered more backbench revolts in his first ten months in power than Tony Blair did in his last ten. The resulting Conservative press release (‘Brown is the weakest post-war Prime Minister’) contains a whole string of other damning facts: 79 Labour MPs have rebelled against Gordon Brown since he became Prime Minister; there were more rebellions in his first month than in the first month of every post war PM; Labour MPs currently rebel against Gordon Brown in 38% of Commons votes (in fact, we make the very latest figure for this session, 39%).

All of this is true. And there’s more trouble ahead.

However, here’s four other things to bear in mind.

First, we wouldn’t normally compare periods of ten months like this, because rebellions are not usually constant throughout a session. Better really to compare full sessions with each other.

Second, the figure for the number of rebellions Gordon Brown’s period as premier is somewhat inflated by lots of small rebellions over the Lisbon ratification, which had its committee stage on the floor of the House, thus driving up the total, even though most consisted of just a handful of MPs.

Third, although there have been lots of rebellions so far in Brown’s premiership, most of these have been tiddlers. The (mean) average for this session so far is just seven, and the largest was 36. The largest in Blair’s last ten months was 95.

Fourth, although it’s true that 79 Labour MPs have rebelled against Brown since he became PM (and we bet that’s more than most people realised), it’s a lower figure than in Blair’s last ten months (the rebellions over Trident alone involved more) and nearly all of Brown’s rebels are simply Blair’s rebels, carrying on as before. Just two of the 79 had not rebelled against the Blair government.

14 April 2008.

We're a bit baffled by why the 10p tax rate stuff is kicking off now. Surely the time to object to this was either when last year's Finance Bill was going through Parliament, or when the budget resolutions came up? There was a small revolt last year, when seven Labour MPs backed a call to force the Treasury to compile an assessment of the effects of the aboilition of the ten pence band. But all seven were pretty easily dismissed by the whips: Corbyn, Field, Hoey, Hopkins, Jones, McDonnell, Simpson. It's a bit late for all the rest of them to object to it now.

6 April 2008.

In an interview with GMTV, to be broadcast this Sunday, Frank Dobson both predicts a defeat for the Government over 42 days, but also suggests that reform of the Civil Contingencies Bill may provide a basis for a compromise with the Government.

He warns that more Labour MPs are minded to vote against the government than last time, when the government was defeated:

“As far as I can see, and I’m not running a whipping system against the government, but just from what people have said to me it’s quite clear the government lost last time, and there are people who voted with the government last time who’ve told me that this time they will vote against what’s proposed because nobody has come up with any sound evidence more than 28 days. And when the director of Public Prosecutions who after all is responsible for deciding these things says that he doesn’t need more than 28 days, well, you know, who do we listen to?”

But it's also clear that there is a way out: “I just hope that between now and when the bill comes back to the House of Commons the government will listen to what a lot of us have been saying and join together and maybe we need to strengthen and amend the Civil Contingencies Act to cover against a real crisis or a real emergency and I’m sure that I and my colleagues will be willing to go along with that and I would hope that the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats will as well”.

4 April 2008.

The Liberal Democrats are a cheery bunch. Yesterday, they selected home repossessions and Heathrow’s expansion as their two topics for their Opposition Day debates. Both produced interesting, if tiny, rebellions in the two main parties.

Three Conservative backbenchers – Peter Bottomley, Douglas Hogg and Richard Shepherd - supported a Lib Dem motion highlighting the number of home repossessions. Former Tory MP, Bob Spink joined them in the aye lobby, as the Conservative frontbench abstained. Robert Key voted in both lobbies.

Two Labour MPs – Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell – then supported a Lib Dem motion calling on the Government to withdraw permanently plans for a third runway at Heathrow. McDonnell has a local interest: part of his Hayes and Harlington constituency will disappear – including three schools, a community centre and a hospice – if the Government’s plans go ahead. Richard Shepherd was the only Conservative MP to support the Lib Dem motion, alongside Bob Spink. The Conservative frontbench line was to abstain. Two other Conservatives – Philip Davies and David Wilshire – voted with the Government in the no lobby, alongside former Tory MP, Derek Conway, now free to vote how he likes. Like John McDonnell, David Wilshire spoke in the debate, but he came out in favour of building the third runway: unsurprisingly as 26 % of his 70,000 constituents depend directly on Heathrow for their jobs.

When the House divided on a subsequent Government amendment to the Liberal Democrat motion, David Wilshire and Peter Lilley voted in the aye lobby, while Corbyn and McDonnell voted with the Conservatives and the LibDems in the no lobby.

There was also evidence of local issues affecting the way MPs vote with a vote on Northern Rock, which until now hasn’t triggered much in parliamentary terms. We’ve only had one small Commons rebellion back in February involving just three Labour MPs. But it now seems as if local MPs in Tyne and Wear and Teeside are starting to get jittery about the consequences of recent Northern Rock job losses. Yesterday, five Labour MPs voted in favour of an Opposition Prayer, attempting to annul the transfer of Northern Rock plc to the state sector. Two of the rebels – Jim Cousins and Stephen Hepburn – represent Tyne and Wear constituencies, while a third, Frank Cook, is MP for Stockton North in nearby Cleveland. Two other Labour MPs appear to have rebelled – Barry Sheerman and Claire Curtis-Thomas. Curtis-Thomas, was, as of yesterday, Parliamentary Private Secretary to Baroness Scotland in the Law Officers’ Department -- and she remains listed on the Parliament site as a PPS. If this isn't a Hansard error, then we assume she will have to resign her post, making her the first government casualty related to Northern Rock.

UPDATE: We've now been told that Claire Curtis-Thomas resigned as a PPS some months ago to take up a seat on the Council of Europe - the Parliament website is out of date.

3 April 2008.

Last night saw a total of 30 Labour MPs vote against the Government during three separate rebellions during the Report stage of the Housing and Regeneration Bill. That’s two more Labour backbenchers than voted in favour of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty a few weeks ago - and yet there's been virtually no media coverage of last night’s rebellions.

During the interminable Lisbon debates, Labour MPs had to be forced at gunpoint to turn up to speak. But give them a bread-and-butter issue, like Post Office closures (last week), or council housing (last night), and they are queuing up to speak, and Iain Wright, the junior housing minister, came in for a torrid time.

The largest rebellion saw 30 Labour MPs support Austin Mitchell’s New Clause 8, which would have required the Secretary of State to take certain matters into account when determining what subsidy to give to local authorities to suppo