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.
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.
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.
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 support their housing revenue accounts, in particular, ensuring they had the necessary resources needed to meet the decent homes standard and the need for affordable housing. Two Conservatives – Nigel Evans and Robert Syms (who spoke in the debate) – also supported the new clause, as the Conservative frontbench abstained.
Earlier, 27 Labour MPs supported Liberal Democrat New Clause 1, which would have introduced a code of practice for local authority consultations with tenants, particularly in relation to ballots on whether to privatize the local council housing stock. Lib Dem MP Adrian Sanders voted in both lobbies.
Finally, five Labour MPs backed a Conservative frontbench New Clause 32, which would have defined the meaning of ‘Community Land Trusts’.
While last night’s rebellions produced only one new Brown rebel (Joan Walley) ministers and whips alike will be alarmed at the sheer frequency of rebellions – currently running at a rebellion in 38% of divisions.
1 April 2008.The crucial vote on the Counter-Terrorism Bill is not Tuesday’s Second Reading vote. In 2005, when the Government got turned over on this issue before, the Second Reading rebellion was only 16. That grew to more than 50 – and resulted in defeat – when we got to the detailed votes, at Committee and Report. Expect a similar pattern this time: there will be lots of moaning, shots across the bow, that sort of thing, tomorrow, but most of the would-be rebels will save their powder for later, not least because there will be plenty of other stuff in the bill of which they will approve.
It’s often forgotten that the Government didn’t just lose last time over 90 days. The majorities against last time were 31 and 33 respectively. So managing to pull in one or two converts, or getting the support of a handful of Conservative defectors, simply aint going to be enough. And it’s not as if we’ve seen waves of converts. An editorial in today’s Guardian advises the Government to pull stumps. We can’t see much alternative – at the moment, it seems to us it’s either that or go down to defeat.
31 March 2008.Last night, 12 Labour MPs supported a Conservative Opposition Day motion calling for an inquiry into the war in Iraq. The Government won by 299 votes to 271, but its majority was more than halved to just 28. Seven of the 12 Labour dissenters on the first vote then opposed a subsequent Government amendment, the Government winning more comfortably with a majority of 40. In addition to the 12 rebels, we suspect there were also quite a few Labour absences.
Only two of the 12 Labour rebels – Harry Cohen and Linda Riordan - were breaking their duck under Gordon Brown. But both are well known to Labour whips from the Blair era.
The other two main parties were united, but Bob Spink, who resigned the Conservative whip on 12 March before he was deselected by his local Conservative association, backed the Government in both Iraq votes. Meanwhile, former Labour MP Robert Wareing also voted against the Government on both occasions, while Clare Short voted against the Government on the Conservative motion, but did not vote on the amendment.
This was the first Iraq-related rebellion under Gordon Brown’s leadership, but there are no signs that internal Labour divisions on the issue have grown since Tony Blair stood down: last night’s rebellion was identical in size to that in 2006, when 12 Labour MPs supported a joint Plaid Cymru/SNP Opposition Day motion similarly calling for an inquiry. Eight of the twelve MPs who participated in that vote, also rebelled against the Government last night.
The recent spate of rebellions means that there have now been fifty backbench rebellions against the Brown government, involving 76 Labour backbenchers. All but two – Fiona Mactaggart and John Spellar – were rebels in the Blair era.
26 March 2008.There's a very good piece in today's Guardian, by Polly Toynbee, in which she deals with much of the hooha around whether embryo research is, or isn't, an issue of conscience. As we've said before, it's a much greyer issue than most of those pontificating on it seem to realise.
We're struck by other things about the ongoing debate, though. The first is how many people seem not to understand the difference between abstaining on a whipped vote (which is what PLP Standing Orders have always allowed, and what has therefore been on offer from the start) and being allowed a genuinely free vote, so that you can vote against something. Much of the talk at the weekend about government compromises failed to understand that what was being promised was merely the first - which had always been on offer.
The second is the one-sided nature of the pressure being placed on MPs. It's all coming from one direction - the antis. It's all very well Lord Winston popping up to lay into the Catholic Church, but where have all the charities dealing with things like cystic fibrosis been? God, as a Labour MP once said, 'writes a lot of letters'. It's no good those in favour of this bill moaning if MPs begin to buckle under the pressure of their postbags, if they've done nowt to apply the counter pressure.
25 March 2008.There were 19 Labour MPs who voted for yesterday’s Conservative motion on post office closures, with nine of them carrying their protest through onto the Government’s motion as well. In absolute terms, the size isn’t that shocking – Brown has already experienced larger revolts – but this was on an Opposition Day motion, and Labour MPs rarely rebel on such votes. The largest Labour rebellion on an Opposition Day until yesterday was the dozen who rebelled in November 2006 on a Plaid/SNP motion on Iraq. So this was the largest Opposition Day rebellion since 1997 by far.
The rebels are perhaps too easily dismissed as the usual suspects. For sure, some of them are – and all of them have voted against their whip before. But for John Grogan and Sir Peter Soulsby this was their first vote against the whip since Gordon Brown became Prime Minister, and for Eric Martlew this was his first against the whip since the 2005 election.
The Government’s majority was reduced to 20, albeit on a relatively low turnout. Indeed, as Ben Brogan reports, one of the most interesting features of last night’s voting was that David Cameron was not present to reduce that down to 19.
UPDATE: Tuesday also saw John Spellar, a minister for the entirety of Tony Blair's Government, remaining wholly loyal, defy the party line, casting his first ever votes against a Labour Government. In two separate rebellions, he voted against the increases in duty of beers, wines and spirits, and also against the increases in vehicle excise duty.
20 March 2008.An interesting initiative from the House of Lords, in association with the Hansard Society, Lords of the Blog, is a multi-authored blog from nine members of the House of Lords, and which has the potential to be very useful.
They've been blogging privately for a while, to get them used to the technology. So it includes Lord Tyler's record of a talk given at the Lords in early-February on backbench behaviour, which concludes 'Professor Cowley cheered us up'. Now, that's not a sentence you read very often.
17 March 2008.Anyone who watched PMQs this week will have seen the clash between David Cameron and Gordon Brown over who the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, and the Government’s apparent decision to whip it in the Commons, as they did in the Lords. There’s been much hoo-ha about what an outrage it is, issuing a whip on an issue of conscience.
The trouble is that this phrase, ‘issue of conscience’ is vague and fuzzy, and doesn’t really mean very much. It’s never clear what it includes and what it doesn’t. Oppositions usually find it very easy to grant free votes – it often gets them out of tricky difficulties with their backbenchers – but for Governments it’s often a tougher decision, and it depends as much on political calculation as any underlying principle. It’s sometimes wiser to allow a free vote – helps keep the troops happy – but that’s different from saying there’s some great principle at stake here.
Someone once wrote a very good book on this, by the way… It’s maybe a decade old now, but it’s aged well.
Bob Spink's departure from the Conservative whip means we lose one of the most rebellious Conservative MPs. He was the third most rebellious Conservative MP during the 2001 Parliament, and since the 2005 general election, he's cast no fewer than 27 rebellious votes against the Tory frontbench, 23 of them under David Cameron's leadership.
It's worth noting, though, that he's not the most rebellious Conservative MP. That's Ken Clarke, who has rebelled a total of 32 times since the 2005 general election. Spink would have been clearly in the lead as this Parliament's most rebellious Conservative MP had the pro-European Kenneth Clarke not racked up 25 rebellious votes in favour of the Lisbon Treaty in the last few months.
12 March 2008.Last night, the Commons voted by 346 votes to 206 in favour of the Third Reading of the European Union (Amendment) Bill. Just 10 Labour MPs opposed Third Reading, although around a dozen others are thought to have abstained. Eight out of the ten Labour rebels had also voted against Second Reading, while the other two - Colin Burgon and Roger Godsiff - had abstained. The three Conservative MPs who backed the Lisbon Treaty at Second Reading - Kenneth Clarke, David Curry and Ian Taylor - did so again on Third Reading. Even the Liberal Democrat rebellions of last week petered out: the vast majority of Lib Dem MPs supported the Bill; only two Lib Dem backbenchers - Mike Hancock and Richard Younger-Ross - opposed it.
The last word, as always on Europe, went to Bill Cash, who raised a point of order after the vote, asking the Speaker, 'to whom do I turn to establish the extent of scrap value of the Mace this evening?' The Speaker replied: 'We have a fine Mace, and it has no scrap value. It keeps its value'. As a former sheet metal worker, he should know.
The legislation now passes to the Lords, where there will be fun, fun, fun.
If you want to know the reach of the BBC, and Nick Robinson in particular, then you should see our readership stats for yesterday. This site gets mentions on other blogs all the time, and our traffic occasionally blips upwards as a result, but yesterday we got a brief mention, tucked away in a PS, in one of Nick’s blog post, and traffic increased 1000%. Worth every penny we pay in licence fee, we say.
In some of the comments, he got some stick for referring to the Tory split over Bill Cash’s amendment (below) as a ‘rebellion’, when it was a free vote for backbench Tories. This may well have been our fault, as we told him about it before we knew it was a free vote. But still, some of those criticising him implied that because it was a free vote, there was nothing in the story. Nothing to see. Move along now.
Rubbish. Why was it a free vote in the first place? And if it was a free vote, why not a genuine one – why backbenchers only? Why was the frontbench position to abstain (the stance for which Nick Clegg had been crucified earlier in the day)? And why did Conservative whips tell their MPs – as Ben Brogan reports – that there would be no more ‘official’ votes, and that they could go home, just minutes before Cash’s amendment was called? The answer is that Cash’s amendment tapped into a potentially very damaging divide in the Conservative Parliamentary Party, between Euro sceptics (now the mainstream Conservative position) and what could easily be labelled a ‘Better Off Out’ tendency. If whipped, it would have provoked a damaging rebellion; if frontbenchers had been allowed to support it, some of them would –allowing Labour to make hay with Conservative splits. It was a piece of tactical genius on the part of the Conservative whips to deal with it how they did, aided by the Lib Dems whose own divisions laid down smoke, behind which the Conservatives could manoeuvre. But it was still a very revealing split. Indeed, of all the divisions seen on Wednesday night, it was probably the one with the most long-term significance.
7 March 2008.Aside from the Conservative quasi-rebellion (below), the votes last night also produced divisions in both of the other parties.
In total, fifteen Liberal Democrats voted for two separate amendments, both of which would have insisted upon a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon. Thirteen supported a Conservative frontbench amendment insisting upon a referendum, while the Lib Dem frontbench abstained. They were joined by 28 Labour backbenchers. Meanwhile, three pro-European Conservatives – Kenneth Clarke, David Curry and John Gummer – voted with the Government in the no lobby. In the very next division, 14 Liberal Democrats supported Ian Davidson’s amendment that would also have held a post-ratification referendum on the Treaty. This time around, 26 Labour MPs joined in the rebellion, and the same three Tory backbenchers voted with the Government in the no lobby.
Whilst 12 Liberal Democrat MP participated in both votes, Andrew George only voted for the Conservative amendment, while John Leech and Mark Williams only voted in favour of the Labour one. Last night’s rebellions were therefore not the largest ever experienced by the Liberal Democrats. That particular honour still belongs to the 15 Lib Dem MPs voted against the introduction of the aggregates levy in April 2002. Some of the coverage lists 29 Labour rebels – but that includes Robert Wareing, now outwith the whip and an Independent MP. Denis Murphy and Mike Wood voted in favour of the Conservative amendment, but appeared to have abstained on the Labour one.
The Government whips will have been delighted to have seen a rebellion that, despite nearly hitting the upper end of their worst expectations (around 30 rebels) was almost completely eclipsed in the media by the Liberal Democrat splits. Had the Lib Dems not split last night, the headlines might have centred around the fact that the issue had produced the largest ever Labour rebellion on Europe since New Labour first came to power.
The reality is that while Labour dissent over the Lisbon Treaty has been very frequent (31 rebellions to date), it has not gone deep into the heart of the PLP. Even taking into account yesterday’s rebellions, the average Labour rebellion on the Treaty has consisted of only seven Labour backbenchers. And the total number of Labour dissenters on the Treaty now stands at 45, fewer rebels than have voted against the Government on a whole range of issues from
anti-terrorist legislation to replacing Trident to foundation hospitals to foreign policy issues to education reform. The fact remains that Europe is no longer an issue that divides the Labour Party to the extent that it did in the 1970s, 80s or 90s.
For the record, there were also two more rebellions last night. Seven Liberal Democrats opposed a Government motion that Clause 8 (covering the commencement of the Act) stand part of the Bill, with 46 Liberal Democrats supporting the Government in the aye lobby, where they were joined by Kenneth Clarke. Meanwhile, six Labour MPs opposed the Government motion.
6 March 2008.The party leader abstained, but a quarter of his party disagreed with him, leading to the largest rebellion since he assumed the leadership.
Not Nick Clegg, but David Cameron.
As everyone examined the damage done to Nick Clegg's leadership by the largest Lib Dem rebellion in six years, the Commons also divided on New Clause 9 in the name of William Cash. It stated that nothing in the new Treaty of Lisbon should be construed by any court in the United Kingdom as affecting the supremacy of the United Kingdom Parliament.
The Conservative frontbench line was to abstain. But 40 Conservative MPs, including 12 members of the 2005 intake, voted for Cash's clause. Europhile Ken Clarke voted with the Government in the no lobby.
This was the largest Conservative rebellion since David Cameron came to power, involving a quarter of his MPs. It was also the largest rebellion by MPs of any party during the passage of the Bill to date.
Since no-one else seems to be reporting this, we thought we'd better let you know...
UPDATE: We've now been told that this was a free vote for backbenchers. But still... There's a clear frontbench line (which is to abstain), and 40 MPs go into the other lobby. It may not be a rebellion, but it's a split, and a revealing split.
We've not yet crunched all the numbers, but last night's vote over a Lisbon referendum saw the largest Labour rebellion on the bill so far -- although Brown's premiership has already witnessed larger rebellions on other issues. The whips will be very pleased that they managed to contain the revolt, and get it down below the level where they would have needed Opposition MPs to get the measure through.
In the end, the story ended up being about the Lib Dems: in a strategic masterstroke, the party that is the most united on Europe ended up with a quarter of its MPs splitting, in what was the second largest Lib Dem rebellion for a decade. Genius!
The story's not over yet, either. For those of you interested in party splits, watch out for this issue when it hits the Lords. You can expect to find plenty of evidence of Their Lordships taking very different views to their party frontbenches, in all three parties.
Here are some benchmarks to help with tonight’s votes:
* Any rebellion of more than 26 will be the largest European rebellion faced by Labour – Blair and Brown – since 1997. The figure of 26 was set last night, when a group of Labour MPs backed a Jon Trickett amendment on parliamentary approval. Most Labour rebellions on the Lisbon treaty have involved fewer than ten MPs.
* Any rebellion of more than 36 will be the largest rebellion faced by Brown since he became Prime Minister. That was in January, over the right of prison officers to strike. (This was widely reported as 37 at the time, but that included Bob Wareing, who had by then become an ‘Independent Labour’ MP)
* Liberal Democrat divisions are very rare on whipped votes. The largest during the last decade came in April 2002, when 15 Lib Dem MPs defied the whip over the aggregates levy. But such divisions are astonishingly rare. Even when they happen (and they are very rare), most Lib Dem rebellions involve just one or two MPs. Until tonight, Nick Clegg’s largest rebellion as Lib Dem leader involved just four MPs.
* It’s also worth noting that, other than a couple of abstentions, there has not been a single Lib Dem rebellion on this issue at all thus far. It’s not the issue of Europe that will divide them, but the issue of a referendum.
* There will be a split amongst Conservative MPs as well. But it is likely to be a handful (two?, three?). The Conservatives are the least interesting part of this story – which is itself quite a story: on a European issue, the Conservatives will be the most united party.
Note to journalists: The important sentence goes like this: ‘According to researchers at Nottingham University…’.
5 March 2008.At last! Perhaps it was the long nights of staying in the Commons to vote on the Government’s eight motions on European issues that did it. Maybe they just got bored. Either way, yesterday saw two reasonably large Labour rebellions and one reasonably large Tory rebellion on the Lisbon Treaty.
A Liberal Democrat motion attempting on a referendum on the United Kingdom’s continued membership of the European Union was crushed by 471 votes to 68 – with the Conservatives supporting the Government in the no lobby. Fifteen Labour backbenchers supported it, including at least half-a-dozen broadly pro-European Labour MPs. Only one Conservative did so. Few Tory backbenchers wanted to allow the Lib Dems to expose Conservative divisions on this issue. A Liberal Democrat motion on the very same topic back in December saw 16 Tory MPs supported an amendment to the Queen’s Speech.
However, the next amendment in the name of Jon Trickett saw Labour and Conservative backbenchers join in an unholy alliance. Trickett’s amendment sought to ensure that the Prime Minister and Ministers alike had to secure parliamentary approval for their negotiating mandate on aspects relating to the single market. This generated the largest Labour rebellion so far on the Lisbon Treaty (topping the 18 Labour MPs who voted against Second Reading in January) 26 Labour backbenchers voted in the aye lobby alongside 20 Tory Eurosceptic MPs, including former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith. Recently defrocked Tory MP, Derek Conway joined the rebellion, as did the renegade former Labour MP, Robert Wareing. (The Tory frontbench line was to abstain). The Tory sceptics liked the parliamentary approval part of the motion, while the Labour rebels supported its commitment to ensuring a more social rather than neo-liberal Europe.
Thereafter, normal business was resumed in two further rebellions, which saw a total of only five Labour MPs defy the Government, and with Kenneth Clarke posting another two rebellions by voting for the Government line on the remaining clauses in the Bill. Clarke has now cast 19 separate rebellious votes on the Lisbon Treaty.
It’s worth remembering that, given that one of the supposed aims of having such an extended debate, was to flush out Conservative splits on this issue, most of the Tory rebellions on Europe have thus far tiny and in a pro-European direction, involving a tiny rump of four Tory MPs – Kenneth Clarke, John Gummer, David Curry and Ian Taylor. Last night’s was the first decent-sized sceptic revolt. Nor should we get carried away by yesterday’s two fairly large Labour rebellions either. As the Commons is about to vote on the referendum issue, it is worth noting that although there have been some 27 Labour rebellions on the Lisbon Treaty to date, these have involved only a total of only 28 Labour rebels.
Day nine started with a Government timetable motion, restricting (very slightly) the amount of debate on the European Union (Amendment) Bill. You wouldn't have thought so, judging by the response of Gwyneth Dunwoody, who argued that the bill was being 'cut short in a most brutal and unhelpful manner.' Not brutal enough, frankly, for those of us who've been trying to track the voting, and are in danger of slitting our wrists out of boredom.
But four other Labour backbenchers - David Drew, Kate Hoey, Kelvin Hopkins and Austin Mitchell - agreed. The House went then into Committee to discuss Clause 3 and 4. The same five Labour backbenchers supported a Conservative frontbench amendment trying to amend Clause 3 - Changes of Terminology. Two Labour MPs - Ian Davidson and David Drew - then opposed a Government motion that Clause 3 stand part of the bill. Kenneth Clarke supported the Government on Clause 3, and also on Clause 4 - Increase of powers of European Parliament. Three Labour backbenchers - Ian Davidson, David Drew and Kelvin Hopkins - opposed the Government motion that Clause 4 stand part of the Bill. The Liberal Democrats supported the Government in the aye lobby, but one of their number - Mike Hancock - voted in both lobbies.
The day saw a total of only six Labour backbenchers opposed the Government on the Lisbon Treaty, the pattern thus far in the bill's seemingly endless passage.
One of our favourite expressions – of US origin, we think? – is this: if my Aunt had balls, she’d be my Uncle.
It came to mind when reading the Guardian’s lead story this morning, under the headline. ‘Labour MPs revolt over 42 day detention’. It contained this cracking interpretation of a survey they’d done of Labour backbenchers:
The Guardian contacted all 205 backbench Labour MPs. Of the 78 MPs spoken to, 27 said they were planning to vote against the government. Twenty-nine said they would support the government, while a further 22 were undecided or would not comment.
If this pattern is replicated among the other 127 backbench Labour MPs, there may be a further 43 rebels. This would take the total to 70…
Note the ‘if’, ‘if this pattern is replicated among the other 127 MPs…’. But it won’t be. There’s a reason these people aren’t responding to media surveys and it ain’t because they’re too busy plotting to defeat the Government. To be fair, the paper does at least add the phrase ‘though even the rebels believe that figure is unlikely’. Too right it is.
Note also that the Guardian reports 27 of their sample prepared to vote against – but no abstentions. There’s always a decent number of abstentions on a vote like this – and some of those currently declaring they’ll vote against will almost certainly end up abstaining.
That said, the basic thrust of the piece is spot on: we’ve not found much evidence of MPs shifting ground over this, and nowhere near the amount of shifting that the government will need to win.
1 March 2008.Wednesday's saw Day 8 of Lisbon and a total of only two dissenters on the Labour side: Frank Field and Ian Davidson. Meanwhile, Ken Clarke's stout support of the Treaty continued as he backed the Government's position in all four divisions.
On Tuesday, Gwyneth Dunwoody, another backbench heavyweight, railed against Government plans to split Cheshire into two separate councils - part of an ongoing campaign she's been waging. Dunwoody was 'astonished' that the Government had 'changed the goalposts to progress this very shoddy matter'. The reorganisation would be 'absolutely disastrous'. The vote was deferred until Wednesday - when it saw her vote against.
29 February 2008.Yesterday saw a series of small Labour rebellions over the European Union (Amendment) Bill. The largest saw 11 Labour MPs support a Conservative frontbench amendment that preventing the conservation of 'marine biological resources' (EU-speak for 'fish') an exclusive EU competence.
Earlier, MPs debated the pros and cons of the new EU institutions and EU decision-making structures in the Treaty. Just six Labour backbenchers supported a Tory frontbench amendment disapproving of the EU's plans to establish a permanent President of the European Council, giving the EU a single legal personality, and 'abolishing national vetoes in more than fifty areas'. Two Conservative MPs – Ken Clarke and Ian Taylor – voted with the Government in the no lobby. Six Labour MPs then supported the subsequent Government motion approving of the Treaty's provisions in respect of the effectiveness of the EU institutions and its new decision-making structures. Ken Clarke was the only Conservative MP to vote for the Government on this occasion. Finally, three Euro-sceptic Labour MPs stayed up until 11.24pm for the fourth and final division of the evening, supporting an amendment in the name of William Cash that also wanted to delete an article relating to the new EU structures.
This was a real meaty (or fishy) part of the Bill relating to the powers of the new institutions – and yet the total of Labour rebels was just 11. All except two - Ann Cryer and Alan Simpson - had already voted against the Government on some other part of the Bill. It brings to just 21 the number of Labour MPs to have opposed the Bill so far.
The Bill still has a fair way to go – and yes, we’ve still got the key vote on the referendum – but all that talk of 100+ Labour rebels, of Labour’s Maastricht or poll tax, all seems a long way away.
27 February 2008.Some of the coverage of Andrew Miller’s pmb on the rights of agency workers presented the vote as the largest ‘rebellion’ against the government since Iraq. We don’t think this is a very sensible comparison -- a free vote on a private members’ bill is not the same as defying a three-line whip.
That said, it was certainly an impressive show of strength - which the Government will do well to listen to. A total of 148 Labour MPs voted, either in the closure vote or Second Reading itself (most, 137, voted in both). This is a massive turnout for a Friday. The BBC have 136 of them voting for Second Reading; we make it 138, although that difference may just be because we include tellers.
A year before, on 2 March 2007, the Government talked out a similar bill. This time despite an attempt at filibustering from Christopher Chope, the closure motion was accepted and passed by 157 to nine, followed by Second Reading itself 147 to 11. Most of the Labour MPs to back the bill have some form (104 of them have voted against the party whip at some point), but they included plenty of loyalists – Peter Hain and Ian McCartney amongst them. The closure vote saw John Prescott voting for closure.
The bill was also notable for producing George Galloway’s first two Commons votes of the session, both in support of it.
25 February 2008.Last night (21 February 2008), three Labour MPs - Jeremy Corbyn, Kate Hoey and Dr Lynne Jones - voted against the draft Prevention of Terrorism Act (Continuance in force of sections 1 to 9) Order 2008. The 2005 Act introduced control orders for terrorist suspects, but in order to get the legislation through, the Government conceded that the provisions would have to be brought before both Houses of Parliament on an annual basis. The Conservative frontbench line was to abstain, but two Tory backbenchers - William Cash and Kenneth Clarke (the latter casting his tenth dissenting vote against Cameron this session) - joined the Liberal Democrats and most of the smaller parties in the no lobby. Independent Labour MP, Clare Short also joined the rebels. The order was passed by 267 votes to 60.
And a correction: below we said that there were no revolts over Northern Rock, except for one double vote. That was true the first time the bill went through the Commons. But when it came back from the Lords, on 21 February, there was the only Labour rebellion, when three Labour MPs - Jeremy Corbyn, Mark Fisher and Kelvin Hopkins - voted in favour of a Lords amendment that would have brought it within the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Government overturned all the Lords amendments, and the Bill received its Royal Assent.
Day Five of the debate on the Lisbon Treaty saw Ken Clarke giving full-hearted support to the Government’s line on common foreign, security and defence policy. The sceptics had created ‘phantoms’ about the creation of European armies, which had never come to pass. The Conservative amendments to the Bill, he claimed, raised ‘fanciful fears’, and the arguments used to support them were ‘delusions’. Most of his fellow Conservative MPs didn’t know where to look: they twiddled their thumbs, scratched their heads, some of them played with their spectacles. Most simply cringed. But then, come the votes, it was just Clarke and John Gummer backing the Government in the lobbies. However bravura the performance, he is now an isolated figure on his own benches, a political Custer surrounded by increasing numbers of Red Indians.
The Government benches see the mirror image, with the sceptics a tiny bunch. In the three divisions that night, a total of just six Labour MPs – Ian Davidson, Frank Field, Kate Hoey, Kelvin Hopkins, David Marshall, and Austin Mitchell – objected to the Government’s support for the EU’s common foreign and security policy. We have the vote (or votes) on the referendum to look forward to, but everything else is turning out to be dull as ditchwater.
Other trivia: the Bank (Special Provisions) Bill, nationalising Northern Rock, and rushed through the Commons in a single day (Tuesday, 19 February), caused no divisions in any party, except for Lib Dem MP, Bob Russell, who cast a deliberate abstention on Third Reading. And the various local government structural change orders continue to cause curious splits within the Lib Dems. On 20 Februrary, it was the turn of an order on Shropshire. The official Lib Dem line was to abstain, but Nick Harvey voted in the aye lobby, while Norman Baker, Lorely Burt, Tim Farron and David Laws voted in the no lobby.
MPs returned from the half-term break yesterday, and the rebellions began again, albeit on a fairly tiny scale. Six years ago, the Government abolished Community Health Councils - provoking a rebellion by 26 Labour MPs. The new patient forums didn't lasted long, however, and the Government then shifted to a new set-up for patient representation in the NHS called 'LINKS', before reforming that system once again. This time, two Labour MPs - Bill Etherington and Kelvin Hopkins - voted in favour of a Tory amendment to the Health and Social Care Bill that would have increased the independence of these new bodies.
Later, Andrew George was the only Liberal Democrat MP to oppose the draft Cornwall (Structural Change) Order 2008, while the rest of the Liberal Democrats supported Labour in the aye lobby. Mr George represents the Cornish constituency of St Ives.
19 February 2008.Discipline generally good but a few disruptive individuals must amend their behaviour, it's not fair on the others - as our teachers used to say.
Figures for the session so far: 19 Labour backbench rebellions - the majority of European issues - meaning a rebellion in one in four divisions, but small scale stuff on the whole (a mean of six MPs). Since Gordon Brown assumed office in June, 62 Labour MPs have defied the Government at least once.
11 February 2008.We're not sure how much more of this we can take. Labour rebellions over the Treaty of Lisbon largely petered out this week. Day 3 (5 February) was dominated by a debate on the new Charter of Fundamental Human Rights, and saw the PLP wholly united on every division, while Day 4 (6 February) - on competition rules and the single market - saw just one tiny Labour rebellion, involving David Drew and Kelvin Hopkins. On the Tory side, Kenneth Clarke supported the Government motion approving its policy on the single European market, and later Clarke was joined by John Gummer in opposing a Conservative frontbench amendment objecting to the article in the Treaty making the functioning of the internal market to be an area of exclusive competence of the European Union. Gummer is the fourth Tory Europhile to defy David Cameron on the Treaty so far. Only 8 more days of this to go... and that's just the Committee stage!
Such was the low level of interest on the Labour backbenches that on Thursday when the Commons debated changes to the European Scrutiny Standing Orders (as a consequence of the Lisbon Treaty, but not directly part of consideration of the Bill itself), there were not enough Labour MPs to prevent a Tory amendment in the name of Theresa May being accepted by the Government, and so the change went through without a vote. As a result of the successful Tory amendment, the European Scrutiny Committee will now have the power to send for Members of the European Parliament and officials of the European Commission to give oral evidence before the Committee. We can now all sleep easy in our beds.
8 February 2008.Yesterday was one of those rare days in the Commons where constituency issues tended to hold sway over national ones, as they discussed local government finance. A rebellion involving two Labour MPs from Newcastle MPs - Jim Cousins and David Clelland - both angered by the below-inflation rises for their local authority - was prevented when the minister, John Healey, made soothing noises in their direction. And several Labour backbenchers criticised the Government's police grant settlement for their local areas - including Gwyneth Dunwoody, who claimed that the 2.5% settlement for Cheshire presented her county with 'enormous difficulty'. She later abstained when the House divided.
The only dissenting votes came on the Opposition side of the House. Both Wintertons - whose personal finances have made headlines recently - were involved in a small Tory backbench rebellion over cash-strapped Cheshire, where both their constituencies are based. They were joined by Robert Syms, the Conservative MP for Poole, whose council had come 43rd out of 46 unitary authorities when it came to local government funding. Unusually for these sort of votes, the Conservative frontbench abstained, with only the Liberal Democrats joining the three rebel Tories in the no lobby.
5 February 2008.Remember all those comparisons with Maastricht? We said they were cobblers -- but even we didn't anticipate just how dull this would be.
The second day's detailed consideration of the Lisbon Treaty saw three divisions on energy, but despite the topic under discussion, the Labour rebels seemed to run out of fizz. Just five Labour MPs voted against their whip: David Drew and Austin Mitchell on the main Tory amendment; the same two on the main Government motion; and Gwyneth Dunwoody, Frank Field and Kate Hoey on another Tory frontbench amendment. Tory Europhile Kenneth Clarke voted with the Government in all three votes, while Ian Taylor did so on the first two divisions. And that is it.
So far the lowest the Government's majority has fallen on issues of substance is 138. Gosh, the whips must be worried...
31 January 2008.Yesterday set the pattern for most of the Committee Stage of the Lisbon treaty ratification: small, but persistent Labour rebellions, interesting to legislative anoraks, but not the sort of thing to cause the whips to lose much sleep.
Yesterday's four Labour revolts were on 'theme 1' - justice and home affairs - and involved 7, 6, 4, and 2 Labour MPs respectively. They involved a total of eight Labour MPs. Seven of the eight voted against Second Reading, with the eighth being Gisela Stuart. That makes 20 Labour rebels so far on the Bill.
30 January 2008.For some inexplicable reason, one of us woke up in the middle of the night convinced that the government had been defeated over its programme motion for the discussion of the Lisbon treaty. We really need to get out more.
There was no need to panic. The Government’s majority was safe. After a six hour debate over whether to spend twelve days on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill (as the Government preferred) or eighteen days (as the Tory frontbench preferred), it was 12 days that emerged victorious.
Seven Labour MPs voted in favour of the Tory amendment extending the number of days for consideration of the bill from twelve to eighteen days. With the Liberal Democrats supporting the Tory amendment, the Government’s overall majority fell to 59. Eight Labour MPs then opposed the main programme motion, as the Government’s majority was again barely dented, falling to 56.
A total of just nine Labour MPs voted against the Government last night in one or more of the votes. All nine had voted against the Second Reading of the Bill last Monday.
29 January 2008.MPs pay and expenses can produce some cracking parliamentary votes. In 1996, for example, the Government line was overturned by 317 to 168. In the defeated lobby were Major, Blair (and Brown) and Ashdown. But in the other lobby went the majority of their MPs, telling their leaders where they could get off. Similar things happened in 1983 (when government frontbench advice on delaying an MPs pay increase was overturned, 226 to 218) and 1986 (when a motion on pay went down 172 to 128).
Today’s votes will be interesting but given the larger payroll votes now, we suspect that any similar embarrassment might be avoided today. The numbers voting for the SSRB recommendations might depend on how close any vote looks like it will be. Any MP voting for the SSRB figure knows that he or she will be accused of greed (‘snouts in the trough’ and all that cobblers). How many will think it worth attracting all that opprobrium if it becomes clear that the increase won’t be granted? If the pro-SSRB MPs realise that they'll lose, why not just absent yourselves from the vote, or even vote with the frontbench to suck up? But if it looks like it might be close, then maybe it’s worth it?
So the size of any vote against the frontbench could depend on how close people think the outcome will be. Normally, the whips trick is to persuade people that the vote will be close (‘do you really want to defeat the government?’). In this case, it might be the opposite: you ain't going to win this one, so don't bother.
UPDATE: Well, we were half-right. There was no chance of it getting through, so there wasn’t a vote at all. Respect due to Mystic Mark Field, the MP for Cities of London and Westminster, who floated this prospect on Sunday’s Westminster Hour programme on Radio 4.