Just 308 MPs voted in favour of the Welfare Bill a few minutes ago.
Excluding the Deputy Speakers, Sinn Fein and the tellers, there are 311 opposition MPs.
The SNP, the DUP, Plaid Cymru, the Liberal Democrats and the SDLP all voted against.
Labour (with the honourable exception of the rebel contingent) abstained, leading to the Bill being passed by 308 votes to 124.
And yet Scottish Labour's one-man online presence Duncan Hothersall tells us that it doesn't matter how Labour voted, because they would have lost anyway.
Hmmm. Something isn't adding up here.
OK, it's quite likely that most of the missing Tory MPs would have turned up if they had known the vote was going to be close, but wouldn't it have been an idea to put that to the test? Isn't harrying a government with a tiny majority the tried and tested tactic of all serious opposition parties down the ages?
And, you know, don't Labour kind of owe it to the poor and vulnerable people who will see their lives wrecked by this Welfare Bill?
There's a Bill Hicks recording that is brought to mind when I read about Labour's failure to stand up for those they are meant to represent. It goes along the line of "Sucking Satan's C***" .... and this is precisely where Labour are. Trying to keep the City of London and its Minions on their side .....
ReplyDeleteIf Labour's attitude is correctly voiced by Duncan, then why do the Labour members bother going to the Commons.
ReplyDeleteVote against, abstain, vote for...it makes no difference...
So... stay at home then Labour. There's no point in you going down there. We can save on your Housing Benefits and your travel expenses.
Two points:
ReplyDeleteThis will go down in history as an easily won vote. Well, it was, wasn't it? If Labour abstain, (why?), then we can expect a lot more of this nonsense. They are cowards.
And I agree with the previous two posts. You are not put into the House of Commons to abstain. This is a party that wishes to accept, without thought, a Conservative agenda. But is scared of the single voter that thought that Labour and Conservstive were separate parties. "Y'know what?. we'll abstain" is not any sort of political ideology whatsoever.
They are a joke.
With "pairing" in the Commons MPs on each side can mutually agree not to turn up. A lot of Labour MPs probably did stay at home. That would explain the numbers.
ReplyDelete"With "pairing" in the Commons MPs on each side can mutually agree not to turn up."
DeleteCorrect me if I'm wrong, but I don't see how there can have been a pairing arrangement on a vote where Labour MPs were whipped to abstain. I also doubt if there would have been pairing if Labour had actually voted against, because the system doesn't generally apply to the most important votes.
Pairing requires both parties to stay away. The Tories didn't.
DeleteWell, it only requires certain individual Tory MPs to stay away, so in theory it may have happened, but it would be a bloody peculiar arrangement for a vote in which one side is whipped to turn up and the other side isn't.
DeleteIf pairing was in force (as some people on Twitter are claiming), Labour have got questions to answer, because that would imply they didn't see this as a particularly serious issue.
I thought that initially, but I guess normal rules don't apply these days.
Delete"Unbelievable brazen nature of SNP lines on stuff such as welfare bill. They know there was pairing? They must do. Wrong or peddling untruth" - so says journo Iain Martin (@iainmartin1) on Twitter.
Ok, your second paragraph is exactly right as is your comment about a "peculiar arrangement", but Pads was claiming that lots of MPs were paired, which the numbers of Tories voting doesn't support. I could have been clearer that I was referring to that claim - I was trying to reply just to Pads but your first comment is in between.
DeleteDoes Iain Martin know for a fact there was pairing? Call me cynical, but I'm not going to take that as read until I hear it from a more reliable source.
Delete"lots" was completely made up, I admit. And even then I'm only guessing that "some" did.
DeleteI don't believe pairing was in force. How do you pair, when the opposition is explicitly whipped to abstain? Can you imagine it?
Delete"I say old boy, I want to defy my party whip and vote against your bill tonight, but I've got a hot date so I can't be there. Mind pairing with me?"
Any Tory MP would laugh in your face if you came up to him with a proposition like that. If you're intending to defy the whip, you do it by turning up and voting. Not by an unofficial pairing arrangement.
Iain Martin is either pig-ignorant of Westminster procedure, or he's touting a lie to discredit the SNP. Or possibly both.
SNP interferes on English only matters, tories chop welfare payments of SNP core vote. Seems fair to me.
ReplyDelete"SNP interferes on English only matters"
DeleteIn retaliation for the Tories voting on a Scottish-only matter. Seems fair to me.
Would that be FFA that would affect the economy of the whole UK?
DeleteAh, would that be like English fox hunting laws affecting Scotland, because foxes might run across the border? Let's be serious. If fox hunting is an England-only issue, Scottish Home Rule is most certainly a Scotland-only issue.
DeleteFFFIN HALFWIT
DeleteThe Tories voted down TWENTY Scotland Bill amendments. Most of them were nowhere near as far-reaching as devomax or FFA: some were little more than tinkering, like slightly lowering the age for carer's benefits.
DeleteEnglish, Welsh and N Irish MPs have a right to vote on matters that affect the overall economic position of the United Kingdom. FFA certainly falls into this category.
DeleteOn the other more minor and local changes that were denied, I think it's pretty clear what happened. The tories set a trap. They wound up the SNP so it would take revenge and now the tories have a valid argument for EVEL. On a brighter note, the Westminster SNP now has its first achievement of the '15 - '20 parliament under its belt - fox hunting in England limited to two hounds only.
It's a somewhat less thrilling issue than the one that occupied them last year but hey ho...
"English, Welsh and N Irish MPs have a right to vote on matters..."
DeleteWell, if they're going to claim the "right" to vote on a Scotland-only Bill, there's not a lot of point in you shrieking about Scottish MPs voting on England-only legislation, old chap. Do try to get over it - if you can't cope with a little setback on your lust for animal cruelty, how are you going to cope with the shock of independence?
Frankly, it's going to be a challenge for you.
You assume I'm a supporter of fox hunting. I'm not. But I do support the right of English politicians to make decisions for England - particularly in matters that are already devolved to Scotland. That isn't lust for animal cruelty - that's democracy.
DeleteBtw does the SNP support animal cruelty as the proposed system is already in place in Scotland? :0)
To address another of your points, a Scotland only bill is not really Scotland only if it involves serious ramifications for the economy and public services of the whole UK. If you're going to end pooling and sharing and plunge Scotland into the red even further, that affects all of us. It is not a local issue.
How's about this - we end this parochial, petty, "mind your own patch" mentality and go back to being a unified country under one parliament, one government and one set of laws and entitlements for all? Leave the Scottish patriotism for the football - where it belongs and where it always should have stayed.
"That isn't lust for animal cruelty - that's democracy."
DeleteOooh - how noble! I'm sure that would have been an enormous comfort to the foxes as they were ripped to shreds.
"Btw does the SNP support animal cruelty as the proposed system is already in place in Scotland?"
1) The Tories were lying about their proposals being identical to the current situation in Scotland (who'd have thunk it, eh?), and 2) the current law in Scotland is in any case about to be reviewed and will almost certainly be brought into line with England in the near future. Do keep up.
"To address another of your points, a Scotland only bill is not really Scotland only if it involves serious ramifications for the economy and public services of the whole UK."
Oh, for the love of God, you could use a variation on that desperate excuse for absolutely anything. In which case we're back to English foxes running across the border, and the "serious ramifications" of the English fox hunting vote on Scotland. Cuts both ways, I'm afraid.
"How's about this - we end this parochial, petty, "mind your own patch" mentality"
I can't quite work out what you're saying here - are you still squealing about the SNP using their full voting rights, or are you admitting that you were wrong to squeal? Get back to us when you've made up your mind.
How's about this - we end this parochial, petty, "mind your own patch" mentality and go back to being a unified country under one parliament, one government and one set of laws and entitlements for all?
Delete"Go back to"? When did we have one set of laws for the constituent countries of the UK?
The really ironic thing here is that the left has ripped itself apart. While labour shout 'tartan tories' and SNP shout 'red tories', the real tories dominate and look set to do so for a very long time. Heaven - if you're a small state libertarian like me.
ReplyDeleteLabour aren't the left. What remains of the British left is reasonably united, and was in the No lobby this evening.
DeleteThere is, however, a rather awkward split on the right, with the Red Tories unable to decide just how enthusiastic to be in their support of the Blue Tories' policies.
"labour shout 'tartan tories'"
DeleteROFL
Even for the usual out of touch tory twits we get spamming cluelessly on here that's a cracker. What fucking year do you think it is, shit for brains? 'Scottish' Labour haven't done that in a long, LONG time, and no wonder.
"small state libertarian"
A tea party twat, yeah, not exactly a HUGE surprise you're a Palin type TBH.
As for the amusing and oblivious irony of you shrieking about the left as the tory party get ready to tear themsleves to pieces over Europe, well, that's the kind of comedy gold we expect from the out of touch westmisnter bubble twits.
Now be fair to Aldo, guys: Labour IS to the left, in the same way that Myanmar is to the left of Laos.
DeleteHello Mick. Did you enjoy the SNP's crushing defeat tonight? I know I certainly did!
DeleteThe left in Britain will only triumph again when it is concentrated upon a single, unified, moderate party. All the SNP surge has done is destroy labour in Scotland and render them toxic in England. This ensures tory government for many years to come. Independence in theory provides an escape but the people didn't go for it and wont go for it as most of them understand the economic implications. So that leaves you (the left) having to make the best of the situation. But you can't because the SNP and Labour hate each other more than they hate the tories. The EU debate within the tory party is as nothing compared to this epoch defining split between the Scottish and English left.
Please don't stop ripping each other apart. It makes life so much easier for the blue tories.
"Did you enjoy the SNP's crushing defeat tonight?"
DeleteWhat defeat was that? Or is this another "England is a bigger country than Scotland" point? The size of England and the number of MPs it elects seems to excite you so much.
"The left in Britain will only triumph again when it is concentrated upon a single, unified, moderate party."
Hmmm. You're going to be bloody confused when Britain ceases to exist as a political entity, and the left triumphs in a newly independent Scotland. In the meantime, we're not fighting the English left (ie. the Green party), we're fighting Labour and the Tories.
It wont cease to exist as a political entity James. The financial/economic argument just isn't there and the soaring levels of SNP support are not accompanied with a lead for the "yes" option in a theoretical referendum.
DeleteIf we assume that independence is not going to happen, then what is your next best option? I would say a UK Labour government - but you can't have one if Scotland returns 90%+ SNP MPs. We've already witnessed such an election and the people in England & Wales saw the SNP coming and voted to scupper them and labour to avoid a far left government ruled by a junior party with separatist inclinations. I believe we will see the same pattern repeated in future UK elections if the position in Scotland remains unchanged.
In other words, your pursuit of an unattainable goal is hampering your chances of making the best of things as they are. As a conservative, the current situation suits me. My party is in power in the parliament that matters most. From the point of view of yourself and your fellow travellers, if Scottish independence does indeed turn out to be the non option I believe it to be, then an alternative strategy will be required from you if you want to put my party out of power.
"The financial/economic argument just isn't there and the soaring levels of SNP support are not accompanied with a lead for the "yes" option in a theoretical referendum."
DeleteThe Yes vote in the last poll (which was strictly weighted to recalled referendum vote) was 48.2%. You seem to be staking an awful lot on 1.8% of people never changing their minds at any point in the future. Best of luck with that.
I do love your last paragraph, though. "If I'm right, which I am, just take my word for it, I definitely, definitely am, it's going to be GHASTLY for you." Actually, I'm right, and you're not, and it really is going to be GHASTLY for you, Aldo. The final end of an imperialist dream.
Sad.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHothersall was as toxic to 'scottish' labour during the GE as "no brainer" McTernan was. I'm susprised anyone would take him remotely seriously after his 'strategy' and 'help' left them with one MP in scotland.
ReplyDeleteAll those labour leadership candidates courageously abstaining have just proved beyond all doubt they are just as weak and ineffectual as little Ed and it is THAT which made little Ed such a joke to the voter. Being seen as weak and ineffectual above all else. So it will most assuredly come back to haunt each and every one of them.
Labour are fast reaching the point where if some westminster bubble fuckwit in the right-wing press demanded the Labour leadership distance themselves from historical 'extremist' Keir Hardy, then Harriet would convene the shadow cabinet and whine for hours over how the tory tabloids would 'trap them' if they didn't do as they were told and exculpate Hardy from the historical record.
The top of the labour party are spineless jellies and lazy seatwarmers. They seem only interested in going through the motions while cashing in their MP's pay and pension. All the while grubbing around for any lucrative job offers for when they inevitably get booted out on their arse. Just like their warmongering hero the Sainted Tony in fact.
"Extirpate", possibly?
DeleteTo be honest, I'm pretty pissed with my own party on this one. OK, I think opposing the bill would have still failed (As was said, the threat would probably have resulted in a few more Tories showing up), but Labour needs to oppose. Labour needs to be seen to stand for something. Abstaining won't impress anyone, and the sort of people who cheer on welfare cuts are hardly going to vote Labour anyway.
ReplyDeleteBoth Lib Dems and SNP have claimed that the bill could have been stopped had it not been for Labour abstentions. This is complete nonsense, but is a sure fire way to get retweets. While the 308 Tories who voted for the measures is indeed fewer than an overall Commons majority, there is a pairing system in place that allows MPs from both sides to miss votes without it changing the result. But then, the Lib Dems are about as famed for their inscrutable honesty as they are for their willingness to block Tory policies
ReplyDeleteThis is all covered on the newer blogpost, but to reiterate briefly : Pairing does not apply to important votes. So either pairing was not in place last night, or Labour have to explain why they think welfare cuts are a trivial issue.
Delete