When it was pointed out earlier tonight that there would have been just about enough opposition MPs to defeat the government on the Welfare Bill if only Labour hadn't abstained, there was an instant excuse on offer from Labour apologists - namely, the pairing system. That's the arrangement by which a Tory MP will agree to stay away from a parliamentary vote if a Labour MP can't make it, and vice versa. (Although the definition of the word "can't" is often rather elastic.) I must say that seems a bloody peculiar system to have in place for a vote in which only one side were whipped to turn up, and I've yet to hear from a reliable source (ie. not Iain Martin) that it actually happened. But if by any chance it did, that would in some ways be an even more damning indictment of Labour, because it implies that they don't think welfare cuts are a particularly important issue.
Pairing isn't a universal system - it generally only applies to routine votes, where both sides are more or less going through the motions. Think back to the late 1970s, when seriously ill Labour MPs were repeatedly taken in ambulances to vote late at night - there was certainly no cosy pairing arrangement in place on those occasions. There's a good reason for that, because pairing always works in the government's favour - it effectively "locks in" their majority. By contrast, suspending pairing for important votes helps the opposition, because it introduces an element of uncertainty - there's just a chance that the opposition whipping operation may be more disciplined than the government's, in which case a very small government majority (like the one we have now) might be overturned now and again. And even if defeats don't happen, it's still an excellent tactic, because repeated "emergency" situations have a morale-sapping effect on the governing party.
Question : if Labour don't think savage welfare cuts are an important enough cause to suspend pairing for, what the hell is?
* * *
I didn't watch the Labour leadership debate on Sunday, but I've just caught up with the clip of Andy Burnham saying that he might consider having Jeremy Corbyn in his Shadow Cabinet, and it's quite clear to me that he wasn't "joking", as his campaign team later claimed. He actually had a look of total seriousness on his face. His people must have panicked afterwards and tried to repair the damage.
Burnham has form on this, because during the independence referendum he made a prize idiot of himself by saying he was frightened that he might be forced to drive on the right when coming to Scotland in future. When Alex Salmond quoted him during the first leaders' debate, he took to Twitter to use the excuse of - yes, you've guessed it - "I was only joking". STV's John MacKay even mentioned the tweet before the end of the debate, provoking much hilarity, although by that point it wasn't at all clear whether people were laughing at Salmond or Burnham.
The original comment was made in a newspaper interview, so there's no way of judging from tone of voice or facial expression whether it was intended to be taken seriously, but there was certainly no indication from the journalist that it had come across as a joke at the time.
If he's not careful, Burnham will soon become known as the Boy Who Cried Joke.
Various reasons from various quarter have been given for Labour's abstention, none of them consistent with each other nor with what the party leadership has said in the past concerning welfare. From the latter it is perfectly clear that Labour mostly abstained not because they 'wouldn't defeat it anyway' but because they didn't want to look soft on welfare compared to the Tories and are committed to living up to their claim that they are not the party of non-working people. They are just a reactive party now, defined not by their own vision but by what the Tories use to attack them.
ReplyDeleteTheir argument that they didn't vote against the bill because they had tabled their own amendment is pathetic and inconsistent with the argument that the bill would pass anyway. If that was the case then the amendment was pointless too. It serves only to provide a pretext for the claim that Labour were sticking up for the poorest, in other words to back up a hollow and despicable lie.
The fact that 308 Tories turned up shows that pairing was not in operation. The fact that 48 Labour MPs couldn't stomach their party's abdication of responsibility has simply provided the Tories with another stick to beat them with - namely that they are divided. So in abstaining the Labour leadership has at once alienated yet more of its own core supporters and appeared weak to those supposedly swingable Tory voters whom it seems to want to appeal to. Lose-lose.
The real reason for all these abstentions must be that they have shot themselves in the foot so often they are now incapable of even hobbling to the House to vote.
What's interesting is that Ian Murray would have to resign from the Shadow Cabinet if he defied the Labour whip .
ReplyDeletePathetic and embarrassing from Labour. There's nothing more to say on the matter. Our man (Lammy) voted against, but the leadership should hang its collective head in shame. No wonder folk in Scotland are turning to the SNP. It will be a landslide next year.
ReplyDeleteHow did Ian Murray vote?
ReplyDeletehe abstained.
DeleteHe had to. He's a cabinet minister and he can't defy the whip without resigning.
DeleteHis problem will come when there's a whipped vote on Trident. I'm sure he'll still follow the whip, but it's going to look terrible for him.
DeleteNot half.
DeleteI am a bear of very littl brain.
ReplyDeleteBut.
There are 330 Conservative MP's in the HoC. 308 MP's passed the bill. So a maximum of 22 paired.
So most labour MP's weren't paired, they simply abstained.
Is something wrong with that analysis?
Pairing was not an issue here. A load of Labour MPs abstained, to their eternal shame. The Tories would never have lost the vote, but that is not the point.
Delete"So most labour MP's weren't paired, they simply abstained."
DeleteYes, but that's not the issue that was being raised last night in Labour's defence. The claim was that more than 308 Tory MPs would have turned up if it hadn't been for pairing, and therefore Labour wouldn't have been able to defeat the government even if they had voted against. I've yet to see the slightest scrap of evidence to support that claim.
There was no pairing. That's just a smokescreen being thrown up by people who want to defend Labour against SNP attack.
DeleteHmm, I wonder how he will vote on Trident ?
ReplyDeleteIan Murray that is
DeleteThat "joke" comment in the independence referendum debate between Salmond and Darling always really annoyed me as it just came across as very disingenuous. Burnham was obviously back-tracking to avoid humiliation, but in the very same debate (although it may have been the other Salmond-Darling debate) Darling said something about this not being a time for jokes, that the issue had to be taken seriously. Hypocrite. I know it's a small thing but it just seemed like Darling would say anything to win the point even if it meant contradicting another point he'd made.
ReplyDeleteDarling was always aiming his place in the Lords imo. He and his wife were obnoxious in the extreme during the referendum campaign. They are what sell outs look like.
DeleteI agree 100%. We all knew that they were all about preserving what was best for them, not what was best for us all.
DeletePassing a shop the other day, I saw a sign on their door which said, "Just popped out. Back in 10 minutes".
ReplyDeleteLabour have figuratively hung a similar sign. "Just popped out. Back in 5 years".
I suspect by then, (May 2020), Labour will have replaced the Liberals as the UK's 'middle of the road' party; which is most fitting. The middle of the road is, after all, where one sees the most roadkill.
There's no reasonable way to explain this as pairing. You don't pair when the opposition is whipped to abstain, it's nonsense. The idea that some Labour MPs went to an opposite number and said, "look here old boy I want to defy the Labour whip and vote against but I've got a hot date tonight so would you mind pairing with me" is ludicrous.
ReplyDeleteThe people talking about pairing are either being entirely disingenuous, or simply lying in their teeth for political gain.
Most HoC pairs are long-established, so there tends to be a bit of quid pro quo going on.
DeleteYou may be fine, available or not under the whip, but your pair is the one with a family illness, or a logistical problem getting to HoC, or whatever else.
So you pair on the understanding that in the future you may be the one wanting the assistance.
I know it's popular to cast all politicians as evil bastards who deserve nothing, but they're human beings at the end of the day. And with 600+ of them in the House that means there's always going to be a few illnesses, family crises, wedding anniversaries or just plain double-bookings of time going on no matter what the day or what the vote.
Anon, it makes no difference at all whether there are family crises or wedding anniversaries - if there's a three-line whip on an important vote, the pairing system is suspended and MPs are expected to turn up. End of story.
DeleteEither there was no pairing last night, or Labour have to explain why they seem to believe that welfare cuts are a trivial issue that didn't warrant the suspension of pairing.
I believe you are correct about the three line whip suspending pairing, but I don't see anything about this being a three line whip vote for Labour.
DeleteDo you have a source? I can't find that anywhere, I thought it was a two line whip?
I don't have a source for it being either a two-line or three-line whip, but why on earth would there be only a two-line whip on such an important issue?
DeleteBeats me, I know the DUP went three line on this, it was reported before the vote.
DeleteBut given that pairing was in operation and nobody has been expelled or discliplined for rebelling, I'd have to say that all the evidence points to it being just a two line vote.
This is pure speculation on my part, but given Labour knew full well that they were going to get rebels (including one leadership candidate), maybe they backed off from going with a full whip because they'd be forced to expel/discipline too many members, including Corbyn?
Expelling one of the top leadership candidates because he voted against welfare caps? I wouldn't touch that media disaster with a 10 foot pole, maybe HH felt the same?
"But given that pairing was in operation and nobody has been expelled or discliplined for rebelling"
DeleteMPs aren't expelled for rebelling on a three-line whip - it would have to be a confidence vote for that to happen. (Dennis Skinner, for example, has rebelled on more three-line whips than he's had hot breakfasts.) So unless you have a source for it being only a two-line whip, there's no evidence at all to support that.
And where is your source for "given that pairing was in operation"? Has anyone credible (ie. not Iain Martin) said that it was?
DeleteOnly source I have on the whip was an article on the Scotsman site saying that Labour were considering a three line whip before the vote, but hadn't decided yet. It also confirmed that the DUP were imposing a three line whip on this vote.
DeleteI'd really like to know the answer to this but can't find it anywhere.
You're a twitter type of person, fancy pinging off a question to https://twitter.com/labourwhips ?
On the pairing, I hadn't read anything more specific that what you have.
I hate to break it to you - but the welfare bill is trivial. There is overwhelming support for welfare reform among the public, the vast majority of welfare remains untouched by the tories, and the introduction of the living wage will offset most of the benefit reductions. This isn't a full scale war on compassion. It's a minor adjustment to keep our country on the right track so that worse reductions don't become necessary down the road. Only the far left is greeting and wailing about this. In the real world, it's just another day at the office.
DeleteIt's a complete red herring. Pairing was not in operation. You don't pair on abstentions. How can you?
DeleteThere is no formal way to abstain in a Commons division, as there is no way to record attendance in the chamber during a vote other than by voting with Ayes or the Noes. One way is to vote in both lobbies, but this is not always recognised as an abstention and requires swift movement from the MP in question.
http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/voting-commons
Some Labour MPs did not turn up at all, others did but didn't go through the lobbies, others may have done the double lobby trick. But none of that can be paired against.
If all Labour MPs had turned up with the intention of voting against, the Tories presumably would have got more of their people to turn up - you must be able to tell whether MPs are around and about the Commons or not - but Labour decided to make it easy for the Tories. It was pathetic.
But given that pairing was in operation and nobody has been expelled or disciplined for rebelling
DeleteThat makes no sense. You don't know that pairing was in operation. It's virtually impossible that it could have been. But even if it was, what can you mean about nobody being disciplined for rebelling? The people who rebelled were the 49 who voted against. Not voting was what they were supposed to do, so why would anyone be disciplined for doing that?
How could pairing possibly work, when one side is whipped to abstain?
A Labour MP wants to defy his own whip, who's telling him not to vote, and vote against. But he can't be there. So he goes to a Tory and says, "Look old chap, I want to defy my whip but I can't actually make it, I have to do what I'm supposed to do and not vote. So would you be a pal and abstain for me?" Don't be silly.
Or a Tory can't be there, so he goes to his Labour pair and says, "I can't be there, will you abstain?" And the Labour pair says, sure, I'm whipped to abstain anyway. Don't be silly.
Three line whip or not, pairing only works where one side was going to vote in favour and the other against. It can't cover abstentions. And you don't get to defy your whip without actually voting, either.
Aldo : In the immortal words of Patrick Troughton, "OK, now we know you're mad, we just wanted to make sure."
DeleteRolfe,
DeleteYou could be pairing against a potential Labour rebel?
Honestly I have no idea, I'm just curious about how seriously Labour were taking this one, or if they felt the need to back off given they were facing an internal rebellion.
You can't rebel against your whip by doing what the whip has instructed you to do! Can you imagine it?
Delete"I want to defy my party's whip, which is ordering me not to vote, but actually I can't vote because I have another engagement, so will you be a good chap and abstain for me?" Said no MP ever.
If you want to be a rebel, you actually have to vote.
This Labour MP is saying she was paired with a Tory, and both were absent. She was getting chemotherapy, so fair enough, but I note she doesn't actually say she would've voted against the government.
DeleteSounds a very dodgy story. Pairing is for when one MP would vote for and the other against. If you're unavoidably absent, and you're whipped to abstain, there's no way on earth a member from the opposite party is going to abstain himself because of that.
DeleteWhy not? There was more than one amendment, presumably she would have been voting 'Aye' on the Labour one and abstaining on the second?
DeletePairing seems entirely sensible in that situation, it's not like she needed to make up an excuse to explain her non-attendance.
Why is there no pairing at Holyrood? My guess is that there's too much animosity between the two main parties, and they don't consider themselves part of the same "club" the way Labour and Tory MPs generally do, but I wonder if there's a more official reason.
ReplyDeletekeaton it does look like animosity, although this article is a bit old.
Deletehttp://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12767059.SNP_majority_threatened_by_pairing_refusal/
With a slender Tory majority with a nasty agenda, there should be no pairing at WM whatsoever. To hell with traditional cosy arrangements and nicities. The job of the opposition should be to make life hell for the tories, no make it all sweet and easy for them.
ReplyDeleteOf course, it is difficult to have all MPs available all the time, but pick and choose, have a rota, and above all, keep the tories guessing. The onus would be on them to drag their MPs out for every vote. With no pairing arrangement, the opposition can decide if and when it needs to maximise its vote, but the tories, with a small majority would be obliged to get them out for every vote, otherwise they are vulnerable to being ambushed. This should be a war of attrition. The tories have a small majority - keep them guessing and grind them down. No more pairing arrangements.
That's exactly how it worked in the past when majorities were small. MPs arriving in ambulances from hospital, even.
DeleteThe idea that there would have been more Labour rebels except instead of actually rebelling they somehow persuaded a Tory to abstain on their behalf is insanity.
Or we could consider reluctantly dragging ourselves on our knuckles into at least the 20th century and allow MPs to register their vote without being physically present.
DeleteI hear that the rebellious Scotsman Alexander Graham Bell has invented some kind of electrical telegraphonic device that carries the human voice faster than the quickest horse-drawn carriage! What an age of marvels we live in!
Seriously though, would it be too much bother for the HoC to move it up a couple of centuries? A phone call to the Speakers office should suffice when other circumstances get in the way.
Dragging people in on ambulances is bloody stupid in this day and age.
Only if they had a reasonable excuse not to attend (e.g. illness, bereavement etc), otherwise, it gets abused. They turn up because that is what they are elected and paid to do. Most of them would skive off at the first opportunity.
DeleteVery true, and that's what the party whips and ultimately the voters can decide upon.
DeleteHeck, even a simple proxy system would make sense, I've been using one of those with my shareholders for years.
James, can you explain why the teller doesn't vote? Is it that he or she is not allowed or do the ayes and nos cancel each other out?
ReplyDeleteTellers are included in the voting total for each lobby.
DeleteThanks for that. I'd read on the guardian that 55 of the SNP voted against and Owen Thomson was a teller. Wasn't sure how that worked.
DeleteAnon : No, tellers aren't included in the voting totals. There are two tellers for each side, so they cancel each other out.
DeleteI know Plaid have sometimes agreed to act as tellers for SNP amendments to allow all 56 SNP MPs to actually vote.
Deletehttp://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2015-07-20&number=51
DeleteThat was last night's vote, Labour rebels, 47 if you exclude the Teller. Similarly for the SNP.
When there is a vote in the Commons, the Speaker asks MPs present to shout 'Aye' or 'No'. If no clear winner the Speaker shouts 'Division! Clear the lobbies'! MPs not in the chamber get to hear bells for a Division & MPs have 8 minutes to get to the two voting or 'division' lobbies, situated on either side of the Commons, called the 'Aye Lobby' and the 'No Lobby'. After 8 minutes the lobby doors are locked. Voting is called, 'dividing the House'. MPs walk through either lobby and their names are given to clerks and counted by 4 tellers, 2 in each lobby. Tellers are appointed by each side of the HOuse. The votes are written down then given to the senior Teller once the lobbies are empty. Next the four tellers all line up before the Table of the HOuse, facing the Speaker who reads the result. It's meant to all take about 15 mins but is usually longer. If a tie (rare) the Speaker has casting vote. Traditionally the Speaker then votes for further debate or if its an amendmentm by tradition the Speaker should vote to leave the Bill in its original form. The Division list shows how MPs voted and is published on the House's website. There are also 'deferred Divisions', where votes can be recorded on ballot papers but apply only to Statutory Instruments or motions which can't be amended. Bills however can't be voted on via deferred Divisions'.
DeleteThanks for that very detailed explanation.
Delete