Skip to main content

Reconciling Division 74

One interesting aspect of Division 74 was that Hansard's list of names and the tellers' count differed by 2 votes on the ayes.

When MPs vote they first walk into rooms around the North (Aye) and South (No) of the chamber of the House of Commons. Then they walk out of those rooms. As they walk through the doors out of the rooms (lobbys) they are counted by "tellers".

There are two tellers on each exit. One supports aye and the other supports no so there are four tellers in all.

Inside the lobbys there are people sitting at three high desks with lists of names and they tick of the names of MPs as they walk past them.

Clearly you can count the name listed as well as count the people leaving the rooms.

Your party gets stressed if you don't vote with it. That can result in all sorts of sanctions the strongest of which is removing the whip and, therefore, potentially preventing you from standing with the party at the next general election. (cf Howard Flight).

The question, of course, on this was where are the two other votes. Were there two MPs who managed to vote without getting their names recorded? Alternatively did the tellers manage to count extra people.

It is interesting also that the Ulster Unionist voted with the Government, but that the DUP voted against.

Ten Conservatives didn't vote (one more than the 9 I had been told of and not all of them were paired). George Galloway didn't vote. 21 Labour MPs didn't vote (including one minister), 2 Lib Dems didn't vote. Two SDLP didn't vote (one did against the government), the Five SF members never vote. 32 Labour MPs voted against the government (including the two tellers for aye who didn't actually vote per se, but were tellers)

This shows the vulnerability of the Labour majority as there are an easy (9+1+2+2) 14 more votes that can be found against the government.

The question now is how hard the Labour whips now go around twisting arms for next week.

The point about Labour's majority is that one should ignore the votes from Sinn Fein because they never turn up and, therefore, their majority is more like 71 than 66.


Stephen Booth said…
Perhaps we should fit all MPs with RFID tags and the voting rooms with readers to avoid such discrepancies in the future? Having been a teller at large meetings (ranging from a hunderd or so up to a couple of thousand) I do know how easy it is to make a mistake.

I am given to understand that many enterprises (both public and private sector) are considering or even implementing such systems to track their employees and monitor such things as toilet breaks.
Richard Allen said…
The vote by Lady Hermon (Ulster Unionist) seems especially strange since she actually voted against the entire bill at second reading.
Chris Black said…
George Galloway didn't vote???? That's a bit of a disappointment if you are a Respect voter , isn't it?
john said…
He was earning money (he says for Respect) in Cork at the time.

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.

I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…