Labour brought a vote yesterday at Westminster on the bedroom tax, calling for its abolition. Great: let’s end this stain on British politics, this attack on the poorest and the most vulnerable, yet another personal cut especially targeted at people with disabilities.
On the night only two Lib Dems dared to back Labour – Tim Farron, their next leader, desperate to find the right amount of distance from his own party, plus Andrew George. But with some abstentions, the coalition only secured 252 votes for the bedroom tax. With 257 Labour MPs in the Commons, plus the backing in this case of the SNP, Plaid, Greens and more, this should have been a historic victory over a key bit of Coalition savagery.
Unfortunately Labour didn’t turn up. That would have been sufficient. Simply to turn up. Not even all of them, necessarily, although if the poor and vulnerable matter to them, this might take precedence over, well, anything else they might be doing (pairing would have been fine). But no, there were sufficient Labour absentees to save the Tories’ and Lib Dems’ skins.
Yesterday Labour were criticising IDS for not turning up to the vote. Oh, the irony. Oh, the hypocrisy. What, seriously, is the point of an opposition that works like this?
But it gets worse. For some reason I get Labour spam, and I received this shameless email from Rachel Reeves this morning. If she signed this dishonest missive off herself she doesn’t belong in politics.
Update: the full list of those voting is here (h/t). If it turns out I’m wrong and it’s all pairing, I’ll take some of it back. But I wouldn’t have let the Coalition pair on this, on reflection.
#1 by Paul on November 13, 2013 - 9:24 am
As per twitter exhange, James, I’m not quite clear on the maths of the “pairing would have been fine” issue.
Let’s leave aside whether the concept of pairing is fine for now – like Dennis Skinner, I don’t think it is fine, but let’s work on basis of current convention.
If, let us say for argument, 216 of the 226 no votes were from Labour, the others from Plaid, SNP, Green) vs. the 252 of the Coalition, that leaves Lab 36 behind, with (257-216) 41 MPs not voting for whatever reason.
If, say, 20 of that 41 were pairs who had decided to not abide by pairing, and the other 21 not paired, this would have shifted the vote total to (216+10+20) 246 no votes vs (252+20) 272 yes votes, a gap of 26, but with only a non-paired voting pool of (41-20) 21 Labour MPs left.
But if only 10 of the 41 were pairs, we’d get (216+10+10) 236 no votes vs (252+20) 262, a gap of 26 but with a non-paired voting pool of (41-10) 31 Labour MPs left to win the day.
So in the end isn’t the key question how many Labour MPs (and actually SNP, Plaid, Green) were actually paired before any final judgment can be made?
Or have I missed something obvious?
#2 by BaffieBox on November 13, 2013 - 9:35 am
The numbers are irrelevant and so is pairing. It’s their job. We’ll never know now whether Labour care enough about the Bedroom Tax because they didn’t bother to show up. That’s a tacit acceptance of the policy.
When you invest so much political capital, and whisper it, principle, on stuff like this, you get your MPs in the lobby and you make the government vote. If for nothing else, you force them to put their name all over the policy and get it on record.
I’m not entirely surprised Labour and their usual happy clappers are justifying pairing in some way this morning, but it’s another example of the political system being broken at Westminster. How the main so-called opposition can suddenly abstain on this vote after the noises they’ve made is disgraceful.
I’ve got a total beemur for Anas Sarwar after his recent dramatics on Scotland Tonight and I’ve got a total beemur for the Labour Party. Embarrassing.
#3 by Duncan Hothersall on November 13, 2013 - 10:17 am
The government has a majority of 75. In the run-up to any vote of this nature, whips will calculate the chances of a win. If it’s close, they will push hard to get every member into the chamber. If it’s not, it would be a waste of public money and an unnecessary impact on the vital work MPs do in constituencies and elsewhere to drag them in.
The issue in this instance was whether enough Lib Dems could be persuaded to vote against the government to make their majority assailable. It became clear very quickly that the Lib Dems were not about to budge. So if Labour had whipped everyone down, the government would have whipped everyone down and we would still have lost.
#4 by Keir Hardly on November 14, 2013 - 1:04 pm
Oh, that’s feeble. If “we’re going to lose the vote” was an excuse not to show up, the opposition lobbies would be empty at every division. Why did 200 or so Labour MPs turn up to a lost cause, but not the rest?
We pay their fat salaries, and often we pay tens of thousands of pounds extra to put them up in accommodation convenient for attending Westminster. The very least we can demand is that on a subject this important, the useless lazy greedy shitehawks get off their backsides and damn well MAKE the Tories whip their MPs.
#5 by Danny on November 13, 2013 - 12:46 pm
What strikes me is the lack of any debate on the bedroom tax policy itself – which I lean towards supporting – seems to me like the Scottish centre-left have just decided they don’t like it and are using is as an excuse to have a pop at the big bad union.
#6 by Allan on November 13, 2013 - 9:25 pm
Two points.
Firstly, whats forgotten here is that it could be argued that Labour have been pushed into opposition of the Bedroom Tax. Not just by left of centre elements down south, not just by the queues of people hurt by the policy but by the absolute pummeling representitives of “Scottish” Labour received in the media up here by the “Yes” camp. The look of incomprehension on the faces on the likes of Sarwar & Ballie must have rung alarm bells in London as the Yes camp suddenly sensed that for the first time “Scottish” Labour were (and still are) on the ropes.
Secondly, the The Bedroom Tax, as has been pointed out elsewhere, is an ill thought out and rather cowardly piece of policymaking. Danny, ask yourself why the Westminster parties have not gone after the private sector landlords, who were the parties that caused the jump in housing benefits. There are better ways to bring down the cost of housing benefit, the Tories just don’t have the inteligence to think of them.
#7 by Jen on November 14, 2013 - 2:22 pm
I don’t get the issue of pairing however it does not feel right. I think each MP should be allowed to vote what ever way they want. I don’t think this whip system is a positive thing.
I agree with Allan’s comments above, Labour are pushed into opposition of the Bedroom Tax. I’m sure they introduced this for private renters! Therefore it’s hard to see how they can truly against the tax and it’s implications.
I think this was a splendid piece of public relations for the Labour Party and nothing more. There brand is symbolised in the minds of people as being pro people however there years in Government were hardly the politics of supporting the nation as a whole. There is no difference between labour and the tories and people in Scotland need to wake up and stop voting Labour. I would prefer people to vote for any other party rather than the usual suspects. Westminister needs an infusion of new people with new ideas. Obviously I don’t mean vote UKIP!