"...the 2005-2010 Parliament easily goes down as the most rebellious in the post-war period..."
The 2005 Parliament which was prorogued this week – formal dissolution comes next week – will probably be remembered as the expenses parliament. But it holds one other distinction: as the most rebellious parliament of the post-war period.
The session that just ended, that of 2009-10, saw a total of 48 Labour rebellions, out of 135 divisions, a rate of 36%. In itself, this is the third highest final session since 1945, beaten only by the 39% achieved in 2004-05 session and the 36% (but marginally higher once you examine the decimals places) of the 1978-9 session.
But when you add those 48 revolts to the 300+ that had occurred in the preceding four sessions, it means that the 2005-2010 Parliament easily goes down as the most rebellious in the post-war period, whether measured in absolute or relative terms. In absolute terms, there were 365 Labour revolts between 2005 and 2010, more than in any other parliament since 1945, and easily more than what had been the record (the 309 between February 1974 and 1979). In relative terms – a more meaningful comparison, given that the parliament was shorter – there were Labour rebellions in some 28% of divisions. Again this easily tops the 21% achieved in the second Blair Parliament, 2001-2005 (and recorded here, in loving detail), which was itself a post-war record. There were also, just for the record, more Labour rebellions in this parliament than in 1997-2001 and 2001-2005 combined.
The most rebellious Labour MP was Jeremy Corbyn (with a total of 216 votes against the party whip). He was also the most rebellious between 1997-2001 and 2001-2005. He was closely followed by John McDonnell (192), Alan Simpson (144) and Kelvin Hopkins (131). More surprising are some of the names at the bottom of the list. The 2009-10 session saw Megg Munn, James Purnell, Eric Joyce and Tom Watson defy their whips, all for the first time. Who would have expected those names? Taken as a whole, 174 Labour MPs rebelled in the Parliament, 142 of them under Gordon Brown’s leadership. Between them, they cast a total of 3318 votes against their whips.
We’ve recorded all of them – plus the thousands in the 1997 and 2001 parliament – as part of a long-running research project, which is now coming to an end. The first ever rebellion of the New Labour era came in November 1997, when Jamie Cann was the only MP to defy the whips, over the Second Reading of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill. A total of 13 years and 719 rebellions later, the last one we monitored came over the Digital Economy Bill, just a day before Parliament prorogued.
Professor Philip Cowley
Showing posts with label revolts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label revolts. Show all posts
Friday, 9 April 2010
Tuesday, 9 February 2010
New MPs, quiet Parliament?
We’ve been running a project, at Nottingham, looking at backbench dissent for the last seven years. Late last year, it revealed that Labour MPs were on course to be the most rebellious group of parliamentarians in the post-war era (anyone who can’t face the full report can read this summary, from Progress). And, in January, we showed how the Conservatives were much less likely to vote against government legislation than people thought (again, anyone who doesn’t want to read the report can read its coverage in the Times or on ConservativeHome). And occasionally, it’s even benefitted charities, when people are prepared to bet their opinions against our evidence.
The final session of a parliament – as we approach the election – rarely produces much rebellion. MPs tend to keep schtum, for fear of the electoral consequences of division. With the exception of Tuesday’s vote on AV – which will cause a split in the Parliamentary Labour Party – it’s likely that the fag-end of this parliament will be relatively quiet in parliament, and so people are looking ahead, to the situation after the next election.
The biggest change will be the number of new MPs in the Commons, especially on the Conservative side of the House. A Conservative majority government, with a working majority, could see almost two-thirds of Conservative MPs newly elected. In part, this has been caused by the expenses scandal, and the rash of decisions to stand down from the Commons that have followed. But, even before expenses (see this article from January 2009), it was clear that any new Conservative government would have a very high number of new MPs, simply as a result of the huge increase in the number of MPs they require. They currently have fewer than 200; a bare Commons majority after the next election needs 326.
Whilst lots of attention has been on how this is going to be positive for parliament – fresh ideas etc – there are good reasons to be much more sceptical. Our work has consistently found that new MPs are less likely to rebel, and much more likely to do as instructed by the party whips, than are more established MPs. There are lots of reasons for this, but the cause is pretty constant. In 1992, for example, the new Conservative MPs were the most Eurosceptic, but they were the least likely to vote against the Maastricht bill. In 1997, the vast number of new Labour MPs were half as likely to vote against the whips as their longer serving companions. We suspect that the massive increase in new MPs may lead to a period of relative calm on the backbenches, at least for the first few years of a Conservative government.
Professor Philip Cowley
The final session of a parliament – as we approach the election – rarely produces much rebellion. MPs tend to keep schtum, for fear of the electoral consequences of division. With the exception of Tuesday’s vote on AV – which will cause a split in the Parliamentary Labour Party – it’s likely that the fag-end of this parliament will be relatively quiet in parliament, and so people are looking ahead, to the situation after the next election.
The biggest change will be the number of new MPs in the Commons, especially on the Conservative side of the House. A Conservative majority government, with a working majority, could see almost two-thirds of Conservative MPs newly elected. In part, this has been caused by the expenses scandal, and the rash of decisions to stand down from the Commons that have followed. But, even before expenses (see this article from January 2009), it was clear that any new Conservative government would have a very high number of new MPs, simply as a result of the huge increase in the number of MPs they require. They currently have fewer than 200; a bare Commons majority after the next election needs 326.
Whilst lots of attention has been on how this is going to be positive for parliament – fresh ideas etc – there are good reasons to be much more sceptical. Our work has consistently found that new MPs are less likely to rebel, and much more likely to do as instructed by the party whips, than are more established MPs. There are lots of reasons for this, but the cause is pretty constant. In 1992, for example, the new Conservative MPs were the most Eurosceptic, but they were the least likely to vote against the Maastricht bill. In 1997, the vast number of new Labour MPs were half as likely to vote against the whips as their longer serving companions. We suspect that the massive increase in new MPs may lead to a period of relative calm on the backbenches, at least for the first few years of a Conservative government.
Professor Philip Cowley
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
