Cameron suffers the biggest Tory rebellion yet
91 Tory MPs vote against House of Lords reform in the biggest revolt of this parliament.
By George Eaton Published 10 July 2012 23:04
With all three of the main parties whipping their MPs in favour of Lords reform, the result of tonight's vote (the programme motion having been withdrawn) was never in doubt. MPs voted overwhelmingly by 462-124 to give the bill a second reading.
But the real story is the size of the Conservative revolt. With 91 Tory MPs voting against the bill, it was the largest rebellion since the formation of the coalition, beating the previous record of 82 set by the EU rebels last year. The rebels were just four short of matching the largest Conservative rebellion of the post-war era over the Major government's post-Dunblane firearms legislation. Conor Burns, PPS to Northern Ireland Secretary Owen Paterson, resigned from the government in protest earlier today, and Angie Bray, PPS to Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude, was sacked immediately after the vote. As ConservativeHome notes, if one takes into account the number of Tory abstentions, more than half of all the party's backbenchers defied the whip and refused to vote for the bill.
By withdrawing the programme motion at the eleventh hour, Cameron avoided the ignominy of an outright Commons defeat. But his authority has been badly dented by tonight's vote. As in the case of the EU referendum vote, the PM was forced to rely on Labour votes to carry the day.
As I wrote earlier, the fate of Lords reform now lies in Labour's hands. If Ed Miliband agrees to the use of closure motions to prevent filibustering by the rebels, the bill could yet make it through the Commons. The key question is what the coalition will have to offer Labour in return for its backing. One possibility, as I suggested in my last post, is that Cameron and Clegg will agree to a referendum, a proposal that Labour endorsed in its 2010 manifesto and that a number of Tory rebels also support.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists




















15 comments
Nice article..... interesting.
Goji Goji fructe goji
No more spurious ground for opposing a referendum could be imagined than that all three parties are in favour. Democracy requires that the electorate is presented with a choice so that the people's will can be ascertained. How else can there be a choice expect through a referendum?
No more spurious ground for opposing a referendum could be imagined than that all three parties are in favour. Democracy requires that the electorate is presented with a choice so that the people's will can be ascertained. How else can there be a choice expect through a referendum?
No more spurious ground for opposing a referendum could be imagined than that all three parties are in favour. Democracy requires that the electorate is presented with a choice so that the people's will can be ascertained. How else can there be a choice expect through a referendum?
No more spurious ground for opposing a referendum could be imagined than that all three parties are in favour. Democracy requires that the electorate is presented with a choice so that the people's will can be ascertained. How else can there be a choice expect through a referendum?
No more spurious ground for opposing a referendum could be imagined than that all three parties are in favour. Democracy requires that the electorate is presented with a choice so that the people's will can be ascertained. How else can there be a choice expect through a referendum?
No more spurious ground for opposing a referendum could be imagined than that all three parties are in favour. Democracy requires that the electorate is presented with a choice so that the people's will can be ascertained. How else can there be a choice expect through a referendum?
No more spurious ground for opposing a referendum could be imagined than that all three parties are in favour. Democracy requires that the electorate is presented with a choice so that the people's will can be ascertained. How else can there be a choice expect through a referendum?
Goodie goodie wonderful, this arrogant chinless wonder will be deposed next with a bit of luck!
Why am I reading elsewhere that the vote was abandoned? What is going on?
The vote that was abandoned was a separate 'programme motion' which would have fast-tracked the bill by limiting debate to 10 days. That vote was pulled because it became clear the government was certain to lose, as Labour were going to vote against along with the Tory rebels. The vote that went ahead was a scheduled one on taking the bill through to the next stage, and it went through despite the revolt as Labour voted with the government. The Labour line is that they support the principle of the bill but think parliament should have more time to debate and amend it.
'on taking the bill through to the next stage'
to the Labour's favor; anyway it's a normal/formal way, don't get this larum though, what's the point, NS, in pointing the finger in DC's direction?
There's no rebel in here, they just expressed their views, no wonder! (and are in minority), in case of Labour's help that would be a rebel. So, all in all, 3 readings are perfectly normal/formal.
A 100 member fully elected Senate, not 850 appointees, either that or scrapping the second chamber entirely and devolving much more power to locally elected assemblies.
NO! Dont let it pass. It is such an awful Bill :/
Yes, I'm with Will; we need more corpulent land owners presiding over us!