How many Labour MPs oppose gay marriage?

Eight Labour MPs are on record as opposing equal marriage, which Ed Miliband will offer a free vote on.

I reported earlier that Ed Miliband will offer Labour MPs a free vote on allowing gay marriages in religious buildings. But how many in his party oppose the policy? I've compiled a list below of those Labour MPs on record as opposing equal marriage. There are far fewer than in the Conservative Party (as many as 130 Tory MPs are expected to vote against the measure) but more than some might expect.

For a comprehensive guide to where all MPs stand on the issue, I recommend the Coalition For Equal Marriage site.

Joe Benton MP for Bootle - Has signed the Coalition For Marriage petition.

Jim Dobbin MP for Heywood and Middleton - Told the Rochdale Observer: "The idea to redefine marriage at the present time is unacceptable to me. I do not think the government have thought it through because it will mean massive changes across the board to things such as people’s pensions and how they live. As a practising Christian my views are in kind with my beliefs. It is a simple straightforward view."

Brian Donohoe MP for Central Ayrshire - Told the Irvine Times: "I am, of course, against any form of discrimination. However, I also believe that marriage is a term used to describe the joining of a man and a woman only."

Mary Glindon MP for North Tyneside - Has signed the Coalition For Marriage petition

Roger Godsiff MP for Birmingham Hall Green - Has said he will oppose any law "redefining the current definition of marriage".

Austin Mitchell MP for Great Grimsby - Tweeted that "Gay marriage is neither urgent nor important.It's also a moral issue therefore a free vote on which basis it won't pass".

Paul Murphy MP for Torfaen - Confirmed lack of support via email to constituent.

Stephen Pound MP for Ealing North - Confirmed lack of support via email to constituent.

A wedding cake is seen during a demonstration in West Hollywood, California. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.