Blow for Cameron as more Tory MPs vote against gay marriage than in favour

136 Conservative MPs voted against the bill, with 127 voting in favour.

Update: The final figures show that 136 Tories voted against the bill, with 127 voting in favour and 40 abstaining. In other words, the majority of Conservative MPs failed to support equal marriage.

With the outcome of the vote on equal marriage never in doubt (MPs voted in favour of the bill by 400 to 175), the key question was always how many Conservatives would oppose the measure.

Based on initial reports, it appears that 139 Tory MPs voted against the bill, with 132 voting in favour. Were this not a free vote, the Tories would have equalled the largest postwar rebellion - the Iraq war vote in 2003. If accurate, the figures are disastrous for David Cameron. More than half of his MPs (of which there are 303 excluding speakers) chose either to oppose the measure or to abstain.

The Prime Minister hoped to use the vote on equal marriage to demonstrate how much his party has changed but he has ended up achieving the reverse. While ministers will point out that this was a free vote and so technically not a "rebellion", there is no disguising the fact that more Tory MPs opposed Cameron's position than supported it. That is a blow to his personal authority and to his claim to have "modernised" the Conservative Party.

David Cameron chats to guests at the Gay Pride reception in the garden at 10 Downing Street on June 16, 2010. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

The economics of outrage: Why you haven't seen the end of Katie Hopkins

Her distasteful tweet may have cost her a job at LBC, but this isn't the last we've seen of Britain's biggest troll. 

Another atrocity, other surge of grief and fear, and there like clockwork was the UK’s biggest troll. Hours after the explosion at the Manchester Arena that killed 22 mostly young and female concert goers, Katie Hopkins weighed in with a very on-brand tweet calling for a “final solution” to the complex issue of terrorism.

She quickly deleted it, replacing the offending phrase with the words “true solution”, but did not tone down the essentially fascist message. Few thought it had been an innocent mistake on the part of someone unaware of the historical connotations of those two words.  And no matter how many urged their fellow web users not to give Hopkins the attention she craved, it still sparked angry tweets, condemnatory news articles and even reports to the police.

Hopkins has lost her presenting job at LBC radio, but she is yet to lose her column at Mail Online, and it’s quite likely she won’t.

Mail Online and its print counterpart The Daily Mail have regularly shown they are prepared to go down the deliberately divisive path Hopkins was signposting. But even if the site's managing editor Martin Clarke was secretly a liberal sandal-wearer, there are also very good economic reasons for Mail Online to stick with her. The extreme and outrageous is great at gaining attention, and attention is what makes money for Mail Online.

It is ironic that Hopkins’s career was initially helped by TV’s attempts to provide balance. Producers could rely on her to provide a counterweight to even the most committed and rational bleeding-heart liberal.

As Patrick Smith, a former media specialist who is currently a senior reporter at BuzzFeed News points out: “It’s very difficult for producers who are legally bound to be balanced, they will sometimes literally have lawyers in the room.”

“That in a way is why some people who are skirting very close or beyond the bounds of taste and decency get on air.”

But while TV may have made Hopkins, it is online where her extreme views perform best.  As digital publishers have learned, the best way to get the shares, clicks and page views that make them money is to provoke an emotional response. And there are few things as good at provoking an emotional response as extreme and outrageous political views.

And in many ways it doesn’t matter whether that response is negative or positive. Those who complain about what Hopkins says are also the ones who draw attention to it – many will read what she writes in order to know exactly why they should hate her.

Of course using outrageous views as a sales tactic is not confined to the web – The Daily Mail prints columns by Sarah Vine for a reason - but the risks of pushing the boundaries of taste and decency are greater in a linear, analogue world. Cancelling a newspaper subscription or changing radio station is a simpler and often longer-lasting act than pledging to never click on a tempting link on Twitter or Facebook. LBC may have had far more to lose from sticking with Hopkins than Mail Online does, and much less to gain. Someone prepared to say what Hopkins says will not be out of work for long. 

0800 7318496