Labour abandons support for gay marriage "wrecking" amendment

The party tables its own rival amendment to establish a consultation on introducing civil partnerships for heterosexual couples.

After ministers warned that the amendment to the gay marriage bill establishing civil partnerships for heterosexual couples could "wreck" the legislation, Labour has opted not to support the amendment and instead table its own. 

The Labour amendment, as outlined by Yvette Cooper on The World At One, would establish "an immediate consultation on opposite sex civil partnerships", which, she said, could begin even before the bill has completed its parliamentary passage. Cooper went on to confirm that, while this is a free vote, she was recommending that MPs do not support the amendment tabled by former Tory minister Tim Loughton, which would introduce  heterosexual civil partnerships. This was widely viewed by ministers as an attempt to "wreck" the bill, not least because Loughton and the other Tory MPs supporting it are opponents of gay marriage. Government sources had warned that it could delay the introduction of equal marriage until after the general election.

Labour had also suggested that the amendment could be used by the government as a convenient excuse to abandon the bill, an option ministers insisted they were not considering. But by opposing the Loughton amendment, Cooper said, Labour was ensuring that neither the government nor MPs could "wreck" the legislation.

With Labour and most Lib Dem MPs now planning either to abstain or vote against the amendment, any chance there was of it passing has ended. 

Update: A Labour source has told The Staggers that Labour will abstain from voting on the Loughton amendment, meaning that its fate will likely depend on the Lib Dems (Cameron and other Tory supporters of gay marriage will vote against it).

Earlier today, Nick Clegg suggested that he would be prepared to vote against the amendment if necessary to save the bill. He said: "I don't want anything to interfere with the central purpose of this legislation ... The bottom line is that I will do whatever I judge is best to safeguard the bill and to make sure that it does not become hijacked by those whose ulterior motive is actually to discredit or to derail the legislation."

Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper speaks at last year's Labour conference in Manchester. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

No, William Hague, there's nothing anti-democratic about opposing Brexit

The former Tory leader appears to be suffering from a bout of amnesia. 

William Hague just made an eyecatching claim in the House of Lords during the debate over Article 50. He attacked those Remainers still seeking to restore Britain’s European Union membership in general and Tony Blair in particular, saying that if he had called on voters to “rise up” against New Labour after he lost the election, Blair would have told him to listen to the voters.

To be fair to Hague, it has been sixteen years since he went down to crushing defeat to Blair, so he may have forgotten some of the details. Happily, the full text of his resignation speech the morning after is still online.

Here’s Hague, 2001:

"The people have spoken. And just as it is vital to encourage everyone to participate in our democracy, so it is important to understand and respect the result. The Labour party have won the election and I have already congratulated them on doing so. But they have done so without great public enthusiasm….It is therefore a vital task for the Conservative party in the coming parliament to hold the government to account for the promises they have made and the trust people have placed in it.”

And here’s Blair, 2017:

“I want to be explicit. Yes, the British people voted to leave Europe. And I agree the will of the people should prevail. I accept right now there is no widespread appetite to re-think. But the people voted without knowledge of the terms of Brexit. As these terms become clear, it is their right to change their mind. Our mission is to persuade them to do so.”

And here’s Blair’s last line which has so offended William Hague:

“This is not the time for retreat, indifference or despair; but the time to rise up in defence of what we believe – calmly, patiently, winning the argument by the force of argument; but without fear and with the conviction we act in the true interests of Britain.”

This is funny, because here’s William Hague’s last line in 2001:

"I wish I could have led you to victory but now we must all work for our victories in the future.”

 Here’s what the “you lost, get over it” crowd have to explain: what is the difference between these two speeches? Both acknowledge a defeat, acknowledge the mountain to climb for the defeated side, but resolve to work harder to secure a better result next time.

It’s particularly galling when you remember that taking Britain back in would not require a second referendum but a third: because the Brexiteers, far from losing in 1975 and getting over it, spent four decades gearing up to take Britain out of the European Union.

There’s a more valid criticism to be had of the value of a continuity Remain campaign which appears to hold many of the people who voted to Leave in distaste. Certainly, at present, the various pro-Remain forces look more like the unattractive fringe that lost in 1975 than the well-disciplined machine that won the replay in 2016. But the fact there was a replay in the first place shows that there’s nothing anti-democratic about continuing to hold on to your beliefs after a defeat. What is anti-democratic is trying to claim that the result of any electoral contest, however narrow or how large, means that everyone who disagreed with you has to shut up and pretend you were right all along. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.