Katharine Howell was Director of Legislation for two Prime Ministers.
The final day’s debate on the King’s Speech Humble Address motion is today. The Speaker selects one amendment for division on the penultimate day of debate, usually from the Official Opposition.
He usually selects three amendments for division on the final day, one from the Official Opposition, one from the second largest opposition party, and the final amendment either from the third largest party, or the backbench amendment with the most signatories, that has clear cross-party support.
This is significant for all opposition parties. It is extremely rare to have the opportunity to make Government to go through the political embarrassment of having to vote against a topic of your choosing; with the scope for amendments to the Humble Address being so wide, the vote really can be on almost anything the opposition parties (or Government backbenchers) choose.
So, the amendments tabled should give a good sense of the emerging priorities of the new intake of MPs, and the several opposition parties.
The results are rather unimaginative. The two biggest headaches for the Government come from their own side.
If the Speaker is to select a backbench amendment, then it is likely either to be Kim Johnson’s amendment to abolish the two-child cap on benefits (the SNP and the pro-Gaza Independent MPs have tabled similar amendments), or Zara Sultana’s calling for the release of hostages, an immediate ceasefire, recognising Palestinian statehood, and suspending exports licenses for arms transfers to Israel, which has backbench Labour support, as well as Plaid Cymru, the Green Party, SDLP, Alliance and Independent MPs. The SNP have tabled a similar amendment too.
The Liberal Democrats are being extremely disciplined. As the second-largest opposition party, the Speaker is almost certain to select their official frontbench amendment. This was only tabled for today’s Order Paper – an attempt to give the Government less time to respond before the vote. It applies pressure on Labour to introduce a legal right to see a GP in seven days, replace Ofwat, introduce proportional representation for parliamentary elections, and of course, scrap the two-child benefit limit.
Given the party’s lead amendment will be selected, it is strange that only one Liberal Democrat MP has so far backed any of the backbench Labour amendments, in the hope of encouraging the Speaker to select them and giving the Government a problem. Given that the Liberal Democrats in some areas wish to outflank Labour from the left, it would not be unexpected to see them uniting with MPs on the left of the Labour party.
Reform’s MPs seem not to have yet found the Table Office – not a single Reform MP has put their name to any amendment. By contrast, the five Independent MPs and the Greens have tabled their own amendments and signed several others, (including most of the backbench Labour amendments).
The Conservatives are guaranteed to have their two frontbench amendments selected for division. This gives their MPs more freedom to table backbench amendments, which can allow MPs to put a marker down on a matter of importance to their constituents. Even if that amendment is not selected, it can act as a springboard in debate.
There is much to criticise, both in what was included, and left out of, Labour’s programme for Government. But only one Conservative MP has done so. Dr Ben Spencer has rightly tabled an amendment to criticise Labour for their egregious plan to tax education. There surely should be more to say, but backbench Conservative MPs are not being more reticent than Government backbenchers.
Yesterday, the Conservative frontbench criticised Labour over their spin on their economic inheritance and the uncertainty their tax plans pose across the board and to pensioners in particular. Their vote today will be a bit of a shopping list: from defence spending to deterring illegal migration to tackling welfare spending and the costs of net zero.
This will not trouble the Government. But it is part of the job of the Opposition to get the Government on the wrong side of the argument, on the record, as many times as possible. These votes still matter for what the Opposition is strategically trying to achieve. With an interim leader, it is hard for the party to have a confident a sense of direction; but the parliamentary timetable will not wait for this.
The amendments to the King’s Speech give an indication of how the Government might be pressured by Parliament. So far, this seems to be MPs on the left of the Labour Party, allying with smaller parties such as the Greens, and Independent MPs, to try to force the Government to change policy.
This may not bear fruit initially (although Labour did announce a child poverty taskforce last week); the Government will win these votes easily. The interesting thing will be whether Labour MPs vote against the Government’s whip tonight on the third amendment the Speaker selects, particularly those newly elected.
As the Parliament drags on, Labour MPs will come under pressure from their constituents on a variety of issues where Government may be at odds with them (planning and immigration, for example). The smaller parties will exploit this locally, making it harder for Labour MPs to toe the party line.
It will also become increasingly obvious to Labour backbenchers that they will never get on the Government payroll, which will further incentivise rebelliousness. More high-handed behaviour from the leadership, such as passing over loyal shadow ministers for jobs in favour of newly-elected MPs (or newly-appointed peers) will grate.
The large number of parliamentary private secretaries who are newly elected has also been an unwise move from the Government. Those acting as the minister’s eyes and ears need to understand both Parliament and their colleagues before they can be expected to do the job well. The first rebellion is the hardest. The votes this evening may indicate the size of the Government’s problems to come.
Katharine Howell was Director of Legislation for two Prime Ministers.
The final day’s debate on the King’s Speech Humble Address motion is today. The Speaker selects one amendment for division on the penultimate day of debate, usually from the Official Opposition.
He usually selects three amendments for division on the final day, one from the Official Opposition, one from the second largest opposition party, and the final amendment either from the third largest party, or the backbench amendment with the most signatories, that has clear cross-party support.
This is significant for all opposition parties. It is extremely rare to have the opportunity to make Government to go through the political embarrassment of having to vote against a topic of your choosing; with the scope for amendments to the Humble Address being so wide, the vote really can be on almost anything the opposition parties (or Government backbenchers) choose.
So, the amendments tabled should give a good sense of the emerging priorities of the new intake of MPs, and the several opposition parties.
The results are rather unimaginative. The two biggest headaches for the Government come from their own side.
If the Speaker is to select a backbench amendment, then it is likely either to be Kim Johnson’s amendment to abolish the two-child cap on benefits (the SNP and the pro-Gaza Independent MPs have tabled similar amendments), or Zara Sultana’s calling for the release of hostages, an immediate ceasefire, recognising Palestinian statehood, and suspending exports licenses for arms transfers to Israel, which has backbench Labour support, as well as Plaid Cymru, the Green Party, SDLP, Alliance and Independent MPs. The SNP have tabled a similar amendment too.
The Liberal Democrats are being extremely disciplined. As the second-largest opposition party, the Speaker is almost certain to select their official frontbench amendment. This was only tabled for today’s Order Paper – an attempt to give the Government less time to respond before the vote. It applies pressure on Labour to introduce a legal right to see a GP in seven days, replace Ofwat, introduce proportional representation for parliamentary elections, and of course, scrap the two-child benefit limit.
Given the party’s lead amendment will be selected, it is strange that only one Liberal Democrat MP has so far backed any of the backbench Labour amendments, in the hope of encouraging the Speaker to select them and giving the Government a problem. Given that the Liberal Democrats in some areas wish to outflank Labour from the left, it would not be unexpected to see them uniting with MPs on the left of the Labour party.
Reform’s MPs seem not to have yet found the Table Office – not a single Reform MP has put their name to any amendment. By contrast, the five Independent MPs and the Greens have tabled their own amendments and signed several others, (including most of the backbench Labour amendments).
The Conservatives are guaranteed to have their two frontbench amendments selected for division. This gives their MPs more freedom to table backbench amendments, which can allow MPs to put a marker down on a matter of importance to their constituents. Even if that amendment is not selected, it can act as a springboard in debate.
There is much to criticise, both in what was included, and left out of, Labour’s programme for Government. But only one Conservative MP has done so. Dr Ben Spencer has rightly tabled an amendment to criticise Labour for their egregious plan to tax education. There surely should be more to say, but backbench Conservative MPs are not being more reticent than Government backbenchers.
Yesterday, the Conservative frontbench criticised Labour over their spin on their economic inheritance and the uncertainty their tax plans pose across the board and to pensioners in particular. Their vote today will be a bit of a shopping list: from defence spending to deterring illegal migration to tackling welfare spending and the costs of net zero.
This will not trouble the Government. But it is part of the job of the Opposition to get the Government on the wrong side of the argument, on the record, as many times as possible. These votes still matter for what the Opposition is strategically trying to achieve. With an interim leader, it is hard for the party to have a confident a sense of direction; but the parliamentary timetable will not wait for this.
The amendments to the King’s Speech give an indication of how the Government might be pressured by Parliament. So far, this seems to be MPs on the left of the Labour Party, allying with smaller parties such as the Greens, and Independent MPs, to try to force the Government to change policy.
This may not bear fruit initially (although Labour did announce a child poverty taskforce last week); the Government will win these votes easily. The interesting thing will be whether Labour MPs vote against the Government’s whip tonight on the third amendment the Speaker selects, particularly those newly elected.
As the Parliament drags on, Labour MPs will come under pressure from their constituents on a variety of issues where Government may be at odds with them (planning and immigration, for example). The smaller parties will exploit this locally, making it harder for Labour MPs to toe the party line.
It will also become increasingly obvious to Labour backbenchers that they will never get on the Government payroll, which will further incentivise rebelliousness. More high-handed behaviour from the leadership, such as passing over loyal shadow ministers for jobs in favour of newly-elected MPs (or newly-appointed peers) will grate.
The large number of parliamentary private secretaries who are newly elected has also been an unwise move from the Government. Those acting as the minister’s eyes and ears need to understand both Parliament and their colleagues before they can be expected to do the job well. The first rebellion is the hardest. The votes this evening may indicate the size of the Government’s problems to come.