49 Comments

• Helen Tedcastle 6th Feb '13 - 9:42am

  Is this detailed breakdown of the way Lib Dem MPs voted or otherwise, an exercise in accountability or the firing pistol for the start of a witch-hunt?

  There are Lib Dems who do not agree with this bill and their consciences (and arguments) should be respected.

  Some MPs express their dissent in different ways. It’s interesting that Nick Clegg has never acknowledged that in any comment he’s made on the issue – in denial?

• Chris 6th Feb '13 - 9:55am

  “I haven’t done the same for Labour simply because I don’t have the information.”

  In that case it would be better to describe them as “Abstentions or Absent” rather than assuming they’re all abstentions.

• Chris 6th Feb '13 - 9:58am

  Helen

  Don’t knock witch-hunting. There is explicit biblical authority for it, after all …

• Hywel 6th Feb '13 - 10:26am

  “Is this detailed breakdown of the way Lib Dem MPs voted or otherwise, an exercise in accountability or the firing pistol for the start of a witch-hunt? ”

  And have you stopped beating your wife yet Stephen?

  It’s perfectly reasonable to think that Lib Dem members/activists will be interested how the party’s MPs voted and to provide a definitive list.

• Caron Lindsay 6th Feb '13 - 10:37am

  Helen, it’s perfectly acceptable for a Liberal Democrat oriented site to publish details of how Lib Dem MPs voted – it’s in the public domain anyway.

  Our MPs should expect to have to give account of themselves to party members as well as their constituents.

• Tony Martinelli 6th Feb '13 - 10:40am

  It is embarrassing for us that a higher % of Labour MPs voted in favour (even if more also voted against). The dissenting MPs are , of course, allowed to have their own opinions, but I don’t think they should expect their views (which are opposed to much of what the LDs stand for) to be accepted without negative comment.

• Helen Tedcastle 6th Feb '13 - 10:49am

  @ Chris: Funny 🙂

  If you could provide evidence for that, I would love to read it!

• Dave Page 6th Feb '13 - 11:01am

  Tony, usually when reporting such votes, abstentions are omitted and it’s just for vs against. Using that standard metric, we have 92% of Lib Dem MPs supporting the second reading vs 91% of Labour, so it’s pretty much equivalent. Even including Greg Mulholland’s active abstention only takes us down to 90%.

• Liberal Neil 6th Feb '13 - 11:18am

  @Helen “If you could provide evidence for that, I would love to read it!”

  This post: http://thinking-christian.blogspot.co.uk/2007/01/does-bible-justify-burning-of-witches.html questions the idea, but if you read the Bible verses quoted you will see that they provide a far clearer justification for hunting down witches than the Bible verses you quoted yesterday do about the definition of marriage.

• Chris 6th Feb '13 - 11:19am

  Helen

  Exodus 22:18.

• Phyllis 6th Feb '13 - 11:59am

  Lib Dems discussing ‘witch hunts’? Oh no this is bound to lead to a change in the definition of the term “witch-hunt” . 😉

• Ian Eiloart 6th Feb '13 - 12:11pm

  Hansard has the votes, for the bill and for the programme, at http://s.coop/1c6rq

  It doesn’t record that Greg Mulholland voted on the bill, but does record that he voted for the programme. The BBC lists only five active abstentions: all Tories. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21346694

• Zoe O'connell 6th Feb '13 - 12:34pm

  Mark Hunter also voted in favour, making 45 rather than 44 for. He doesn’t appear presumably because he was a teller for the ayes.

• paul barker 6th Feb '13 - 1:04pm

  This means that both our rival parties will be be badly split in 2015, the Tories along “cultural” lines & Labour more on traditional Left/Right issues.
  Personally I was really saddened by Sarah Teathers vote against, surely this must mark the effective end of her political career ?

• tpfkar 6th Feb '13 - 1:32pm

  It was a free vote Paul. Draw conclusions as you wish, but are we really saying that MPs are finished for having a conscience in our party – I hope not.

• Rankersbo 6th Feb '13 - 1:37pm

  I think the 5 recorded abstentions from Tories did it actively by walking through both lobbies (voting both for and against), while Greg abstained by not voting.

• John 6th Feb '13 - 1:41pm

  I don’t know whether it will be the end of her political career but I dare say it has scuppered any chance she had of becoming leader. A lot of people will not vote for her after this and rightly so.

• Phyllis 6th Feb '13 - 1:58pm

  “walking through both lobbies (voting both for and against), ”

  What a very confused position.

• Don Manley 6th Feb '13 - 1:59pm

  If you think Sarah Teather should resign, than maybe I should leave your party. As a member for some years, I am disppointed by the way this has been steamrollered through the Coalition an d find myself wholly symapthetic to the arguments of the traditional Conservatives on this issue, dare I say? And I am fed up with the LibDem Thought Police emailing me to tell me what I must believe!

• conscientious libera 6th Feb '13 - 2:02pm

  Tpfkar, MPs of course should have a conscience, but can an opponent of marriage equality really call herself a “liberal” in good conscience? And should the conscientious Lib Dem activists supporting same-sex marriage still feel obliged to carry her leaflets in the next General Election?

• Richard Dean 6th Feb '13 - 2:05pm

  As Helen says, there are valid viewpoints on both sides of this debate. It’s a real problem that those in favour of the reform can’t see that, or see that their intolerance is the very opposite of what LibDemism is about. Recent poll results published here on LDV show that a little under half the population would have voted against, and the MPs performances yesterday does not represent that well.

  Fortunately, only 7% of the population seem to think the issue is important enough to change the party they would vote for. If it had been 50%, the MP’s performance would likely have given rise to huge civil protest, marches on parliament, and so on. Those things might even happen still, if this reform ends up having a significant perceived impact on the 93%.

• Stephen Tall 6th Feb '13 - 2:11pm

  @ Zoe O’connell

  Many thanks, Zoe – have updated the list to include Mark, which tips the proportion of Lib Dem MPs ‘For’ the Bill to 80%.

• Liberal Neil 6th Feb '13 - 2:16pm

  @Don Manley – you are entitled to your views and it is very clear that a minority of Lib Dem members, but a significant one, take you view. Saying that, has anyone in the Lib Dems actually emailed you to ‘tell you what you must believe’, or have they simply sent you emails with which you disagree? That’s quite a difference!

  Greg Mulholland has posted what I think is a very considered response on his website:

  http://gregmulholland.org/en/page/marriage-same-sex-couples-bill

• Phyllis 6th Feb '13 - 2:19pm

  Richard Dean “As Helen says, there are valid viewpoints on both sides of this debate”

  Where does she say that?

• Phyllis 6th Feb '13 - 2:22pm

  Richard Dean “Recent poll results published here on LDV show that a little under half the population would have voted against”

  Where is that? I have seen a poll saying that about Tory supporters ( quelle surprise!) but not the whole population.

• Phyllis 6th Feb '13 - 2:24pm

  Stephen Tall 6th Feb ’13 – 2:11pm
  @ Zoe O’connell

  “Many thanks, Zoe – have updated the list to include Mark, which tips the proportion of Lib Dem MPs ‘For’ the Bill to 80%.”

  That’s almost exactly the findings of the poll of LD supporters! Spooky!

• Chris 6th Feb '13 - 2:27pm

  I think it’s worth noting that Sarah Teather hasn’t claimed that this is an issue of conscience. She hasn’t said “I am a Roman Catholic and my church teaches that homosexual relations are sinful and therefore I cannot in conscience support the Bill”. She has said that her decision has been reached on the basis of general considerations about the likely effect on marriage – not directly on her religious beliefs – and that it was a “finely balanced” decision.

  I’m not convinced any of that is really the case, but that’s what she has said publicly.

• John 6th Feb '13 - 2:33pm

  Thank you for posting that, Neil. I had misjudged Greg Mulholland’s reasons for abstaining. I actually agree with him pretty much in full. I would only take issue with respect to the process. If the government had done as he asked we would still be here years from now trying to get something done. This bill is not perfect and will not be perfect but it will establish once and for all the principle of same-sex marriage in UK law. The refinements which will inevitably come will not be subject to the same controversy.

• Don Manley 6th Feb '13 - 2:55pm

  In reply to query above — maybe not quite the Thought Police, but I am a bit fed up with the emails I get from Nick et al. telling me what has been the right course of action and expecting me to nod and think ‘Wonderful!’ especially when I think ‘Awful!’. And I am sad to see a comment questioning Sarah Teather’s sincerity. She’s a good strong character thinking for herself, I’d say! Liberalism should allow for a diversity of views. In cases where there is a huge societal change, maybe we should demand a two-thirds majority — though I can already hear shouts of ‘no!’ (please don’t bother).

• Liberal Neil 6th Feb '13 - 3:02pm

  Don – I understand where you are coming from. I stopped reading the ones about Tuition Fees after a while for the same reason!

• Phyllis 6th Feb '13 - 3:05pm

  Don Manley “She’s a good strong character thinking for herself, I’d say”

  Out of interest if Sarah goes on to vote for Secret Courts, will you still think that?

• Ross 6th Feb '13 - 3:21pm

  I’m not sure this means the end of Sarah Teather’s political career, but I do think it will make a lot of party members think twice about travelling to Brent Central to help her campaign.

• Richard Dean 6th Feb '13 - 3:33pm

  Phyllis, the stats are here
  https://www.libdemvoice.org/majority-back-samesex-marriage-33014.html
  and here
  http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/q6rxg0empy/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-01-030213.pdf

• Richard Dean 6th Feb '13 - 3:36pm

  There’s also something in the House of Commons Briefing paper, showing a strong correlation between poll sponsor and poll result – which just shows that you shouldn’t believe these polls too much
  http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/RP13-8

• tpfkar 6th Feb '13 - 3:55pm

  @conscientious libera
  Firstly good luck in finding that last ‘L’

  I’ll point you to Phyllis’s 2:24 post that the 80% of MPs in favour pretty much exactly matches the YouGov figures of part y supporters views (interestingly the Tory MPs vote matches their supporters as well, Labour MPs much more in favour than their voters) It’s clear that some of the 80% believe this should be an identity issue and not a conscience issue and you appear to be in this group – but party members and supporters have been drawn to the Lib Dems across a range of issues and I imagine there will be issues where you don’t agree with the party line, which others will find just as odd.

  As for Brent deliverers, I’m sure they can make their own minds up. I’ve seen firsthand how hard Sarah and her team work in the community – I think the 2nd most diverse constituency in the UK – and this vote won’t change any of that.

• Phyllis 6th Feb '13 - 6:09pm

  From the polling published this weekend:

  Would you support or oppose changing the law to allow same-sex couples to marry?
  Support: 55%
  Oppose: 36%

  Amongst Conservative voters the results are 44% – 49% (which is a statistical dead heat, when you remember to factor in the margin of error).

  So I think you have misinterpreted the Poll results. It’s actually just over a third of the population who oppose SSM not almost a half – that s Tory supporters.

• Phyllis 6th Feb '13 - 6:11pm

  Sorry that last message was aimed at Richard Dean .

• Richard Dean 6th Feb '13 - 6:42pm

  Phyllis. This bill alters things for a lot longer than just a weekend, so we’d need to see what the long term support is likely to look like. Page 23 of the Parliamentary Briefing Paper lists 16 polls that have been done in the last year and a half.

  Some of the 16 were done by organizations that clearly have an agenda, and these polls give results that are clearly outside the overall trend and generally support the sponsers’ agendas, which means the poll results are biased and should be discounted. This applies for the two polls by the Coalition for Marriage, one by Catholic Voices, and one poll by Freedom to Marry, perhaps also Stonewall who I don’t know.

  Looking at the remaining polls, generally for newspapers, support hovered around 40% up to about March last year, then increased to about 60% in December, and according to your figures is now beginning to drop, 5% already in less than a month. For most of the polls, there are some don’t knows, and the figures for oppose are usually a little less than support, though not every time.

  With such large variations in support over such a relatively short period of time, it’s evident that significant fractions of opinion are swayed by short-term events rather than mature, long-term considerations. All we can really say from these figures is that it looks like about half the population support change and a little under half oppose. This may change rapidly, since the present trend is for people to switch from support to oppose.

  This has several significant implications. One is that, if support continues on its downwards trend over the next two years, LibDems will be finding that they do not represent the voice of the people on this issue. This will obviously translate into less votes in 2015, particularly if the reform continues to be bungled and we end up with a situation with a minority – the gay community – having more rights than the majority.

• Phyllis 6th Feb '13 - 6:54pm

  Richard Dean

  I was merely pointing out that you were erroneous in saying:

  “Recent poll results published here on LDV show that a little under half the population would have voted against, and the MPs performances yesterday does not represent that well.” (See your first post above) .

  The link you gave in support of this shows this to be untrue.

• Phyllis 6th Feb '13 - 6:58pm

  Richard Dean “LibDems will be finding that they do not represent the voice of the people on this issue. This will obviously translate into less votes in 2015”

  Really?? You think this of all things is what will turn people away from the Lib Dems?? I would suggest it would only do so if people had mistaken the Lib Dems for the Tory Party.

• Richard Dean 6th Feb '13 - 7:09pm

  The polls results I refer to are all recent – a year and a half is “recent” in the context of a long-term issue like this. Mark Pak’s article linked to one poll only, and I have linked to the Parliamentary Briefing Paper a couple of times.

  I think LibDems will get annihilated nationally in 2015, unless they change a huge lot. One of the things they need is a sense of what might be called “the country as a whole”, or “society”, rather than a collection of disparate individuals with rights. They need to get behind the concepts of representation and leadership, rather than focussing on protest and minority group support. They need a vision that has not become as meaningless as “fair” has.

  I think the Welsh LibDems might be an exception. Kirsty Williams is doing a pretty good job at focussing on real issues there.

• conscientious libera 6th Feb '13 - 9:49pm

  Tpfkar: “Firstly good luck in finding that last ‘L’”
  – That really taught me.

• `Tony Harms 7th Feb '13 - 11:23am

  When parliament legalises a process which is then forbidden to the established church it cannot be seen as anything other than disfunctional and deeply weird. But , as often happens, we muddle thorough.

  A free vote means that the way you vote should not expose you to detriment. The vote in parliament was a free vote and, from that fact, has added authority.

  It would be deeply suspicious if support in any party had been 100% . It would suggest some form of compulsion. I believe we should move on and that recriminations are not only highly counter-productive but, actually, wrong.

  And, also, unfitting, in the light of this significant event.

  In that spirit I quote this exchange from our opponents yesterday:

  Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington, Labour)
  Last night’s vote on same-sex marriage is widely regarded as a historic vote. Does the Prime Minister agree that the vote is a tribute to the people down the decades who have worked—in all parties and no party, behind the scenes and in public—for such equality? Does he also agree that the vote proves that the arc of history bends slowly, but bends towards justice?

  David Cameron (Prime Minister; Witney, Conservative)
  I agree very much with the hon. Lady. Last night’s vote will be seen not just as one that ensured a proper element of equality, but one that helps us to build a stronger and fairer society. Many of the speeches made last night were very moving and emotional. I pay tribute to all those people who have made the case—some have made it for many years—that they want their love to count the same way as a man and woman’s love for each other counts. That is what we have opened in this country, and why I am proud this Government brought it forward.

• AC Noblet 7th Feb '13 - 11:26am

  Some MPs voted ‘for’ and ‘against’. Others simply did not turn up.

• MAT 7th Feb '13 - 12:40pm

  To quote Chris:
  “I’m not convinced any of that is really the case, but that’s what she has said publicly.”

  This last line seems to cast an extra meaning on the previous argument which now appears to point towards an attempt to draw a distinction between a decision reached through conscience and a decision based on pure reason (i.e. without the influences caused through membership of the Catholic Church). Does this imply that is important in the “Lib Dems” to state in advance one’s membership of a faith group before articulating any personal opinion so as to make it more understandable to other members of the party?

• Richard Dean 7th Feb '13 - 11:49pm

  Personally I couldn’t care less if some people want to have same-sex marriages. But I do object to them changing the meaning of the words “husband” and “wife”. These words really are associated with genitals, even Wikipedia says so. Just as gay people appear to want to hide their sexual orientation on forms, both myself and my wife wish to have our sexual orientation visible. We have rights too.

• Kevin McNamara 8th Feb '13 - 1:32pm

  “the gay community – having more rights than the majority.”

  are you SERIOUS?

• Richard Dean 8th Feb '13 - 2:43pm

  Yes

• Arthur Graves 11th Feb '13 - 10:43am

  Sorry. Bit late on this but worth mentioning that Sarah Teather’s constituency has a large Muslim community which might be quite conservative in it’s views so voting against gay marriage could be electorally sensible for her…

  Does anyone remember Phil Woollas election leaflets last time round?