Comparison of Divisions: Trident Replacement — Maintain the UK Nuclear Deterrent Beyond the Life of The Existing System — 14 Mar 2007 at 18:53 with Division No. 78 on the same day at 18:53

(Swap the two divisions around).

Vote (a) : Trident Replacement — Maintain the UK Nuclear Deterrent Beyond the Life of The Existing System - 14 Mar 2007 at 18:53 - Division No. 77

The majority of MPs voted to maintain the UK's minimum strategic nuclear deterrent beyond the life of the existing system.

MPs were considering the following motion:

  • That this House
  • supports the Government's decisions, as set out in the White Paper The Future of the United Kingdom's Nuclear Deterrent (Cm 6994), to take the steps necessary to maintain the UK's minimum strategic nuclear deterrent beyond the life of the existing system and to take further steps towards meeting the UK's disarmament responsibilities under Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

In this vote majority of MPs voted against changing the above motion supporting the Government's nuclear weapons policy to one which read.[1]

  • This House
  • notes the Government's decision, as set out in the White Paper The Future of the United Kingdom's Nuclear Deterrent (Cm 6994),[2] to take the steps necessary to maintain the UK minimum strategic nuclear deterrent beyond the life of the existing system and to take further steps towards meeting the United Kingdom's disarmament responsibilities under Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty,[3]
  • but believes that the case is not yet proven and remains unconvinced of the need for an early decision.

The Government's original motion, still intact, was subsequently voted for by a majority of MPs.[4]

Seven MPs voted inconsistently between the two motions.[5]

Vote (b) : Trident Replacement — Maintain Nuclear Deterrent Beyond Existing System - 14 Mar 2007 at 18:53 - Division No. 78

The majority of MPs voted to maintain the UK's minimum strategic nuclear deterrent beyond the life of the existing system.

The majority of MPs voted for the motion:[1]

  • This House
  • supports the Government's decisions, as set out in the White Paper The Future of the United Kingdom's Nuclear Deterrent (Cm 6994),[2] to take the steps necessary to maintain the UK's minimum strategic nuclear deterrent beyond the life of the existing system and to take further steps towards meeting the UK's disarmament responsibilities under Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.[3]

This followed a previous vote against asserting that the case was "not yet proven",[4] and was recognized as Parliamentary authorization for the development of a new generation of submarines and launch vehicles for the deployment of ballistic nuclear weapons against targets unknown.[5][6]

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your (UK) electricity and/or gas to Octopus Energy or tip us via Ko-Fi.

Difference in Votes - sorted by constituency

MPs for which their vote on Motion (a) differed from their inverted vote on Motion (b). You can also see just opposite votes between these two divisions, or simply all the votes.

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote (a) | Vote (b)

NameConstituencyPartyVote (a)Vote (b)
Judy MallaberAmber ValleyLab (minister)no absent
Eric IllsleyBarnsley CentralLab (minister)aye aye
Jeff EnnisBarnsley East and MexboroughLab (minister)aye both
Patrick HallBedfordLab (minister)no no
Brian IddonBolton South EastLab (minister)absent aye
Dawn ButlerBrent SouthLab (minister)no no
Janet DeanBurtonLab (minister)aye absent
Howard StoateDartfordLab (minister)aye aye
Michael AncramDevizesCon (front bench)aye absent
Gwyn ProsserDoverLab (minister)absent no
Jim McGovernDundee WestLab (minister)no no
John CummingsEasingtonLab (minister)aye absent
Sammy WilsonEast AntrimDUP (front bench)no absent
Nigel GriffithsEdinburgh SouthLabno no
Andrew LoveEdmontonLab (minister)absent aye
Clive EffordElthamLab (minister)aye absent
Michael HowardFolkestone and HytheConabsent aye
Mark DurkanFoyleSDLP (front bench)absent no
Austin MitchellGreat GrimsbyLab (minister)aye absent
Emily ThornberryIslington South and FinsburyLab (minister)absent no
George MudieLeeds EastLab (minister)aye absent
Robert Marshall-AndrewsMedwayLabaye absent
Colin ChallenMorley and RothwellLab (minister)no no
Charles ClarkeNorwich SouthLabaye absent
Rob WilsonReading EastCon (front bench)aye absent
Karen BuckRegent's Park and Kensington NorthLab (minister)aye absent
Fiona MactaggartSloughLab (minister)no absent
Mark ToddSouth DerbyshireLab (minister)no absent
Alan WhiteheadSouthampton, TestLab (minister)no absent
Chris RuaneVale of ClwydLab (minister)aye absent
Denis MurphyWansbeckLab (minister)aye absent

Division Similarity Ratio

The measure of similarity between these two divisions is a calculation based on a comparison of their votes.

There were 646 MPs who could have voted in both of these divisions, and 7 voted the same way, with 559 voting in opposite ways. There were 56 MPs who didn't vote in either division, and 24 who voted in only one of them.

We invert the vote on the second division if it makes the distance closer (since the meaning of 'Aye' and 'No' are often interchangeable depending on how the question was put). In this case, they line up on opposite sides. An 's vote in in only one of the divisions contributes a factor of 0.2 to the distance. The calculation runs as follows:

ratio =
[same-votes]
([same-votes] + [differing-votes] + 0.2x[abstain-in-one])
=
559
(559 + 7 + 0.2x24)
=
559
570.8
= 0.979 = 97.9 %.


About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive