Comparison of Divisions: Trident Replacement — Case not yet proven — rejected — 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 — Case not yet proven — rejected - 14 Mar 2007 at 18:53 - Division No. 77
The majority of MPs voted against changing the 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]
- [1] John Trickett MP, House of Commons, 14 March 2007
- [2] The Future of the United Kingdom's Nuclear Deterrent, December 2006
- [3] Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Second Pillar, Wikipedia
- [4] Trident Replacement - Maintain nuclear deterrent beyond existing system, House of Commons, 14 March 2007
- [5] Comparison of Trident Replacement votes, House of Commons, 14 March 2007
Vote (b) : Trident Replacement — Maintain nuclear deterrent beyond existing system - 14 Mar 2007 at 18:53 - Division No. 78
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]
- [1] Margaret Beckett MP, House of Commons, 14 March 2007
- [2] The Future of the United Kingdom's Nuclear Deterrent, December 2006
- [3] Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Second Pillar, Wikipedia
- [4] Trident Replacement - Case not yet proven - rejected, House of Commons, 14 March 2007
- [4] Trident Plan wins Commons support, BBC News, 15 March 2007
- [5] British replacement of the Trident system, Wikipedia
Difference in Votes - sorted by name
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)
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:
([same-votes] + [differing-votes] + 0.2x[abstain-in-one])
(559 + 7 + 0.2x24)
570.8