Government's Fiscal Rules — new fiscal framework — rejected — 7 Oct 2008 at 18:41

Jamie Reed MP, Copeland voted with the majority (No).

The majority of MPs voted against the motion, which read:[1]

  • This House
  • notes with concern the successive criticisms by the IMF, the EU and the OECD of the state of the UK's public finances;
  • further notes that the Government are reviewing the fiscal rules and calls on the Government to announce the outcome of that review first to this House;
  • further calls on the Government to clarify whether or not the Sustainable Investment rule will be met and to implement a full and independent review of the public finances, including off-balance sheet liabilities under the private finance initiative and public sector pension schemes; and
  • further calls for the fiscal rules to be scrapped and replaced with a forward-looking fiscal framework with an independent mechanism for monitoring and assessing the sustainability of the Government's fiscal position.

In its place an alternative motion was proposed:

  • This House
  • notes that the purpose of the fiscal framework is to smooth the path of the economy in the short term, to secure sustainable public finances in the medium term and to ensure that spending and taxation impact fairly between generations;
  • recognises the success of the framework over the past decade, reversing historical under-investment in the infrastructure of public services, reducing debt from 43 per cent. of GDP in 1997 to below 37 per cent. last year and allowing borrowing to increase this year in order to support the economy;
  • welcomes the £4 billion of tax cuts helping families and businesses this year;
  • further notes the turmoil in the world economy and financial markets;
  • recognises that Government is rightly focused on the turbulence in the financial markets and helping families and businesses with the twin shocks of the credit crunch and high commodity prices; and
  • welcomes the Government's commitment to take whatever steps are necessary to protect the stability of the financial system.

which passed without a further vote.

Debate in Parliament | Source |

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (No)Minority (Aye)BothTurnout
Con0 164 (+2 tell)086.0%
DUP0 1011.1%
Ind1 2060.0%
Lab294 (+2 tell) 0084.8%
LDem0 47074.6%
PC0 30100.0%
SNP0 4057.1%
UKIP0 01100.0%
Total:295 221182.7%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

NameConstituencyPartyVote
no rebellions

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.

There are lots of plans afoot, including extensive redevelopment of the site and plans for new functionality. To keep up with what's happening, please check out the blog. We're working on updating all the contact details throughout the site, but if you'd like to talk to us about the project, please email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Advertisement - Helping keeping PublicWhip alive