Comparison of Divisions: Police raid of MP's office — New committee to adjourn immediately — 8 Dec 2008 at 17:34 with Division No. 104 on 29 Apr 2009 at 15:49
(Swap the two divisions around).
Vote (a) : Police raid of MP's office — New committee to adjourn immediately - 8 Dec 2008 at 17:34 - Division No. 3
The majority of MPs voted in favour of the motion, which read:[1]
- That, following the search of a Member's office in the Parliamentary Estate by the police and the seizure of material therein, a committee be appointed to review the internal processes of the House administration for granting permission for such action, and to make recommendations for the future;
- That the committee must not in any way prejudice any police inquiry or potential criminal proceedings and that therefore it will be adjourned immediately after choosing a chairman until the completion of any relevant inquiry or proceedings that may follow;
- That the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to report from time to time; to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House; and
- That the committee consist of seven members appointed by the Speaker reflecting the composition of the House.
This followed a previous vote narrowly rejecting an amendment to the motion.[2]
- [1] Harriet Harman MP, House of Commons, 8 December 2008
- [2] Division 2, House of Commons Division, 8 December 2008
Vote (b) : Gurkha Settlement Rights — Government defeat - 29 Apr 2009 at 15:49 - Division No. 104
The majority of MPs voted in favour of the motion:[1]
- This House
- regrets the Government's recent statement[2] outlining the eligibility criteria for Gurkhas to reside in the United Kingdom;
- recognises the contribution the Gurkhas have made to the safety and freedom of the United Kingdom for the past 200 years;
- notes that more Gurkhas have laid down their lives for the United Kingdom than are estimated to want to live here;
- believes that Gurkhas who retired before 1997 should be treated fairly and in the same way as those who have retired since;
- is concerned that the Government's new guidelines will permit only a small minority of Gurkhas and their families to settle whilst preventing the vast majority;
- further believes that people who are prepared to fight and die for the United Kingdom should be entitled to live in the country; and
- calls upon the Government to withdraw its new guidelines immediately and bring forward revised proposals that extend an equal right of residence to all Gurkhas.
As a consequence, the alternative Government motion, which read:[3]
- This House
- recognises that this Government is the only one since the Second World War to allow Gurkhas and their families settlement rights to the United Kingdom;
- notes that in 2004 the Government permitted settlement rights to Gurkhas discharged since 1997, following the transfer of the Brigade HQ from Hong Kong to the United Kingdom;
- further notes that under these rules around 6,000 Gurkhas and family members have been welcomed to the UK;
- acknowledges that the court judgement of September 2008 determined that the 1997 cut-off date was fair and rational, while seeking clarification of the criteria for settlement rights for those who retired before 1997;
- further notes that on 24 April the Government published new and more generous guidelines for the settlement applications of Gurkhas who retired before 1997;
- supports this revised guidance, which will make around 10,000 Gurkhas and family members eligible to settle in the UK;
- further notes that the Government undertakes actively to inform those who may be eligible in Nepal of these changes and to review the impact of the new guidance within 12 months;
- further notes that the contribution Gurkhas have made is already recognised by pensions paid to around 25,000 Gurkhas or their widows in Nepal that allow for a good standard of living there; and
- further notes that in the year 2000 Gurkha pensions were doubled and that, earlier in April 2009, in addition to an inflationary uplift of 14 per cent., those over 80 years old received a 20 per cent. increase in their pension.
... was never voted upon.
Although this extremely rare Government defeat in an opposition day motion is not binding (has no legal force)[4] a Government minister made a statement later in the day to bring "forward the date for the determination of the outstanding applications to the end of May."[5]
- [1] Christopher Huhne MP, House of Commons, 29 April 2009
- [2] Phil Woollas MP, Written Ministerial Statement, 29 April 2009
- [3] Phil Woolas MP, House of Commons, 29 April 2009
- [4] Home Secretary Jacqui Smith blamed for humiliating Gurkhas defeat in the Commons, Daily Mail, 30 April 2009
- [5] Phil Woolas MP, House of Commons, 29 April 2009
Difference in Votes - sorted by party
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 18 voted the same way, with 452 voting in opposite ways. There were 34 MPs who didn't vote in either division, and 142 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])
(452 + 18 + 0.2x142)
498.4