Local Government Financing — regrets the cuts — rejected — 29 Jun 2010 at 21:51

Mark Reckless MP, Rochester and Strood voted against expressing regret in relation to central funding of local government and against resolving to base future decisions on local government funding on fairness, protecting front line services and promoting growth.

The majority of MPs voted to reject a motion[1] on Local Government Finance which had been tabled by the acting leader of the opposition Harriet Harman. The rejected motion read:

  • That this House
  • regrets the decision of the Government to introduce £1.165 billion of cuts to local government funding in England in the current financial year;
  • regrets the Liberal Democrat members of the Government supporting cuts they opposed during the general election campaign;
  • notes the promise in the Coalition Agreement to ‘ensure that fairness is at the heart of those decisions so that all those most in need are protected’;
  • regrets that this programme of cuts fails to meet this test of fairness, as they fall disproportionately on the hardest-pressed communities;
  • notes with concern the principle set out by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on 10 June that ‘those in greatest need ultimately bear the burden of paying off the debt’;
  • condemns the failure of the Secretary of State to tell the House or local authorities where £504 million of cuts to funding will fall;
  • further regrets the failure to consult local government on the allocation of the cuts;
  • further notes with regret that the Government’s further decisions on the Future Jobs Fund, housing and support for neighbourhood policing will weaken the ability of local councils to shape and deliver services in their areas;
  • regrets the failure to make any progress on implementing the previous administration’s commitment to Total Place, enabling local authorities to deliver real efficiency savings and contribute to reducing the deficit while protecting frontline services; and
  • resolves that decisions affecting local government spending should be based on the principles of fairness, protection of frontline services and promotion of growth.

The vote was followed immediately by a further division during which a government amendment was accepted by MPs[2].

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
Con282 (+2 tell) 0092.8%
DUP0 7087.5%
Green0 10100.0%
Lab0 232 (+2 tell)090.7%
LDem51 0089.5%
PC2 0066.7%
SDLP0 30100.0%
Total:335 243091.5%

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