UK Armed Forces in Afghanistan (Backbench Business) — 9 Sep 2010 at 17:46
Michael Weir MP, Angus voted to support the continued deployment of UK armed forces in Afghanistan without requiring a change in UK military strategy in Afghanistan to try and reduce loss of life, injuries, and costs.
The majority of MPs voted against making support for the continued deployment of UK armed forces in Afghanistan conditional on a change to military strategy designed to reduce loss of life, injuries, and costs.
The House of Commons was debating the motion:
- That this House supports the continued deployment of UK armed forces in Afghanistan.
The division was on the subject of if the following text ought be added to the end of the motion:
- "provided that a more realistic military strategy is adopted designed to fulfil the United Kingdom's long-term interests in the region at lesser cost in life, limb and financial resources."
The majority of MPs voted to reject that additional text.
This division was followed by one in which the majority of MPs voted in favour of the unamended motion: "That this House supports the continued deployment of UK armed forces in Afghanistan."
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.
|Party||Majority (No)||Minority (Aye)||Both||Turnout|
|Con||237 (+1 tell)||3 (+1 tell)||0||79.1%|
|Lab||39||1 (+1 tell)||0||15.9%|
|LDem||30 (+1 tell)||1||0||56.1%|
|Julian Lewis||New Forest East||Con||aye|
|Andrew Turner||Isle of Wight||Con||aye|
|Alison Seabeck||Plymouth, Moor View||Lab||tellaye|
|Tom Watson||West Bromwich East||Lab||aye|
|John Hemming||Birmingham, Yardley||LDem||aye|