Deferred Divisons — Clause 1 — Referendum on the alternative vote system — 16 Feb 2011 at 20:14
William Hague MP, Richmond (Yorks) voted with the majority (Aye).
I beg to move that this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendments 1 and 8, but proposes amendment (a) in lieu.
Yesterday the House debated whether to oppose including in the Bill Lord Rooker's amendments specifying that if less than 40% of the electorate vote in the referendum the result should not be binding. We have accepted an amendment in lieu. We do not accept that there should be a threshold in the referendum, and the amendment does not propose one. It simply states that the Electoral Commission must publish information about the turnout. If we were simply to oppose Lord Rooker's threshold amendment again without this amendment, and were their Lordships to reject our position, the rules on double insistence would result in the loss of the Bill. We have tabled our amendment to avoid that eventuality.
The House divided: Ayes 310, Noes 231.
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 (Aye)||Minority (No)||Both||Turnout|
|Con||246 (+2 tell)||18||0||86.9%|
|Lab||0||209 (+2 tell)||0||82.1%|
|Brian Binley||Northampton South||Con||no|
|Graham Brady||Altrincham and Sale West||Con||no|
|Geoffrey Cox||Torridge and West Devon||Con||no|
|David Davis||Haltemprice and Howden||Con||no|
|Richard Drax||South Dorset||Con||no|
|Bernard Jenkin||Harwich and North Essex||Con||no|
|Julian Lewis||New Forest East||Con||no|
|Anne Main||St Albans||Con||no|
|David Nuttall||Bury North||Con||no|
|Andrew Percy||Brigg and Goole||Con||no|
|Peter Tapsell||Louth and Horncastle||Con||no|