The Economy — 1 Dec 1998

I beg to move, as an amendment to the Address, at the end of the Question to add:

"But humbly regret that the Gracious Speech contains no proposals to save jobs or help businesses, but instead continues the policies that are pushing Britain's economy into a sharper downturn than is forecast for any other major EU economy; call on the Government instead to pursue policies of maintaining Britain's competitiveness by reversing its proposals which increase costs on business and to return to the policies conducted by the previous Government which left a golden economic legacy of low inflation, steady and sustainable growth and falling unemployment; and also urge the Government to make a clear statement of its position on the question of European tax harmonisation."

I notice, from the Register of Members' Interests, that the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) said that he undertakes remunerated advisory work for Morgan Stanley investment bankers. As we are debating the economy, should he not have declared that interest at the beginning of his speech?

Today in The Daily Telegraph the Prime Minister is dead against harmonisation, but yesterday in the Financial Times he was all for it. Which Prime Minister does the Chief Secretary support? Does he support yesterday's Prime Minister, or today's? Perhaps he supports both. Will the real Government at last stand up?

I am sure that that sounds even more impressive in German.

So have I.

We were promised

"a new understanding of how labour markets really work",

That is never mind the fact that, potentially, we are heading for zero growth, rising unemployment, economic uncertainty and a mis-reading of what is happening in the world economy.

I warmly welcome that very good measure and simplification. Labour Members may not be aware--even Ministers, as they do not see the papers of the previous Government, may not be aware of it--that I myself spent three years at work on the matter. Undoubtedly, a similar measure would have been introduced had a Conservative Government remained in office. However, I unreservedly welcome that part of the Queen's Speech.

Question put, That the amendment be made:--

The House divided: Ayes 134, Noes 373.

Historical Hansard | Online Hansard |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit free service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your electricity and/or gas to Bulb Energy who provide 100% renewable electricity and tend to be 20% cheaper than the 'Big Six'. They'll also pay any exit fees (up to £120) from your old supplier AND give you (and us) a £50 credit for joining up via our Bulb Referral Link.

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 129 (+2 tell)080.9%
DUP0 1050.0%
Independent1 00100.0%
Lab320 (+2 tell) 0077.2%
LDem44 0095.7%
PC4 00100.0%
SNP4 0066.7%
UUP0 4040.0%
Total:373 134078.9%

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

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.

PublicWhip v2 codebase is currently under development - you can join the Slack group to find out more or email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive