Ian Liddell-Grainger MP, Bridgwater and West Somerset

voted strongly for the policy

Cut Spending on Public Services

by scoring 100.0% compared to the votes below

Someone who believes that Spending on public services should be cut (either to reduce the deficit or to enable lower taxes to be levied than would otherwise be required) would cast votes described by the policy.

Queen's Speech — Programme for Government - 7 Jun 2010 - Division No. 1
Policy 'Cut Spending on Public Services'No
Ian Liddell-GraingerNo
Con0289
Lab2490
LDem052
Total253348

The majority of MPs voted against an amendment criticising the Liberal - Conservative Coalition's programme for government.

The vote occurred while MPs were debating the programme for government; initial elements of which had been set out in summery form in The Queen's Speech.

The debate on the content of the government's legislative programme outlined Queens' speech is technically, and traditionally, on the subject of a message of thanks which the house is to send the monarch for making the speech.

A motion amending the message of thanks put forward by the acting Leader of the Opposition Labour's Harriet Harman was the subject of this division. It highlights the main points of concern the opposition has with respect to the Government's plans. The motion was rejected but had it passed it would have added the following to the end of the message of thanks:

"but, whilst

  • welcoming the progress made by the previous administration to reform and improve the constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom, respectfully believe that such changes should be made wherever possible on the basis of a strong cross-party consensus;
  • therefore call for active discussions by your Government on proposals for an elected House of Lords, a referendum on the alternative vote, recall of hon. Members, the period of any fixed-term Parliament, party funding, changes to the number of hon. Members, the drawing of electoral boundaries, and individual voter registration;
  • consider as wholly unacceptable and undemocratic proposals to require any special majority to remove a Government and require an early general election, or to alter the number of hon. Members or the boundary rules in an arbitrary and partisan way; strongly endorse the measures which led to an overall reduction in crime of over a third, and of violent crime of 41 per cent., since 1997;
  • oppose any measures to cut the number of police officers and police community support officers, to restrict the use of the DNA database in accordance with the Crime and Security Act 2010, to extend anonymity in rape cases to defendants, or to politicise constabularies through the introduction of elected commissioners; and
  • urge your Government to reconsider the introduction of a pre-determined cap on skilled immigrants and to maintain the flexibility and effectiveness of the current points-based system."

Those voting Aye were voting to support these comments on the Queen's Speech. Those voting No were supporting the programme for government which had been outlined.

The amendment was opposed by all the Government's Liberal Democrat and Conservative MPs who voted and was supported by all voting MPs from the opposition Labour Party. The DUP voted with the government, the Green and SDLP MPs voted with the opposition.

Queen's Speech — Programme for Government — Economy - 8 Jun 2010 - Division No. 2
Policy 'Cut Spending on Public Services'No
Ian Liddell-GraingerNo
Con0286
Lab2440
LDem052
Total246345

The majority of MPs voted against an amendment criticising the economic measures contained within the Liberal - Conservative Coalition's programme for government.

The vote took place while MPs were debating the programme for government; initial elements of which had been set out in summery form in The Queen's Speech.

A Labour opposition amendment was moved by the Shadow Chancellor Alistair Darling. The motion was technically on the subject of a message of thanks which the house is to send the monarch for reading out the speech. The motion was rejected but had it passed it would have added the following to the end of the message of thanks:

  • endorse the successful steps taken by the previous administration to return the economy to growth, to keep people in their jobs and homes, and to support businesses;
  • note the need for a clear plan to bring down the deficit;
  • respectfully believe that securing the recovery and robust future growth should be central to that plan; further believe that such a plan must be fair and protect front line public services;
  • therefore oppose your Government's measures to cut the support provided by the Future Jobs Fund for tens of thousands of young people out of work, to damage growth in the regions by scaling back regional development agencies, and to cast uncertainty over support for key low carbon sectors like the nuclear supply chain and lower carbon vehicles;
  • further note that a rebalanced British economy must be built as the UK emerges from the recession; and
  • therefore urge your Government to reconsider the removal of investment allowances which support manufacturing businesses seeking to grow."
Queen's Speech — Programme for Government - 8 Jun 2010 - Division No. 4
Policy 'Cut Spending on Public Services'Aye (strong)
Ian Liddell-GraingerAye
Con2830
Lab0238
LDem520
Total337259

The majority of MPs agreed: "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:

  • Most Gracious Sovereign,
  • We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.

This division followed a debate on the Liberal - Conservative Coalition's programme for government initial elements of which had been set out in summary form in The Queen's Speech.

Those voting to send the letter of thanks to the monarch can presumably be inferred to be supportive of the measures laid out in the Queen's Speech.

Local Government Financing — regrets the cuts — rejected - 29 Jun 2010 - Division No. 12
Policy 'Cut Spending on Public Services'No (strong)
Ian Liddell-GraingerNo
Con0282
Lab2320
LDem051
Total245337

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].

Opposition Day — Concern about Coalition's Emergency Budget - 7 Jul 2010 - Division No. 15
Policy 'Cut Spending on Public Services'No
Ian Liddell-GraingerNo
Con0279
Lab2330
LDem047
Total245333

The majority of MPs voted to reject a motion put forward by the Labour opposition which expressed concern about potential negative consequences of the coalition's emergency budget.

The text of the rejected opposition motion read:

"That this House:

  • notes with grave concern that the emergency budget will increase unemployment;
  • calls on the Government to publish the HM Treasury analysis of jobs that will be lost in the public and private sector;
  • condemns the Government's decision to axe the Future Jobs Fund, the Youth Guarantee and the Jobseeker's Guarantee, scrapping hundreds of thousands of jobs and training places for the unemployed;
  • further notes that the Government is cutting employment support to help people into jobs at a time when growth is still fragile;
  • regrets that the role of the voluntary sector in helping people into work is at risk;
  • further notes that the current claimant count is half the level it was in the 1980s and 1990s as a result of the support and investment the previous Government provided for jobs and getting people back to work;
  • further notes the cost to communities and the economy of long-term unemployment; and
  • condemns the Government's decision to abolish regional development agencies with potentially damaging consequences for regional economies at a time when the recovery is not yet assured."

The vote was on if the original words (above) ought "stand part" of the motion. Following the vote MPs replaced the above text with a government amendment which stated:

"That this House:

  • welcomes the emergency budget which will tackle the unprecedented legacy of debt over the next five years by reducing borrowing from a projected £149 billion this year to just £20 billion in 2015- 16;
  • notes the Office for Budget Responsibility's projection that unemployment will fall in every year of this Parliament as a result of the Government's policies to stimulate private sector employment by reversing the damaging increase planned for employer national insurance contributions, introducing a £1 billion Regional Growth Fund, reducing the corporation and small profits tax rates and increasing the Enterprise Finance Guarantee, resulting in the creation of a projected two million new private sector jobs by 2015-16;
  • further welcomes moves to implement a single work programme that will provide personalised support to help people move into sustained employment, to introduce a £1,000 increase in income tax personal allowances which will incentivise work, to reform the benefits system to ensure that work pays and to provide 50,000 new apprenticeships and 10,000 new university places for young people, thus stimulating growth, delivering jobs and creating a fairer society for all."
Child Trust Funds Regulations - 21 Jul 2010 - Division No. 36
Policy 'Cut Spending on Public Services'Aye (strong)
Ian Liddell-GraingerAye
Con2720
Lab0202
LDem430
Total317222

The majority of MPs voted to approve regulations amending the terms of the Child Trust Fund scheme.

The main changes, which came into effect in August 2010, were to:

  • Reduce the payments made at birth from £250 to £50; with children of lower income families receiving an extra £50.
  • Stop the top-up paid at age seven

In addition the regulations provided for annual payments to Child Trust Funds of disabled children to cease from the 5th April 2011.

The text of the approved motion was:

Opposition Day — Crime and Policing — Police Funding - 8 Sep 2010 - Division No. 58
Policy 'Cut Spending on Public Services'Aye
Ian Liddell-GraingerAye
Con2770
Lab0226
LDem470
Total326232

The majority of MPs voted to support the Government's proposed policing reforms which include reducing police funding to help reduce the national deficit.

The text of the approved motion[1] read:

"That this House

  • notes the appalling fiscal deficit left by the last Government and reiterates the urgent need to restore the nation to economic health;
  • recognises that the police will need to play their part in reducing that deficit; and
  • welcomes the Government's proposed policing reforms, which will deliver a more responsive and efficient police service, less encumbered by bureaucracy, more accountable to the public and, most importantly, better equipped to fight crime."

==

Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Bill — Second Reading - 26 Oct 2010 - Division No. 101
Policy 'Cut Spending on Public Services'Aye
Ian Liddell-GraingerAye
Con2690
Lab0212
LDem490
Total320226

The majority of MPs voted to abolish child trust funds, the saving gateway scheme and health in pregnancy grants.

The Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Bill[1][2] was introduced by Conservative MP Mark Hoban, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Mr Hoban explained the Bill does three things[3]:

  • it ends eligibility for child trust funds[4] for children born from January 2011 onwards;
  • it repeals the Saving Gateway Accounts Act 2009, following our decision not to introduce the saving gateway scheme[5]; and
  • it abolishes the health in pregnancy grant[6], again from January 2011.

Technically the vote was on giving a second reading to the Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Bill ie. to allow it to continue along the path to becoming law.

Queen's Speech — Public Spending Cuts - 4 Jun 2015 - Division No. 2
Policy 'Cut Spending on Public Services'No
Ian Liddell-GraingerNo
Con0324
Lab2160
LDem00
Total280327

The majority of MPs voted against limiting public spending cuts to the amount required to address the deficit and not to ask Ministers to say where cuts will fall and who will pay for unfunded pledges.

The debate on the content of the government's legislative programme outlined Queens' speech is technically, and traditionally, on the subject of a message of thanks which the house is to send the monarch for making the speech.

The motion under consideration was:

The amendment rejected following this vote sought to add the following to the end of the message:

  • but
  • 'regret' that the Gracious Speech fails to provide a strategy to build the productive economy that the country needs;
  • 'note' that a fragile recovery and stagnating productivity harms living standards and makes it harder to reduce the deficit;
  • 'believe' that every effort should now be concentrated on supporting middle- and lower-income working people;
  • 'further note' that the Gracious Speech is a missed opportunity to tackle the principal causes of rising welfare costs that flow from a low wage, high rent economy;
  • 'further believe' in the pooling and sharing of resources across the UK as the best mechanism for delivering social and economic change;
  • 'urge the Government' to pursue sensible savings in public expenditure as part of a balanced approach and not an ideologically-driven attempt to shrink public services beyond what is needed to address the deficit; and
  • 'call upon Ministers' to spell out where their cuts will fall and who will pay for their unfunded election pledges.”
Queen's Speech — Spending Cuts, Welfare Changes and Trident - 4 Jun 2015 - Division No. 3
Policy 'Cut Spending on Public Services'No (strong)
Ian Liddell-GraingerNo
Con0324
Lab00
LDem00
Total62330

The majority of MPs voted in favour of proposed spending cuts and changes to the welfare system and in favour of spending on new nuclear weapons.

The debate on the content of the government's legislative programme outlined Queens' speech is technically, and traditionally, on the subject of a message of thanks which the house is to send the monarch for making the speech.

The motion under consideration was:

The amendment rejected following this vote sought to add the following to the end of the message:

  • but
  • regret that the measures set out do not adequately meet the challenges facing the majority of people across the UK;
  • call in particular for your Government to change course on plans for further austerity spending cuts, to reconsider changes to the welfare state that will hit many of the most vulnerable people in our country and to halt proposals to waste £100 billion on new nuclear weapons at a time when vital public services are being squeezed across the country; and
  • recognise the overwhelming mandate in Scotland for both the early implementation, in full, of the Smith Commission proposals and the delivery of additional powers for the Scottish Parliament including new powers on job creation, to improve living standards and to protect the welfare state in Scotland.

Proposals to renew the UK's Trident nuclear deterrent have been reported to be costed at around £100bn[1].

The Conservative party's manifesto for the 2015 elections[2] stated: "We will find £12 billion from welfare savings".

Queen's Speech — Programme for Government — Economy and Jobs - 20 Jan 2020 - Division No. 16
Policy 'Cut Spending on Public Services'No
Ian Liddell-GraingerNo
Con0334
Lab1850
LDem00
Total238344

The majority of MPs voted against requiring a plan to reverse the impact of austerity, tackle the climate and environmental emergency, and reshape the economy to work for everyone by clamping down on tax avoidance, tackling insecurity in work by extending full employment rights to all workers, ending in-work poverty, and introducing a real living wage.

The debate on the content of the government's legislative programme outlined in the Queens' speech is technically, and traditionally, on the subject of a message of thanks which the house is to send the monarch for making the speech.

MPs were considering the following motion:

  • That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
  • Most Gracious Sovereign,
  • We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.

the amendment rejected in this vote was:

  • at the end of the Question to add:
  • ‘but respectfully regrets that the Gracious Speech fails to put an end to a decade of austerity, to invest in the UK’s underfunded public services, or to scrap universal credit;
  • notes the damaging impact that the four-year freeze in working-age benefits has had on families on low income; and
  • calls on the Government to bring forward a plan to reverse the damaging impact austerity has had on communities in the UK, tackle the climate and environmental emergency, and reshape the economy to work for everyone by clamping down on tax avoidance, tackling insecurity in work by extending full employment rights to all workers, ending in-work poverty, and introducing a real living wage.’.
Proper Funding of Public Services — Tax Avoidance and Evasion - 25 Feb 2020 - Division No. 35
Policy 'Cut Spending on Public Services'No (strong)
Ian Liddell-GraingerNo
Con0322
Lab1710
LDem90
Total238324

The majority of MPs voted not to call for the proper funding of public services after a decade of austerity nor for robust action to tackle tax avoidance and evasion.

The motion rejected in this vote was:

  • That this House
  • notes that the tax gap, the difference between the amount of tax that should be paid to HMRC and what is actually paid, has been estimated at between a minimum of £35 billion and £90 billion;
  • believes that successive Conservative governments have failed to address tax avoidance and evasion while making savage cuts to public services and undermining the social security net;
  • further notes that the Tax Justice Network has described the UK as backsliding on financial transparency;
  • is concerned by reports of the Conservative Party’s links with individuals and companies that have engaged in tax avoidance; and
  • calls for the proper funding of public services after a decade of austerity and for robust action to tackle tax avoidance and evasion.

How the number is calculated

The MP's votes count towards a weighted average where the most important votes get 50 points, less important votes get 10 points, and less important votes for which the MP was absent get 2 points. In important votes the MP gets awarded the full 50 points for voting the same as the policy, no points for voting against the policy, and 25 points for not voting. In less important votes, the MP gets 10 points for voting with the policy, no points for voting against, and 1 (out of 2) if absent.

Questions about this formula can be discussed on the forum.

No of votesPointsOut of
Most important votes (50 points)   
MP voted with policy5250250
MP voted against policy000
MP absent000
Less important votes (10 points)   
MP voted with policy77070
MP voted against policy000
Less important absentees (2 points)   
MP absent*000
Total:320320

*Pressure of other work means MPs or Lords are not always available to vote – it does not always indicate they have abstained. Therefore, being absent on a less important vote makes a disproportionatly small difference.

agreement score
MP's points
total points
 = 
320
320
 = 100.0 %.


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