Since
the Westminster Parliament voted (by 26 votes) to continue with the
justly maligned Bedroom Tax, the twitteratti have been having a field
day. Bitter recrimination has been piled on accusation and deep
loathing. MPs have been targeted for direct action. Threats have been
made to oust MPs who have left their vulnerable constituents at the
mercy of this iniquitous legislation.
So
far, so unexceptional you might think, but in this case the targets
are the MPs who represent the party that publicly opposes the Tax;
that has committed to repeal the legislation; and that was
responsible for the staging of the debate. Whit?!
The
substance of the accusations levelled at (some) Labour MPs (and at
the Party in general), is that by not having all their MPs in the
Commons for the vote, they have let down the fight against the
Bedroom Tax. In some extreme cases the claim is that this failure led
to their own amendment being lost, despite the obvious fallacy of
that!
Now
the rights and wrongs of the pairing system aren't an argument that
can be dealt with here. Nor, incidentally, are they an issue that was
raised by anyone before the debate or vote. However, it is
unquestionable that the missing MPs were paired. Thus, all claims
that the missing MPs 'cost' the vote against the Bedroom Tax fail, as
their appearance would immediately have been matched by the
appearance of their 'pair' to vote in favour.
It
is also most unlikely that any attempt to 'ambush' the vote would
have defeated the tax. Firstly, even if successful, it would not
have been binding on the Government, and they would simply have
called a vote of confidence, which they would have won. A similar
caveat applies to any attempt to impose a three-line whip. That would
have been made public, and would have turned the vote into a a vote
of confidence with similar results.
Indeed,
one MP has pointed out that all the SNP MPs have been absent at one time or another
at votes against the legislation containing the Bedroom Tax, while it
was going though the commons. While there is one error in her list,
the point about absent votes and pairing remains true. No doubt MPs
of other parties missed these and similar votes. No doubt all of the above MPs
were paired, and their vulnerable constituents not left without a
representative. But quite clearly not all parliamentary votes are as significant as others. Indeed these votes actually impacted on the passage of the legislation!
Having
said that, there have clearly been failures on the part of the opposition.
How else can we explain what should have been a great public
opportunity being turned into a publicity gaffe? It should have been
anticipated that public interest in the outcome of the vote (even if
overturning it would have required the votes of LibDems) meant that
any likely absences should have been identified and - if
unjustifiable, stopped, if justifiable, explained. After all, many of
those criticising believe in extra-parliamentary campaigning, and it
is hardly wrong for MPs to also take part in such campaigns. Not
preparing for this, and probably allowing some non-attendances that
should never have been allowed, has meant a massive publicity
opportunity for the Labour Opposition has been lost.
However,
what has also been lost in the welter of criticism is any sight of
the real villains of the piece. After all the majority of the votes
in the Commons were to back the Bedroom Tax - these ConDem MPs are
thanking their stars for the furore whipped up by the nationalists
and ultra-left.
