Consider handling of upcoming votes on Queen's Speech

[RichardTaylor]

As the general election has resulted in a House of Commons where no party has an overall majority it's likely there will be one or more votes of significant public interest following the Queen's Speech scheduled for the 19th of June 2017. Votes will probably take place over the three days following the speech.

In order for MPs' positions on specific key votes to appear on TheyWorkForYou they will need to be votes which are taken into account when making a statement on MPs' voting record pages.

While we don't yet know what, if anything, will be voted on, I currently expect to propose adding lines to MPs' voting records such as:

"Generally voted against a Conservative Government following the June 2017 election"
"Generally voted for a Conservative Government following the June 2017 election"

And perhaps if the first vote is expressing regret the Queens' Speech wasn't based on the policies from the Labour manifesto:

"Generally voted against a Labour led Government following the June 2017 election"
"Generally voted for a Labour led Government following the June 2017 election"

both to be listed under the "Miscellaneous" section.

I expect the text of the key motion will be:

: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.

Support for that motion will be interpreted and described as support for the programme of Government put forward in the speech, and as a vote of confidence in the Conservative Government which whose programme will be in the speech. This type of motion following a Queen's speech, and amendments to it, are the only time vote descriptions on PublicWhip step away from a strictly literal interpretation; though the impact of votes is described where it's known.

(In line with the approach taken in 2015 and since the vote on the Queen's speech won't contribute to statements made about MP's stances on specific policy areas as it will be assumed the overwhelming question is one of confidence in the Government. [This is arguable either way, and personally I'd include them.] )

There's no need for any particular special action at all; but considering a more timely response to the key vote(s) might be worthwhile as suggested at:
#1162

Also the bug with the use of the phase "consistently voted" when only one vote is involved may arise in the presentation of information on these votes:
#1157

What's been done in the past:

Queen's Speech following 2015 election: The key vote was described but not taken into account when making any statements about MPs' voting records. http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2015-06-04&number=4

Queen's Speech following 2010 election: The key vote was described, and a statement on "the policies included in the 2010 Conservative - Liberal Democrat Coalition Agreement" added to MP's voting records starting with that vote; but the vote wasn't taken into account in respect of any other statements.

I thought it would be useful to raise this ticket now in case there's any discussion to had prior to the votes.

[RichardTaylor]

The BBC is reporting on a Queens' Speech today

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32816450

They have a section:

Is there a vote on it?
Yes.
About two hours after the speech is delivered, MPs reassemble in the House of Commons to begin debating its contents.
...
The debate on what is known as the Humble Address normally lasts about five days.
At the end of the debate there is a vote. It's normally seen as symbolic, as it is extremely rare for a government to lose it.

That doesn't offer a clear view on if the vote is on the content of the speech.

The best solution here is for MPs to stop voting on a symbolic motion on "humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech" and to unambiguously take a vote on the content, the programme for Government.

[RichardTaylor]

See also #946 which includes commentary on the handling of the votes on the notes of thanks to the monarch for reading out speeches setting out programmes for government.

My view is the best argument for not taking an overall vote on the note of thanks to the monarch into account when making statements on MPs' voting records on matters covered in the programme for government set out in the speech is not that the vote is seen as a vote of confidence, but rather that the vote is technically and literally usually just on sending the thank-you note. I'm happy to exclude the votes from being taken into account when making statements about MP's voting records on that basis.

I think interpretation of the votes as a vote on the proposed programme for government set out within the speech is a potentially reasonable interpretation too.

I think a vote of confidence could be interpreted in relation to its impacts on policies.

Votes on amendments to the note of thanks tend to include more clearly operative phrases eg. "Call on the Government..." which are present in many other motions which are taken into account when making statements on MP's voting records. It's consistent with other practice to take those into account when making statements on MPs' voting records; it would be inconsistent not to.

[RichardTaylor]

Does the thanks for the speech refer to the content of the speech or reading it out?

MPs certainly use the debate on sending the note of thanks to discuss the content of the speech.

Is it sufficiently consistent to describe a vote in favour of sending the note of thanks as indicating support for the content of the speech while not taking that vote into account when making statements on MPs' voting records? It could be argued it does "indicate" support but isn't clear enough to give weight to when making statements. I think that's a reasonable position to take.

[RichardTaylor]

Today (19 October 2022) we have a vote which is not a vote of confidence in the Government, a vote on calling a general election, or a vote on a programme for Government or a budget vote, which is being widely reported as being considered a "confidence vote" by the Conservative Party:

https://twitter.com/DominicPenna/status/1582720412483739648

https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1582668826549792768

Should this vote be treated specially? I would suggest not, but that might be considered out of line with essence of the public position:

Further complications arise with traditions such as the Queen’s Speech, in which many policies are bundled together into what amounts to a manifesto for the parliamentary period ahead. Typically an MP will vote with their party, even if two or three of the policies included are not to their liking — we recognise this by not taking votes on the Queens’ speech into account when determining what we say about an MP’s stance on a particular issue. We treat budget votes similarly.

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/voting-information/

I don't think internal party politics should impact the way TheyWorkForYou shows the voting records.

[RichardTaylor]

At some risk of repetition, I'm going to try and summarise my views and observations:

• MPs shouldn't vote on sending a note of thanks to the monarch, if what they're really voting on is the programme for Government. - Not taking the vote on sending the note of thanks into account when making statements on an MP's voting record can be justified by arguing the text of the motion wasn't substantive.
•  I don't think the argument it's a confidence vote so it shouldn't be deemed to impact specific matters is a defensible and consistent position. Supporting, or not supporting, a Government does have impact on specific matters. 
• Arguing that as MPs have to decide if to support or oppose a broad set of measures they shouldn't be considered to have voted for/against any specific measures in the set contradicts the approach taken to interpreting votes on Bills, or other motions covering more than one narrow subject. 
• Votes for amendments to the note of thanks do often clearly express support/opposition for more specific sets of policies, and are akin to votes held at other times which either call on the Government to act, or express regret it isn't acting etc.
• We can't always identify votes which are considered votes of confidence.
• Currently a literal vote of confidence is not being taken into account in respect of statements on an MP's voting record on specific subjects https://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2019-01-16&number=296