Division · No. 2Tuesday, 23 July 2024Commons Constitution and Democracy

King's Speech (Motion for an Address): Amendment (l)

117
Ayes
384
Noes
Defeated · Government won
146 did not vote
Analysis
Commons

**What happened:** On 23 July 2024, the House of Commons voted on Amendment (l) to the Motion for an Address in reply to the King's Speech, the final in a series of Conservative amendments tabled during the debate on the new Labour government's legislative programme. The amendment was defeated by 384 votes to 117, with the Conservatives unable to muster enough support to register a symbolic victory against the government's agenda. **Why it matters:** The King's Speech debate and its associated amendments are Parliament's first opportunity to set out competing visions for government. A successful amendment would have represented a formal parliamentary rebuke of Labour's programme, signalling that the Commons did not endorse the direction outlined by the new administration. Though the defeat of such amendments by a new majority government is expected, the votes serve as a formal record of opposition priorities and test how parties are willing to align in the early weeks of a Parliament. **The politics:** The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. The 103 Conservative MPs who voted aye were joined by 6 Reform UK members, 3 Democratic Unionist Party MPs, 1 Ulster Unionist, and 4 independents, totalling 117. Labour, Labour and Co-operative, the Greens, the SDLP, and one other MP voted no, adding up to 384. The result reflects Labour's commanding majority following the July 2024 general election. The pattern was consistent across the series of amendments debated on the same day, with Amendment (d) also defeated 103 to 363 and Amendment (k) falling 85 to 382, pointing to a disciplined government bloc throughout.

Voting Aye meant
Support the Conservative amendment criticising or seeking to alter the direction of the King's Speech and Labour's stated legislative programme
Voting No meant
Back the Labour government's King's Speech and legislative agenda as presented, rejecting the opposition's amendment
§ 01Who voted how.501 voting members · 146 absent
Aye117No386DID NOT VOTE · 146

501 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 146 who did not vote.

Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped No
0
333
29
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped Aye
103
0
13
Liberal Democrats
0
0
72
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped No
0
39
3
Independent
4
7
3
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UKWhipped Aye
6
0
1
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped Aye
3
0
2
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped No
0
4
Plaid Cymru
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
0
0
1
Ulster Unionist Party
1
0
Your Party
0
1
§ 02From the debate.6 principal speakers
Sir James CleverlyOpposedBraintree
Criticized Labour's cancellation of Rwanda asylum scheme, effective amnesty for illegal arrivals, and poor diplomatic handling; defended Conservative policing and migration records while accusing Labour of abandoning tough rhetoric.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (4,153 words)
Yvette CooperSupportivePontefract, Castleford and Knottingley
Outlined three-pillar Home Office strategy (crime/policing, borders/asylum, security); criticized Conservative legacy on police numbers, visa system mismanagement, and Rwanda scheme's wasteful £700m spend with minimal results.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (4,485 words)
Christine JardineSupportiveEdinburgh West
Welcomed Home Secretary's openness to cross-party working; supported scrapping Rwanda scheme and called for proper community policing, court backlog reduction, and better immigration system for economy and genuine refugees.Liberal Democrat · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (1,767 words)
Sir Desmond SwayneOpposedNew Forest West
Acknowledged election defeat; defended Rwanda scheme as part of deterrent strategy and criticized its abandonment; emphasized need for international development spending and returns agreements as long-term solutions.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,006 words)
Debbie AbrahamsSupportiveOldham East and Saddleworth
Focused on poverty, inequality, and disabled people's rights; welcomed King's Speech measures on child poverty, social security, and living standards as remedy to 14 years of Conservative cuts.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (1,228 words)
Helen HayesSupportiveDulwich and West Norwood
Emphasized impact of Conservative cuts on schools, housing, health, and children's mental health; welcomed Labour's legislative programme for child poverty, education, and young people's wellbeing.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (1,213 words)
§ 03Related divisions.Same topic · recent
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0