Scottish Labour MSPs missing more Holyrood votes than Tories and SNP
In recent weeks, the number of Labour MSPs failing to vote on motions in the Scottish Parliament has increased, leading to concerns that their absence could be "changing the result of the votes".
Last Wednesday for example – the most recent day of voting at the time of writing – 39% of Labour MSPs (nine members) did not vote in the chamber, compared with 6.7% of Tory MSPs (two members) and 1.6% of SNP (one member).
The National analysed all the main votes which have taken place so far in June, excluding amendments, and found that among the three main parties, Labour consistently had the highest percentage of absent MSPs, with the Tories following not far behind, while the SNP had the highest turnout.
READ MORE: Labour blasted as 'deeply authoritarian' over plans to proscribe Palestine Action
Between June 1 and 19, an average of 20.1% of Labour MSPs failed to vote in motions, compared to 14% Tory and 6.6% SNP.
Of the 10 votes that took place in that time, there were only four instances where turnout for both Labour and the Tories was higher than 90%. Meanwhile, the SNP turnout was above 90% in all of these votes.
Scottish Labour had a higher turnout when it came to their own motions, such as their Planning motion on June 11, which was missed by one MSP, and their motion on Scotland's medical and nursing workforce crisis also on June 11, which all Labour MSPs voted on.
More Labour MSPs tended to turn up when it came to voting on bills. At the Scottish Languages Bill debate on June 17, 17.4% of Labour MSPs did not vote, compared with 20% Tory and 8.2% SNP.
And at the Care Reform (Scotland) Bill on June 10, 8.7% of Labour MSPs were absent, while the Tories had double, at 16.67%, and the SNP had 6.6%.
But when these figures are compared with the start of the year, it shows a significant drop in attendance from Labour MSPs.
READ MORE: Presiding Officer to step down at Holyrood election
The National found that in January, an average of 7.9% of Labour MSPs failed to vote, compared with 9.1% Tory and 6.6% SNP.
And in February, the average number of MSPs missing votes stood at 15% Labour, 10.1% Tory and 6.2% SNP.
When looking at the smaller parties, the Greens and LibDems – which have seven and five MSPs respectively – were much more likely to show up to votes.
In fact, since the beginning of this year, the Scottish Greens have had a full turnout at 86.9% of votes (53 out of 61 votes), while the LibDems had 65.6% (40 votes). In the instances where full turnout was not recorded, this was down to a maximum of two MSPs not voting.
READ MORE: Scottish civil service reaches 'record' size, figures show
There is one Alba MSP (Ash Regan) and one Independent MSP (John Mason), who turned up to 75.4% (46 votes) and 100% of votes respectively.
For parties with higher numbers of MSPs, it is more difficult to achieve a full turnout.
The SNP, which have 60 MSPs, recorded a full turnout at just two votes (3.3%) – the Assisted Dying Bill on May 13 and an SNP motion on Scotland's Hydrogen Future on May 1.
The only instance where every single Tory MSP (of which there are 30) took part in a vote was for the Assisted Dying Bill (1.6% of the total number of votes), while Labour (which have 23 MSPs) saw a full turnout at four votes (6.6%) – but three of those were motions submitted by Labour, while the fourth was for the Assisted Dying Bill.
While it is expected that MSPs will not be able to make every single vote, such as due to illness or maternity leave, there are proxy voting arrangements in place which mean that the absence would not affect the overall result of a vote.
Commenting on the figures, Greens MSP Ross Greer – who has voted in every motion analysed by The National – said that "if Labour MSPs don't want to do the jobs they were elected to, they should resign".
He added that the proxy voting arrangements mean "there is no excuse for almost half of the Labour group casting no vote at all" in some cases.
Ross Greer MSP"That is bad enough on ordinary motions, but it is totally unacceptable when we are deciding on the laws of this country," he said.
Greer added that "it is a privilege to serve Scotland in Parliament", and that turning up to vote is "the bare minimum" that voters expect of those they elect.
READ MORE: SNP the only pro-indy party not to sign pledge condemning Gaza genocide
He continued: "This isn't a one off. The attendance of Labour and Tory MSPs has been shocking for years.
"It has absolutely changed the result of votes and therefore meant that Scotland's laws are different than they otherwise would have been if everyone elected by the public had actually turned up to do their job."
Commenting, SNP MSP Kenneth Gibson said: "The fact Labour and Tory MSPs are increasingly failing to turn up to Parliament shows that Scotland is always an afterthought for the unionist parties.
"SNP MSPs have the best attendance rate of any party – we are in Parliament every day, standing up for our constituents – while Labour and the Tories are nowhere to be seen when it matters most."
Scottish Labour did not respond when approached for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Channel 4
39 minutes ago
- Channel 4
Welfare reform on knife edge as Labour rebels consider plans
The government says it had made changes to its welfare bill after listening to rebel Labour MPs. But it was hard to hear them over the screech of the U-turn made by ministers as they sought to swerve an embarrassing backbench rebellion in a vote tomorrow. But even since the concessions were made to rebels on Personal Independence Payments and Universal Credit an assessment suggests 150,000 more people could be plunged into poverty by 2030 because of the changes. Our political editor Gary Gibbon reports.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Even after the welfare rebellion, it is too soon to write off Keir Starmer
In a parallel universe, and perhaps a happier one for him, Sir Keir Starmer would have ended up as attorney general in some sort of Labour government, led by someone other than him. He confessed as much to his sympathetic biographer, Tom Baldwin, some time ago. More recently, this accidental prime minister has been unburdening himself in a series of interviews to mark his first, rather difficult year in office. 'In office', that is, rather than 'in power', as the old saying goes, because his authority has been draining away at an alarming rate lately. It seems to be getting him down. The leadership was a job Sir Keir may not have wanted that much, but it was almost thrust into his safe hands after the debacle of the 2019 general election, and he did his duty. Picking up the pieces after Jeremy Corbyn stepped down, the most famous son of a toolmaker in the country was soon rolling up his sleeves – a favourite expression – and rebuilding his party in his image. He took on the role because there was no one else in the party capable enough, and willing to take it on. He thought, as did virtually everyone, that it would take two terms to unwind Boris Johnson's thumping majority. As it turned out, Mr Johnson and his colleagues, most notably Dominic Cummings and Liz Truss, plus Brexit, helped make sure that the task of returning Labour to government could be undertaken rather more quickly. Sir Keir and his advisers did well to campaign in such a way as to secure a landslide Commons majority – but at 34 per cent of the vote, their mandate was less solid than it looked, and Sir Keir's personal ratings never approached the stellar figures achieved by, say, Tony Blair, or indeed Mr Johnson. Now, those ratings are heading towards nadirs suffered by prime ministers much further into their tenure. The general sense of malaise seems to have entered the prime minister's soul, confessing to any passing journalist his regrets, mistakes and failures, including, most unfortunately, not realising what an impact his 'island of strangers" speech would make. The latest U-turn, on reforms to social security, must surely eat further into his self-confidence. It is not so much the details of the changes – they are mostly sensible – but the way they have been wrung out of the government that has done the damage. Despite early warnings, Sir Keir seems to have failed to engage with the whips and his own ministers until it was too late to prevent an open mutiny of such strength that any premier would have had to back down. As a result, Sir Keir looks like he is following his backbenchers rather than leading them – weak. This is bad enough, but the measures in the revised welfare reforms aren't all that popular with the general public. At least when the prime minister climbed down on the pensioners' winter fuel payment and the grooming gangs inquiry, eventually, he was on the right side of public opinion. He may not get much credit, but at least he tried to rescue some goodwill; the U-turn on welfare doesn't even have that meagre consolation. In fact, it might have been better to pause and work for a more comprehensive resolution that protected the fiscal position and the welfare of vulnerable people. As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson Steve Darling reminded more experienced colleagues in the chamber, rushed legislation has often proved bad legislation. After all, there is no logic in someone with exactly the same mobility challenges as an existing claimant receiving less financial assistance. This messy compromise is an unfortunate way to mark the Labour government's first year of ' change ' – changing their minds three times in as many weeks. Still, hope springs eternal in the Labour Party, as it generally must. Sir Keir's battalion of sorrows has arrived remarkably quickly, but they are not so different from the 'mid-term blues' that have awaited almost every government since the Second World War. The prime minister can be proud of his record on foreign affairs – three substantial trade deals, including the Brexit reset, plus an inexplicably warm relationship with Donald Trump. Proof, at last, that opposites attract. The prime minister has also ended long-running disputes relating to the Chagos Islands and Gibraltar – and, albeit far too little and too late, has at least now declared that the conduct of Israel's war in Gaza is unacceptable. The UK should be boosting spending on defence, and trying to sustain Nato and the defence of Ukraine. The prime minister has done all of that, too. Domestically, things have not proceeded so smoothly – and that has hammered his authority, as rounds of elections and the resurrection of Nigel Farage show. Only if the public perceives tangible changes in the quality of public services will they be prepared to back Labour for a second term of office. The same goes for the economy more broadly, and on control of migration. The government still has time on its side here, if it is not complacent. It needs a 'narrative' – but also improvements people can see and sense. Thanks to his restless health secretary, Wes Streeting, the NHS is being reformed and restored, and waiting times are coming down. There is clearly much more to do, but previous prime ministers have been through worse, and some even went on to win, against all odds. One year in, it is far too soon to write off Sir Keir, unless he himself decides to do so.
Daily Mirror
an hour ago
- Daily Mirror
Keir Starmer battles DWP disability benefit cuts revolt despite U-turn
Keir Starmer offered major concessions on welfare reforms to avoid a Commons defeat - but the Government's own analysis suggests 150,000 people could still be pushed into poverty The Government is battling to quell a Labour revolt over disability benefit cuts that risk pushing 150,000 people into poverty. Keir Starmer offered massive concessions on controversial welfare reforms last week to avoid a defeat in the Commons on Tuesday. But Labour MPs lined up to express fury over the plans, which the Government's own analysis admitted could push tens of thousands of people into hardship. Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall insisted Labour was "doing the fair thing and the right thing" to help people back into work. She said: "Our plans are rooted in fairness for those who need support and for taxpayers. They are about ensuring the welfare state survives." While some of the 126 Labour rebels are expected to vote with the Government, around 50 MPs could still oppose the bill in the biggest revolt of Mr Starmer's premiership. Rebel Labour MP Debbie Abrahams told The Mirror: "The Government's concessions to protect existing PIP claimants are significant, and many of us feel that we're nearly there. "However there are still real concerns about the PIP review, its timing and how the commitment for this to be co-produced with disabled people's organisations is genuine when the outcome of this - that 4 points still has to be achieved for each daily living activity - has been predetermined. Ms Abrahams, who chairs the Commons Work and Pensions Committee, accused the Government of going back on its word as MPs thought cuts for future Personal Independence Payment (PIP) claimants would be put on hold until a review has taken place. She added: "We did propose to delay this to November 2026 to better align and not undermine the great work on increasing NHS capacity, employment opportunities for disabled people and employment support." The row comes after an extraordinary climbdown from the Prime Minister last week. The proposals will now mean existing claimants are protected from losing PIP, in a reprieve for an estimated 370,000 people who were due to lose more than £4,000 a year. Instead, tighter eligibility rules for the key disability benefit will only apply to future claimants from November 2026. Existing claimants of the Universal Credit top up will continue to receive £97 per week, while new claimants from April 2026 will see it fall to £50 a week. Details were also set out of a review of PIP assessments led by Minister Sir Stephen Timms, done in partnership with disability groups. But a string of Labour MPs sounded the alarm over plans to publish the findings by next autumn - when the changes are meant to come into effect. Backbencher Derek Twigg asked: "Given the wider review, why are we pushing ahead at this stage?" Ms Kendall confirmed the climbdown will halve the £5billion savings the Government had expected to claw back from the benefits bill by 2030. It means Chancellor Rachel Reeves will have to scramble to make up the shortfall in the Budget in the autumn. Earlier, modelling published by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) said an additional 150,000 people will be pushed into relative poverty after housing costs by 2029-30. Ms Kendall insisted that changes to PIP and Universal Credit would "ensure no existing claimants are put into poverty". A Downing Street spokesman said the modelling "doesn't reflect the full picture" and was "subject to uncertainty" as it does not take into account extra funding to support people with disabilities and long-term health conditions into work. An additional £300million will be put towards this, with spending rising to £1billion by 2029/30. A previous analysis in March - before the U-turn - said the welfare reforms would result in an extra 250,000 people, including 50,000 children, falling into poverty No10 is hoping the concessions will convince enough Labour MPs to back the plans in a crunch vote on Tuesday. But disability groups have warned the changes risk creating a "two-tier" benefits system. Campaigners from 86 charities including Mind, Scope, Trussell and the Child Poverty Action Group urged MPs to vote against the bill. Labour's Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, warned: "I still have serious concerns about these plans. I've met too many Londoners who do work, but through no fault of their own need support from the state, and they're really worried they'll lose that." Charlotte Gill, of the MS Society, said: 'We're appalled that the government are choosing to rush through this reckless and harmful bill. It's outrageous that MPs are being asked to vote for dramatic welfare changes, without having time to properly scrutinise their impact. "By the government's own admission these catastrophic cuts will still push at least 150,000 more people into poverty. MS is a debilitating, exhausting and unpredictable condition which gets worse over time. PIP is a lifeline not a luxury for many people with MS." A No10 spokesman said: "The broken welfare system we inherited is failing people every single day. It traps millions, it tells them the only way to get help is to declare they'll never work again and then abandons them. No help, no opportunity, no dignity and we can't accept that. For too long, meaningful reform to a failing system has been ducked." Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said her party would vote against the Government's proposals, saying they were "not serious welfare reform".
