Re: Abstainers
Absolute weasel words here from Labour. They think the Bill isn't worthy of support in it's current form, but they won't vote against it. Instead, they simply abstain and allow the vote to pass with less than an absolute majority on the number of votes, instead only needing a majority of the number of people who turn up.
Andy Burnham (Shadow Home Secretary):
"I disagree entirely. As I said, we will not oppose the Bill because we will be responsible. I have recognised that the country needs a new law. I have also said, as I will come on to explain, that the Bill is not yet worthy of support. There are significant weaknesses in the Bill. I am sorry, but I am not prepared to go through the Lobby tonight and give the hon. Gentleman and his Government a blank cheque. I want to hold the Government to account. I want to see changes in the Bill to strengthen the Bill. When they listen, they will earn our support. That is entirely appropriate and responsible for an Opposition party to do."
I could accept abstaining if the threshold for passing a Bill or vote in the Commons remained 326, not a simple majority of the people in the chamber at the time. When a vote can pass on 281 votes because of mass abstentions, then abstaining isn't simply abstaining - it's effectively voting yes.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
