King's Speech (Motion for an Address): Amendment (h)
111Ayes
390Noes
Defeated · majority 279 · Government won145 did not vote
646 Members · Aye 111 · No 390 · DNV 145 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament voted on 22 July 2024 on Amendment (h) to the motion for an address in reply to the King's Speech, the formal parliamentary response to the new Labour government's outline of its legislative programme. The amendment was defeated by 390 votes to 111. The detailed content of Amendment (h) is not in the available record, but opposition amendments to the King's Speech address are conventionally used to register disagreement with specific aspects of the government's stated agenda. The King's Speech sets out the bills a new government intends to introduce across a parliamentary session, so amendments to the reply address serve as early tests of parliamentary confidence in those plans. Defeating such an amendment confirms the government's ability to command a majority for its programme at the outset of the new Parliament, following Labour's general election victory earlier in July 2024. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 374 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted backed the No lobby, while 103 Conservatives and 4 Reform UK members voted Aye, alongside 3 Democratic Unionist Party MPs. A small number of independents split both ways, with 2 voting Aye and 6 voting No. No cross-party rebellion from Labour benches was recorded. The result is consistent with other King's Speech amendment votes held on 23 July 2024, where similar margins of around 103 Ayes to 363 or 384 Noes were recorded.
Voting Aye meant
Support Amendment (h) to the King's Speech address, signalling disagreement with some aspect of the Labour government's stated legislative agenda
Voting No meant
Oppose Amendment (h), backing the Labour government's King's Speech programme as presented
Each row is one party. The stacked bar gives the within-party split of Aye / No / Absent; the columns on the right give the raw counts. The whip column shows the published party position — “Free vote” means the whip was formally removed for this division.
Party
Whip
Aye / No / Abs
Aye
No
Abs
Labour Party
Whipped No
0
336
25
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
103
0
13
Liberal Democrats
—
0
0
71
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
38
4
Independent
—
2
6
6
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped Aye
4
0
3
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
3
0
2
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped No
0
4
0
Plaid Cymru
Whipped No
0
4
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
1
1
Your Party
—
0
2
0
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
0
0
1
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
0
0
1
Ulster Unionist Party
—
1
0
0
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
The energy independence Bill is economically self-harm; the government should approve Rosebank and Jackdaw, abolish the carbon tax, and recognise North Sea oil and gas as essential to UK energy security and industrial jobs.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (3,483 words) →
Energy independence through clean, home-grown renewables protects the UK from fossil fuel price shocks; new oil and gas licences will not materially affect capacity or bills, and the transition must be managed fairly for workers.Labour · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (3,456 words) →
The government's energy independence approach is broadly welcome, but must go further and faster on community energy, solar on public buildings, and grid reform; new North Sea licences are marginal and a just transition commission is needed.Liberal Democrat · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (1,790 words) →
The North Sea is a super-mature basin in decline; new licences will not stop the decline and the economic case for clean energy and transition support for oil and gas workers is strong.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (1,286 words) →
A gradual transition away from fossil fuels is sensible, but exporting emissions to Qatar and the US while ignoring North Sea resources is ideological folly; energy costs are the real blocker to industrial growth.Conservative · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (1,479 words) →
The government's energy independence and nuclear regulation Bills are essential to break dependency on global markets; the Opposition's alternative is incoherent and ignores the £44 billion cost of the Ukraine energy crisis.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (1,253 words) →
Small nuclear reactors should be prioritized, but the North Sea resource must be used to bridge the gap; solar should be placed on rooftops and car parks, not prime agricultural land, and grid cabling must be undergrounded.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (753 words) →
Energy security is vital, but the government must also regulate AI development and address the labour market disruption it will cause, requiring co-ordination with the EU.Labour · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (873 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0