A divisionDivision No. 1 · Tuesday, 19 May 2026· Commons· Constitution and Democracy

King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (i)

108Ayes
323Noes
Defeated · majority 215 · Government won
214 did not vote
Aye110No323DID NOT VOTE · 214

645 Members · Aye 108 · No 323 · DNV 214 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

Parliament voted on 19 May 2026 on amendment (i) to the motion for an Address in reply to the King's Speech, which set out the new government's legislative programme. The amendment was tabled by the opposition as a formal challenge to that programme. It was defeated by 323 votes to 108. The King's Speech debate is the traditional occasion at the start of a parliamentary session when MPs respond to the government's statement of legislative intent. An opposition amendment to the Address is a procedural mechanism allowing critics to register formal disapproval of the government's agenda. Defeating such an amendment confirms that a majority of MPs are unwilling to censure the government's programme, and the government retains its mandate to bring forward the legislation it announced. The Conservatives provided the bulk of the 108 Ayes, with 99 of their MPs voting for the amendment. They were joined by all five Democratic Unionist Party MPs, one Labour MP, one Independent, one Restore Britain MP, and one Traditional Unionist Voice MP. The 323 Noes were drawn overwhelmingly from Labour (280) and Labour and Co-operative (33) MPs, with the five Green MPs also voting against the amendment. The result is consistent with the government's working majority in this parliament.

Voting Aye meant
Support the opposition's amendment to the King's Speech, signalling dissatisfaction with the government's stated legislative agenda
Voting No meant
Reject the opposition's amendment, backing the government's King's Speech and its proposed programme of legislation
§ 01Who voted how.431 voting Members · 214 absent

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
1
280
79
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
99
0
17
Liberal Democrats
0
0
71
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
33
9
Independent
1
3
9
Reform UK
1
0
7
Scottish National Party
0
0
7
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
5
0
0
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped No
0
5
0
Plaid Cymru
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
1
1
Your Party
0
1
1
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Restore Britain
1
0
0
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
1
0
0
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

§ 02From the debate.8 principal speakers
Claire CoutinhoOpposedEast Surrey
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)
Ed MilibandSupportiveDoncaster North
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 · Read full speech (3,456 words)
Pippa HeylingsSupportiveSouth Cambridgeshire
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)
Bill EstersonSupportiveSefton Central
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)
Sir Edward LeighOpposedGainsborough
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 aye · Read full speech (1,479 words)
Toby PerkinsSupportiveChesterfield
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)
Sir Roger GaleOpposedHerne Bay and Sandwich
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)
Anneliese DoddsSupportiveOxford East
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 · Read full speech (873 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