Child Poverty.
Child poverty and family support
Each row is one party. The bar shows how its MPs voted relative to a neutral midpoint — to the right = on-side with the majority position, to the left = opposed. The percentage figure is the share of that party’s MPs who took the same side: higher = more whip-disciplined, closer to 50% = a freer vote.
| Party | Stance vs neutral midpoint | Net % | Discipline | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conservative and Unionist Party | Con | -50 | 0% on-whip · 76 MPs | |
| Liberal Democrats | LD | +50 | 100% on-whip · 61 MPs | |
| Labour Party | Lab | +50 | 100% on-whip · 9 MPs | |
| Scottish National Party | SNP | +50 | 100% on-whip · 8 MPs | |
| Independent | Ind | +33 | 83% on-whip · 6 MPs |
Source · Hansard · alignment is the share of party MPs who voted with the party majority on tagged divisions
| Date | Motion | Aye | No | Carried |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16 Sept 2025 | Child poverty strategy (removal of two child limit): Ten Minute Rule Motion Aye: Support introducing legislation to scrap the two-child benefit limit as part of a formal child poverty strategy · No: Oppose scrapping the two-child limit, arguing it undermines personal responsibility and fiscal fairness | 95 | 78 | Yes |
All 1 divisions on this issue →
Mapping each Westminster issue to the equivalent council service bucket (so “Child Poverty” → the matching service line on council finance, with the ranked-spend table this section wants) is its own taxonomy job. Council service spend lives on the council pages today; cross-cut by issue here in a follow-on pass.