Counter-Terrorism Legislation.
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 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Labour Party | Lab | -50 | 0% on-whip · 210 MPs | |
| Conservative and Unionist Party | Con | +50 | 100% on-whip · 83 MPs | |
| Labour and Co-operative Party | Lab | -50 | 0% on-whip · 23 MPs | |
| Green Party of England and Wales | Grn | +50 | 100% on-whip · 5 MPs |
Source · Hansard · alignment is the share of party MPs who voted with the party majority on tagged divisions
| Date | Motion | Aye | No | Carried |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17 Jun 2026 | National Security (State Threats) Bill: Allocation of Time motion Aye: Support restricting the time available for debating the National Security (State Threats) Bill, accepting the government's proposed timetable. · No: Oppose the timetable restriction, arguing that a bill with significant national security and civil liberties implications deserves more parliamentary scrutiny time. | 235 | 96 | Yes |
All 1 divisions on this issue →
Mapping each Westminster issue to the equivalent council service bucket (so “Counter-Terrorism Legislation” → 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.