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 | 100% on-whip · 322 MPs | |
| Conservative and Unionist Party | Con | -50 | 0% on-whip · 107 MPs | |
| Liberal Democrats | LD | -50 | 0% on-whip · 65 MPs | |
| Labour and Co-operative Party | Ind | +50 | 100% on-whip · 36 MPs | |
| Scottish National Party | SNP | +50 | 100% on-whip · 9 MPs | |
| Independent | Ind | +13 | 63% on-whip · 6 MPs | |
| Democratic Unionist Party | DUP | -50 | 0% 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 28 Apr 2026 | Pension Schemes Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendments 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83 and 88, insist on Amendments 88C, 88E to 88P, 88R, 88S and 88W, and propose Amendments (a) to (j) in lieu of Amendments 88A, 88T, 88U and 88V Aye: Support giving ministers a time-limited reserve power to mandate pension fund asset allocation if voluntary investment targets fail, arguing this underpins the Mansion House accord and ultimately serves savers' interests · No: Oppose government power to direct pension fund investments, arguing mandation risks poor returns for pensioners, represents inappropriate state interference in investment decisions, and that the pension industry itself has grave concerns | 336 | 159 | Yes |
| 22 Apr 2026 | Pensions Schemes Bill: Govt motion relating to Lords Reason 88D Aye: Support the government's position in rejecting or modifying the Lords' amendment 88D to the Pension Schemes Bill · No: Support the Lords' position on amendment 88D, opposing the government's response to the upper chamber | 270 | 151 | Yes |
All 2 divisions on this issue →
Mapping each Westminster issue to the equivalent council service bucket (so “Pensions Policy” → 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.