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 · 64 MPs | |
| Labour and Co-operative Party | Lab | +50 | 100% on-whip · 36 MPs | |
| Scottish National Party | SNP | +50 | 100% on-whip · 9 MPs | |
| Independent | Ind | +6 | 56% on-whip · 7 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 the government retaining a reserve power to set minimum asset allocation targets for defined contribution pension schemes, accepting the government's amendments limiting its scope while rejecting the Lords' attempts to remove it entirely. · No: Oppose giving Ministers the power to direct pension fund investment, siding with the Lords' view that mandating where savers' money is invested is an unacceptable government overreach into pension fund management. | 336 | 159 | Yes |
| 22 Apr 2026 | Pensions Schemes Bill: Govt motion relating to Lords Reason 88D Aye: Support the government's position on Lords Reason 88D, backing the Commons' stance against the Lords' proposed change to the Pension Schemes Bill · No: Oppose the government's motion, effectively siding with the Lords' reasoning or amendment on this aspect of the Pension Schemes Bill | 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.