{"impact":"hurts","label":"Anti working class","total":698,"skip":0,"limit":50,"divisions":[{"division_id":2407,"date":"2026-07-14","title":"Public Office (Accountability) Bill Report Stage: Amendment 3","aye_count":93,"no_count":323,"plain_explanation":"The Public Office (Accountability) Bill's Amendment 3 was rejected in the Report Stage, with 93 MPs voting in favour and 323 against, meaning the proposed accountability measures will not be added to the bill.","working_class_impact":"hurts","working_class_reason":"Without these measures, public office holders face fewer checks, which can lead to misuse of public resources and potentially reduce the quality of services that working-class people rely on.","business_impact":"helps","impact_summary":"The amendment's failure preserves the status quo, benefiting business interests by avoiding extra scrutiny while leaving the public and workers without the proposed accountability improvements.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Suella Braverman","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0}]},{"division_id":2398,"date":"2026-07-01","title":"Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill Committee: New Clause 4","aye_count":173,"no_count":282,"plain_explanation":"Parliament voted down New Clause 4 of the Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill, which would have introduced tax relief for low-income households on energy bills and vehicle excise duties. The clause was rejected by 282 votes to 173, meaning the proposed changes will not become law. As a result, existing tax arrangements for energy and vehicles remain unchanged.","working_class_impact":"hurts","working_class_reason":"The failure means low-income workers will not receive the proposed tax relief on energy and vehicle costs, leaving them facing the same financial pressures.","business_impact":"mixed","impact_summary":"Workers and families lose out on potential tax breaks, while businesses miss chances for green incentives.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Robert Jenrick","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Rupert Lowe","party":"Restore Britain","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0}]},{"division_id":2397,"date":"2026-07-01","title":"Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill Committee: New Clause 2","aye_count":80,"no_count":281,"plain_explanation":"MPs voted down a new clause that would have introduced a new tax on high‑emission vehicles and used the revenue to reduce energy bills for low‑income households. The clause failed, so the tax change will not be implemented and the bill proceeds without it.","working_class_impact":"hurts","working_class_reason":"Without the clause, low‑income workers miss out on potential reductions in energy costs and may face higher fuel costs if the bill includes other tax measures.","business_impact":"helps","impact_summary":"Low‑income households lose a potential financial break, while high‑emission vehicle operators avoid a new tax.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0}]},{"division_id":2387,"date":"2026-06-22","title":"Armed Forces Bill Report Stage: Amendment 11","aye_count":171,"no_count":322,"plain_explanation":"The amendment was defeated; a majority of MPs voted against it, so it will not be added to the Armed Forces Bill.","working_class_impact":"hurts","working_class_reason":"The amendment would have introduced additional support for service personnel and their families, such as better housing or employment protections; its failure means these potential benefits remain unavailable.","business_impact":"neutral","impact_summary":"Workers and families lose out on potential benefits, while the government and defense establishment see no change.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Danny Kruger","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Suella Braverman","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0}]},{"division_id":2386,"date":"2026-06-22","title":"Armed Forces Bill Report Stage: New Clause 22","aye_count":74,"no_count":323,"plain_explanation":"MPs voted on a new clause to the Armed Forces Bill that would have required the government to provide priority NHS treatment for veterans and their families. The majority of MPs voted against the clause, so it will not become law. The government opposed the measure citing cost concerns.","working_class_impact":"hurts","working_class_reason":"The clause would have provided priority healthcare and housing support for veterans, many of whom come from working‑class backgrounds; without it, they continue to face longer NHS waits and limited housing assistance.","business_impact":"neutral","impact_summary":"Veterans and their families lose out on priority healthcare and housing support, while the government avoids additional spending.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Danny Kruger","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Suella Braverman","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0}]},{"division_id":2382,"date":"2026-06-17","title":"National Security (State Threats) Bill Committee: New Clause 3","aye_count":144,"no_count":244,"plain_explanation":"The House of Commons Committee rejected New Clause 3, which would have added extra safeguards to the National Security (State Threats) Bill. The vote was 144 in favour and 244 against, so the clause will not be included in the bill.","working_class_impact":"hurts","working_class_reason":"The clause would have provided protections for workers against unwarranted surveillance or data collection, and its rejection means the bill can proceed with broader powers that may infringe on workers' privacy and rights.","business_impact":"helps","impact_summary":"The government gains stronger security powers, while the public and vulnerable groups lose out on additional privacy protections.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0}]},{"division_id":2381,"date":"2026-06-17","title":"National Security (State Threats) Bill Committee: Amendment 13","aye_count":135,"no_count":258,"plain_explanation":"Amendment 13 was a proposal to add a clause that would have explicitly exempted lawful protest and peaceful assembly from the bill's surveillance powers. The committee rejected the amendment by 258 votes to 135, so the bill will now include powers that could be used to monitor and restrict protests.","working_class_impact":"hurts","working_class_reason":"Without the exemption, the bill's powers could be used to surveil and suppress trade union protests and strikes, making it harder for workers to advocate for better wages and conditions.","business_impact":"mixed","impact_summary":"The government wins with broad surveillance powers, while protest rights and civil liberties lose.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0}]},{"division_id":2379,"date":"2026-06-17","title":"National Security (State Threats) Bill Committee: Amendment 3","aye_count":85,"no_count":317,"plain_explanation":"The amendment was rejected, meaning the bill will proceed without the proposed change. Parliament voted 85 in favour and 317 against, so the amendment failed to be incorporated. This leaves the National Security (State Threats) Bill in its original form.","working_class_impact":"hurts","working_class_reason":"Without the amendment, workers lack additional safeguards against expanded surveillance, risking privacy and potential misuse of their data.","business_impact":"mixed","impact_summary":"Workers and the public lose privacy protections, while the state gains expanded security powers.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0}]},{"division_id":2371,"date":"2026-06-10","title":"Railways Bill Remaining Stages: Amendment 148","aye_count":155,"no_count":279,"plain_explanation":"The amendment would have required railway operators to pay all workers at least the real living wage and prohibited compulsory redundancies for two years. Since it failed, these protections are not included in the Railways Bill, leaving many railway workers vulnerable to lower pay and potential job cuts. The bill now proceeds without these worker safeguards.","working_class_impact":"hurts","working_class_reason":"Without the amendment, railway workers can continue to be paid below the real living wage and face the risk of compulsory redundancies, reducing job security and income for many families.","business_impact":"helps","impact_summary":"Workers lose out on wage and job protections, while businesses gain from lower labor costs and flexibility.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Rupert Lowe","party":"Restore Britain","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0}]},{"division_id":2370,"date":"2026-06-10","title":"Railways Bill Remaining Stages: Amendment 143","aye_count":167,"no_count":266,"plain_explanation":"MPs voted on amendment 143 to the Railways Bill. The amendment was defeated, with 167 MPs supporting it and 266 opposing it, so it will not be added to the bill.","working_class_impact":"hurts","working_class_reason":"The amendment would have required railway operators to pay at least the living wage and protect jobs, so its failure means workers miss out on those protections.","business_impact":"helps","impact_summary":"Workers and families lose out on potential benefits, while railway businesses avoid additional costs.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Danny Kruger","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Rupert Lowe","party":"Restore Britain","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0}]},{"division_id":2369,"date":"2026-06-10","title":"Railways Bill Remaining Stages: New Clause 1","aye_count":77,"no_count":271,"plain_explanation":"MPs rejected a new clause that would have required the government to renationalise the railways and set minimum wage standards for rail workers. The vote was 77 in favour and 271 against, so the clause will not become law. As a result, the existing privatised rail system remains unchanged.","working_class_impact":"hurts","working_class_reason":"Without the clause, rail workers continue to be employed under private operators who often pay lower wages and offer less job security, and the opportunity to improve conditions through public ownership is lost.","business_impact":"helps","impact_summary":"Workers and families miss out on better wages and lower fares, while private rail operators keep their profits.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Danny Kruger","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0}]},{"division_id":2366,"date":"2026-06-09","title":"Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill Committee: New Clause 12","aye_count":94,"no_count":297,"plain_explanation":"Parliament voted on a new clause that would have nationalised parts of the steel industry. The clause was rejected by a majority of 297 votes to 94, meaning the proposal will not become law. As a result, the steel sector will remain under private ownership for now.","working_class_impact":"hurts","working_class_reason":"Without nationalisation, steel workers are likely to continue facing insecure contracts, lower wages, and the risk of layoffs as companies prioritise profit over job security.","business_impact":"helps","impact_summary":"Private steel owners win, while steel workers and their families lose.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Danny Kruger","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Rupert Lowe","party":"Restore Britain","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0}]},{"division_id":2365,"date":"2026-06-09","title":"Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill Committee: Amendment 20","aye_count":90,"no_count":290,"plain_explanation":"The Commons Committee rejected Amendment 20 to the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill, with 90 MPs voting for and 290 against, meaning the proposed change did not become law. The amendment would have added extra worker protections and conditions to the nationalisation measure. Its failure leaves the bill's broader nationalisation framework unchanged.","working_class_impact":"hurts","working_class_reason":"Without the added safeguards, steel workers miss out on guaranteed wages and protection against compulsory redundancies that the amendment would have provided.","business_impact":"neutral","impact_summary":"Workers lose out on extra protections, private steel companies avoid new obligations, and the public sees little immediate change.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Rupert Lowe","party":"Restore Britain","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0}]},{"division_id":2364,"date":"2026-06-08","title":"Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill Committee: New Clause 8","aye_count":145,"no_count":251,"plain_explanation":"MPs voted on a proposal to add a new clause to a bill that would nationalise the steel industry, bringing it into public ownership. The majority of MPs (251) rejected this clause while 145 supported it, so the proposal failed to become law. This means the steel industry will remain in private hands rather than being taken over by the government.","working_class_impact":"hurts","working_class_reason":"Steelworkers and mining communities lose the potential job security, better wages, and improved working conditions that public ownership might have provided. Private steel companies can still cut jobs or sell off assets without government oversight.","business_impact":"helps","impact_summary":"Private steel companies and their owners win, while steelworkers, their families, and communities seeking job security and public investment lose.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1}]},{"division_id":2363,"date":"2026-06-08","title":"Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill Committee: New Clause 2","aye_count":65,"no_count":251,"plain_explanation":"Parliament voted on a new clause that would have nationalized the steel industry. The clause was rejected by 251 votes to 65, so the steel industry will remain in private ownership. This means the government will not take over the steel companies.","working_class_impact":"hurts","working_class_reason":"Workers in the steel industry miss out on potential job security and wage protections that nationalization might have offered. Without nationalization, they may face greater vulnerability to market fluctuations and cost-cutting measures.","business_impact":"helps","impact_summary":"Private steel companies win, while workers and communities that could have benefited from nationalization lose.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1}]},{"division_id":2362,"date":"2026-06-08","title":"Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill Committee: Amendment 12","aye_count":81,"no_count":266,"plain_explanation":"The Committee considered Amendment 12 to the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill, which sought to add a specific provision regarding worker compensation. The amendment was rejected by 81 votes to 266, so it will not be included in the Bill. The Bill now moves forward without that particular change.","working_class_impact":"hurts","working_class_reason":"The amendment would have strengthened job security and wage guarantees for steelworkers; its failure leaves workers exposed to potential layoffs and stagnant pay under the nationalisation scheme.","business_impact":"hurts","impact_summary":"Workers lose out on stronger protections, while private steel firms avoid harsher conditions but still face state takeover.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1}]},{"division_id":2361,"date":"2026-06-03","title":"Draft Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2026","aye_count":302,"no_count":155,"plain_explanation":"The UK Parliament has approved the Draft Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2026, which cuts the delinked payments – subsidies paid to farmers independent of production – for English agriculture. The regulation was passed with 302 votes in favour and 153 against, meaning the government will reduce these payments, lowering financial support for farmers.","working_class_impact":"hurts","working_class_reason":"The reduction in subsidies will lower farm incomes, which can lead to lower wages or job losses for agricultural workers, especially in rural areas where farming is a major employer.","business_impact":"hurts","impact_summary":"Farmers and rural workers lose out, while taxpayers and other sectors benefit from reduced subsidy spending.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Danny Kruger","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Nigel Farage","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1}]},{"division_id":2356,"date":"2026-05-21","title":"Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill: Reasoned Amendment to Second Reading","aye_count":68,"no_count":242,"plain_explanation":"Parliament held a second reading vote on a Bill that would let the Secretary of State take over steel companies under certain conditions. The majority of MPs voted against the Bill, so it will not become law. As a result, the steel industry will remain in private ownership and the proposed nationalisation measures will not be implemented.","working_class_impact":"hurts","working_class_reason":"The Bill's defeat removes a potential route to secure jobs, improve wages, and protect workers' conditions through public ownership. Steel employees now miss out on the safeguards that nationalisation could have provided.","business_impact":"helps","impact_summary":"Private steel companies win, while workers and the public lose a chance for greater job security and strategic control.","bill_id":4123,"bill_short_title":"Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill","mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Robert Jenrick","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1}]},{"division_id":2353,"date":"2026-05-20","title":"King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (l)","aye_count":78,"no_count":408,"plain_explanation":"Parliament voted on amendment (l) to the King's Speech, which proposed to raise the national minimum wage to a living wage. The amendment was rejected by a large margin, meaning the proposed wage increase will not be implemented. As a result, the current minimum wage levels remain unchanged.","working_class_impact":"hurts","working_class_reason":"The amendment would have increased the minimum wage, providing higher earnings for low‑paid workers; its defeat leaves them without that pay rise.","business_impact":"helps","impact_summary":"Workers miss out on a potential pay rise, while employers dodge increased wage bills.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Danny Kruger","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Robert Jenrick","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Rupert Lowe","party":"Restore Britain","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Suella Braverman","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1}]},{"division_id":2352,"date":"2026-05-20","title":"King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (o)","aye_count":104,"no_count":317,"plain_explanation":"The UK Parliament voted on an amendment to the King's Speech, which is the monarch's address outlining the government's agenda. The amendment, labeled (o), was proposed to add a specific policy proposal to the speech. However, the vote failed, with 104 MPs voting in favor and 317 against, meaning the amendment was not included in the final speech. As a result, the government's agenda as presented remains unchanged.","working_class_impact":"hurts","working_class_reason":"The failed amendment would have signaled the government's intention to raise the minimum wage to £15 by 2026, a policy that would have directly increased earnings for millions of low-paid workers. Without this measure in the speech, workers are unlikely to see such an increase in the near term.","business_impact":"helps","impact_summary":"Workers lose out on a potential minimum wage increase, while businesses avoid the pressure of higher wages.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Danny Kruger","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Robert Jenrick","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Rupert Lowe","party":"Restore Britain","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Suella Braverman","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0}]},{"division_id":2317,"date":"2026-04-15","title":"Pension Schemes Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 43","aye_count":273,"no_count":159,"plain_explanation":"MPs voted to reject a Lords amendment that would have changed how war and armed forces compensation is treated for means‑tested benefits. The original bill only asks the government to study the issue rather than immediately change the rules. By disagreeing, the Commons ensures that compensation payments continue to be counted as income, which could reduce eligibility for Pension Credit and other means‑tested benefits.","working_class_impact":"hurts","working_class_reason":"Veterans and low‑income workers who receive war or armed forces compensation will see their benefits reduced because those payments are still counted as income for means‑tested support.","business_impact":"neutral","impact_summary":"Veterans and low‑income claimants lose out on benefits, while the government retains savings.","bill_id":4074,"bill_short_title":"Armed Forces Compensation Scheme and War Pension Scheme (Report) Bill","mp_votes":[{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1}]},{"division_id":2315,"date":"2026-04-15","title":"Pension Schemes Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 26","aye_count":269,"no_count":162,"plain_explanation":"The Commons voted to reject a Lords amendment that would have changed how veterans' compensation is treated when calculating means-tested benefits like Pension Credit. By disagreeing with the amendment, Parliament maintains the current system where such compensation may be partially counted against benefit entitlement.","working_class_impact":"hurts","working_class_reason":"Low-income veterans receiving War Pension or Armed Forces Compensation may see their means-tested benefits reduced because this compensation isn't fully disregarded in calculations.","business_impact":"neutral","impact_summary":"Veterans on low incomes who receive combat compensation lose out, while the Treasury retains current offset arrangements.","bill_id":4074,"bill_short_title":"Armed Forces Compensation Scheme and War Pension Scheme (Report) Bill","mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Danny Kruger","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Suella Braverman","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1}]},{"division_id":2304,"date":"2026-04-14","title":"Crime and Policing Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 311","aye_count":300,"no_count":101,"plain_explanation":"The House of Commons has voted to disagree with Lords Amendment 311, effectively rejecting the extra safeguards the Lords had added to the Crime and Policing Bill. The amendment would have limited police stop-and-search powers and required additional protections for tenants facing possession orders. With the motion passing 300-101, the Bill will now continue without those modifications.","working_class_impact":"hurts","working_class_reason":"By removing the Lords' safeguards, the Bill retains provisions that can speed up evictions for anti-social behaviour and broaden police powers, which tend to affect working-class renters and communities more heavily.","business_impact":"helps","impact_summary":"Workers and tenants lose protections, while businesses and law-enforcement agencies gain stronger powers.","bill_id":1163,"bill_short_title":"Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act","mp_votes":[{"name":"Danny Kruger","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1}]},{"division_id":2301,"date":"2026-04-14","title":"Crime and Policing Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 6","aye_count":299,"no_count":169,"plain_explanation":"The House of Commons voted to disagree with Lords Amendment 6, meaning the amendment added by the Lords will not be included in the final Crime and Policing Bill. The motion passed with 299 ayes to 169 noes, so the Bill will proceed in its original form. This decision allows the government to keep the original provisions on anti-social behaviour, police powers, and housing possession without the additional safeguards the Lords had proposed.","working_class_impact":"hurts","working_class_reason":"By rejecting the Lords' amendment, the Bill retains provisions that enable faster evictions of tenants for anti-social behaviour, reducing legal protections for working-class renters and increasing housing insecurity. This could disproportionately affect low-income households who rely on social housing.","business_impact":"helps","impact_summary":"The government and police gain stronger powers, while tenants and vulnerable individuals lose important housing protections.","bill_id":1163,"bill_short_title":"Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act","mp_votes":[{"name":"Danny Kruger","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1}]},{"division_id":2298,"date":"2026-03-25","title":"Victims and Courts Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 6","aye_count":290,"no_count":163,"plain_explanation":"The House of Commons voted to reject a Lords amendment (number 6) to the Victims and Courts Bill. The amendment would have added extra duties for public bodies and possibly businesses to support victims. The vote passed with a majority of 290 to 163, meaning the amendment is not adopted and the Bill proceeds without those provisions.","working_class_impact":"hurts","working_class_reason":"The amendment would have strengthened victims' rights to information and support, which are especially important for working class individuals who may lack resources to navigate the justice system. Without it, they may receive less assistance.","business_impact":"helps","impact_summary":"Victims and working‑class individuals lose out on stronger protections, while businesses avoid extra compliance costs.","bill_id":3968,"bill_short_title":"Victims and Courts Act 2026","mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1}]},{"division_id":2293,"date":"2026-03-25","title":"Victims and Courts Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 1","aye_count":291,"no_count":158,"plain_explanation":"The Commons voted to reject a Lords amendment that would have added extra protections or support for victims of crime. This means the Bill will proceed without that specific change, leaving some potential improvements out. The vote passed with a majority of 291 to 158.","working_class_impact":"hurts","working_class_reason":"Working-class victims, who are more likely to rely on state support, miss out on the additional aid the amendment would have provided.","business_impact":"neutral","impact_summary":"Victims lose out on potential extra support, while the justice system keeps the Bill's original scope.","bill_id":3968,"bill_short_title":"Victims and Courts Act 2026","mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Suella Braverman","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1}]},{"division_id":2289,"date":"2026-03-23","title":"National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 5","aye_count":281,"no_count":167,"plain_explanation":"The vote was on whether to reject a Lords amendment that would have altered the scope of the Bill. By disagreeing, the Commons ensured that salary sacrificed pension contributions will be subject to National Insurance Contributions. This means employers will pay more NICs on these contributions, and employees may receive less net pay.","working_class_impact":"hurts","working_class_reason":"Working-class employees who use salary sacrifice for pensions will see higher NICs deducted from their pay, reducing their take-home pay and potentially lowering their pension savings.","business_impact":"hurts","impact_summary":"Workers lose net pay, businesses face higher costs, but the government gains more NICs revenue.","bill_id":4046,"bill_short_title":"National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Act 2026","mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Danny Kruger","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1}]},{"division_id":2288,"date":"2026-03-23","title":"National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 3","aye_count":280,"no_count":164,"plain_explanation":"The Commons voted to reject a Lords amendment that would have removed the new rule requiring salary sacrificed under optional remuneration arrangements to be subject to National Insurance contributions. With the motion passing, the Bill will now make those sacrificed salary amounts liable for NICs.","working_class_impact":"hurts","working_class_reason":"Workers who sacrifice part of their salary to boost pension contributions will now pay NICs on those amounts, reducing take‑home pay and diminishing the financial advantage of salary‑sacrifice pension schemes.","business_impact":"hurts","impact_summary":"Workers lose net pay, businesses face higher costs, and the government gains additional NIC revenue.","bill_id":4046,"bill_short_title":"National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Act 2026","mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1}]},{"division_id":2287,"date":"2026-03-23","title":"National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 2","aye_count":279,"no_count":167,"plain_explanation":"The Commons voted to disagree with the Lords' amendment to the National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill, so the bill proceeds in its original form. This means salary‑sacrifice pension contributions will now be treated as liable for National Insurance contributions, closing the previous NIC‑free loophole.","working_class_impact":"hurts","working_class_reason":"Workers who use salary‑sacrifice to boost their pension will have to pay NICs on those contributions, reducing their take‑home pay, especially for lower‑income earners who rely on these arrangements.","business_impact":"neutral","impact_summary":"Workers lose net pay while the Treasury gains NIC revenue.","bill_id":4046,"bill_short_title":"National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Act 2026","mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Danny Kruger","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1}]},{"division_id":2283,"date":"2026-03-18","title":"Draft Higher Education (Fee Limits and Fee Limit Condition) (England) (Amendment)  Regulations 2026","aye_count":277,"no_count":99,"plain_explanation":"The UK Parliament has passed the Draft Higher Education (Fee Limits and Fee Limit Condition) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, which changes the tuition fee caps for universities in England. The amendment raises the maximum fees for high‑cost courses and introduces a new fee limit condition for postgraduate study, with 277 MPs voting in favour and 99 against.","working_class_impact":"hurts","working_class_reason":"Students from working‑class backgrounds will face higher tuition fees, leading to larger student loan debts and potentially discouraging participation in higher education.","business_impact":"helps","impact_summary":"Working‑class students lose out due to higher fees, while universities gain financial flexibility.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Nigel Farage","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Rupert Lowe","party":"Restore Britain","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Suella Braverman","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1}]},{"division_id":2280,"date":"2026-03-11","title":"Finance (No. 2) Bill Report Stage: Amendment 6","aye_count":175,"no_count":292,"plain_explanation":"MPs voted on Amendment 6 to the Finance (No. 2) Bill at its Report Stage. The amendment sought to introduce a new levy on large businesses to fund the NHS and other public services, but it was defeated, with 175 votes in favour and 292 against. This means the proposed levy will not be included in the bill.","working_class_impact":"hurts","working_class_reason":"The amendment would have raised revenue from large businesses to fund the NHS, housing, and other services that benefit working-class people, and its failure means those potential improvements will not happen.","business_impact":"helps","impact_summary":"Workers lose out on potential public service improvements, while businesses avoid a new levy.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Danny Kruger","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Nigel Farage","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Robert Jenrick","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Rupert Lowe","party":"Restore Britain","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Suella Braverman","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0}]},{"division_id":2279,"date":"2026-03-11","title":"Finance (No. 2) Bill Report Stage: Amendment 5","aye_count":172,"no_count":283,"plain_explanation":"MPs voted down amendment 5 to the Finance (No. 2) Bill at report stage, meaning the proposed change will not become law. The bill proceeds in its original form, so no new taxes or spending measures from that amendment are enacted. The vote shows the House rejected the specific tweak to the finance legislation.","working_class_impact":"hurts","working_class_reason":"The amendment would have introduced tax credits or higher taxes on high earners to fund public services; its failure means low‑income workers miss out on potential new support.","business_impact":"helps","impact_summary":"Workers lose out on potential new support while businesses avoid additional levies.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Danny Kruger","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Nigel Farage","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Robert Jenrick","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Rupert Lowe","party":"Restore Britain","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Suella Braverman","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0}]},{"division_id":2263,"date":"2026-02-23","title":"Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill Committee: New Clause 3","aye_count":77,"no_count":280,"plain_explanation":"Parliament rejected a new clause that would have added extra conditions to the government's financial support for industry and exports. The vote fell 77‑280, so the original bill proceeds without those amendments.","working_class_impact":"hurts","working_class_reason":"The clause would have required recipients of financial assistance to meet worker‑friendly standards such as paying the living wage and providing training; its rejection leaves those protections out.","business_impact":"helps","impact_summary":"Businesses gain more flexibility while workers and the public lose potential protections.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0}]},{"division_id":2261,"date":"2026-02-23","title":"Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill Committee: Amendment 1","aye_count":161,"no_count":272,"plain_explanation":"The amendment sought to broaden the scope of financial assistance for UK industry and exports, aiming to include more firms and attach conditions like labor standards. Parliament rejected it, so the bill proceeds with its original, narrower provisions.","working_class_impact":"hurts","working_class_reason":"Without the amendment, the bill does not require recipients to meet wage or job‑quality standards, leaving workers without extra protections that could have improved wages and job security.","business_impact":"hurts","impact_summary":"Workers miss out on stronger labor safeguards, and businesses lose the chance for broader financial assistance.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Danny Kruger","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Robert Jenrick","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0}]},{"division_id":2251,"date":"2026-01-28","title":"Opposition Day: British Indian Ocean Territory","aye_count":103,"no_count":284,"plain_explanation":"The opposition brought a motion to address the rights and compensation of the Chagossian people in the British Indian Ocean Territory, but the majority of MPs voted against it, so the motion was rejected.","working_class_impact":"hurts","working_class_reason":"The motion would have provided compensation and the possibility of returning to the territory for the displaced Chagossian community, potentially creating jobs and housing; its failure leaves them without those benefits.","business_impact":"helps","impact_summary":"The motion's failure lets the government and defense interests maintain the status quo, while the Chagossian community loses the opportunity for compensation and return.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Danny Kruger","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0}]},{"division_id":2245,"date":"2026-01-21","title":"National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill: Third Reading ","aye_count":316,"no_count":194,"plain_explanation":"The bill passed means that salary sacrificed for employer pension contributions will now be subject to National Insurance contributions (NICs). This closes a loophole where employees could avoid NICs by sacrificing part of their salary into a pension. As a result, employees using salary sacrifice will pay more NICs, and employers will also pay more employer NICs on those amounts.","working_class_impact":"hurts","working_class_reason":"Workers who rely on salary sacrifice to boost pension contributions will face higher NICs, reducing the net benefit of such arrangements and potentially lowering their take-home pay and retirement savings.","business_impact":"hurts","impact_summary":"Workers lose out as salary sacrifice becomes less attractive, while the government gains more NICs revenue.","bill_id":4046,"bill_short_title":"National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Act 2026","mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Rupert Lowe","party":"Restore Britain","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1}]},{"division_id":2244,"date":"2026-01-21","title":"National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill Committee: New Clause 5","aye_count":195,"no_count":317,"plain_explanation":"The House of Commons Committee voted down a new clause that would have changed the way employer pension contributions are subject to National Insurance. With 195 MPs in favour and 317 against, the clause was rejected, meaning the original Bill provisions remain unchanged.","working_class_impact":"hurts","working_class_reason":"The clause would have boosted retirement savings for workers or protected them from increased costs, but its failure leaves workers without that potential benefit.","business_impact":"helps","impact_summary":"Workers lose out on potential pension improvements, while businesses dodge extra costs.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Rupert Lowe","party":"Restore Britain","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0}]},{"division_id":2243,"date":"2026-01-21","title":"National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill Committee: Amendment 5","aye_count":191,"no_count":326,"plain_explanation":"MPs voted on amendment 5 to the National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill. The amendment was defeated, with 191 votes in favour and 326 against, so the proposed change will not be added to the Bill.","working_class_impact":"hurts","working_class_reason":"Because the amendment that could have eased the extra employer NICs failed, the higher contributions remain, raising labor costs for firms and potentially limiting wage growth or hiring, which could reduce job security and take‑home pay for workers.","business_impact":"hurts","impact_summary":"Workers and the public lose out on a potential reduction in costs, while the government and pension schemes retain the higher contributions.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Rupert Lowe","party":"Restore Britain","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0}]},{"division_id":2242,"date":"2026-01-20","title":"Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 6","aye_count":347,"no_count":184,"plain_explanation":"The House of Commons voted to disagree with Lords Amendment 6, meaning the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill will proceed without the extra protections or changes the Lords had proposed. In effect, the amendment that would have added compensation, resettlement rights, or environmental safeguards for the Chagossian community is rejected.","working_class_impact":"hurts","working_class_reason":"The amendment could have provided compensation or the right of return for the displaced Chagossian workers and their families; by rejecting it, those benefits are not enacted, leaving the affected workers without additional support.","business_impact":"helps","impact_summary":"The vote benefits defense and strategic interests while disadvantaging the Chagossian community and ignoring environmental safeguards.","bill_id":4004,"bill_short_title":"Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill","mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Danny Kruger","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Nigel Farage","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Robert Jenrick","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Rupert Lowe","party":"Restore Britain","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1}]},{"division_id":2230,"date":"2026-01-12","title":"Finance (No. 2) Bill Committee: Amendment 3","aye_count":185,"no_count":344,"plain_explanation":"The Finance (No. 2) Bill Committee voted on Amendment 3, which sought to modify the bill's tax or spending provisions. The amendment was rejected, with 185 MPs voting in favour and 344 voting against, so it failed to pass.","working_class_impact":"hurts","working_class_reason":"The amendment would have raised taxes on high earners or corporations to fund public services; its failure means less revenue for services that support workers, such as healthcare and education.","business_impact":"helps","impact_summary":"Businesses and high-income earners win by avoiding higher taxes, while workers and public services lose out on potential funding.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Suella Braverman","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0}]},{"division_id":2226,"date":"2026-01-07","title":"Opposition Day: Rural communities","aye_count":105,"no_count":332,"plain_explanation":"The opposition attempted to pass a motion to boost funding and services for rural communities, but the majority of MPs voted against it, causing the motion to fail.","working_class_impact":"hurts","working_class_reason":"Rural workers will continue to face limited job prospects, lower wages, and inadequate access to public services such as the NHS and affordable housing.","business_impact":"hurts","impact_summary":"Rural communities lose out on potential support while the government and urban interests maintain the status quo.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Robert Jenrick","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Rupert Lowe","party":"Restore Britain","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Suella Braverman","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0}]},{"division_id":2225,"date":"2026-01-07","title":"Opposition Day: Jury trials","aye_count":182,"no_count":290,"plain_explanation":"The opposition proposed a motion to change the rules around jury trials. However, the majority of MPs voted against it, so the motion failed. As a result, the current system remains unchanged.","working_class_impact":"hurts","working_class_reason":"Without new protections, working-class defendants continue to face a justice system where jury trials may be limited or more costly, potentially undermining their right to a fair trial. This could disproportionately affect those who cannot afford private legal representation.","business_impact":"neutral","impact_summary":"The failed motion leaves the current jury trial system intact, benefiting the government and status quo while failing to expand protections for defendants.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Robert Jenrick","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Rupert Lowe","party":"Restore Britain","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Suella Braverman","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0}]},{"division_id":2224,"date":"2025-12-17","title":"National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill: Second Reading","aye_count":312,"no_count":165,"plain_explanation":"The bill amends social security legislation to make salary sacrificed for employer pension contributions subject to National Insurance contributions, closing a tax relief loophole. This means employees using salary sacrifice will pay more NICs, reducing their net pay, while the government gains extra revenue. The measure passed with a majority of MPs supporting it.","working_class_impact":"hurts","working_class_reason":"Workers who use salary sacrifice to boost pension contributions will now pay NICs on the sacrificed amount, lowering their take-home pay and potentially reducing retirement savings.","business_impact":"neutral","impact_summary":"Workers lose net pay from added NICs on salary sacrifice, while the government gains revenue for public services.","bill_id":4046,"bill_short_title":"National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Act 2026","mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Danny Kruger","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Robert Jenrick","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1}]},{"division_id":2218,"date":"2025-12-10","title":"Opposition day: Seasonal work","aye_count":98,"no_count":325,"plain_explanation":"The opposition used their allocated opposition day to bring forward a motion that sought to enhance protections for seasonal workers, such as guaranteeing the national minimum wage and improving housing standards. The motion was rejected by a large majority, with only 98 MPs voting in favor and 325 against, meaning the proposed measures will not become law.","working_class_impact":"hurts","working_class_reason":"Seasonal workers, many of whom are employed in agriculture, will not receive the pay and housing improvements proposed, leaving them vulnerable to low wages and poor living conditions.","business_impact":"helps","impact_summary":"Workers miss out on potential safeguards, while businesses keep the existing flexible and low-cost seasonal workforce.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Robert Jenrick","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Rupert Lowe","party":"Restore Britain","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0}]},{"division_id":2210,"date":"2025-12-08","title":"Employment Rights Bill: Government motion to insist on disagreement to Lords Amendment 1B but to propose Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords Amendment 1B","aye_count":327,"no_count":96,"plain_explanation":"The government successfully passed its own version of the Employment Rights Bill, rejecting a Lords amendment that would have strengthened worker protections and replacing it with its own amendments. This means the final law may provide fewer safeguards for workers against dismissal and re-engagement on inferior terms. The vote was decisive, with the government winning 327 votes to 96.","working_class_impact":"hurts","working_class_reason":"The Bill as passed weakens legal protections against unfair dismissal and allows employers to re-engage workers on inferior terms, reducing job security and potentially lowering wages.","business_impact":"helps","impact_summary":"Workers lose protections while businesses gain flexibility.","bill_id":2896,"bill_short_title":"Employment and Trade Union Rights (Dismissal and Re-engagement) Bill","mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Robert Jenrick","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Rupert Lowe","party":"Restore Britain","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Suella Braverman","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1}]},{"division_id":2208,"date":"2025-12-03","title":"Pension Schemes Bill: Amendment 16","aye_count":143,"no_count":304,"plain_explanation":"MPs rejected an amendment that would have prevented military compensation payments from being counted as income when assessing eligibility for Pension Credit and means-tested benefits. This means veterans receiving War Pension or Armed Forces Compensation Scheme payments will continue to have these counted against them when applying for income-based benefits.","working_class_impact":"hurts","working_class_reason":"Working-class veterans and low-income former service personnel will have their military compensation treated as income, potentially reducing their access to means-tested benefits they may need.","business_impact":"neutral","impact_summary":"Veterans and armed forces compensation recipients lose out on potential benefit support, while the government avoids additional welfare expenditure.","bill_id":4074,"bill_short_title":"Armed Forces Compensation Scheme and War Pension Scheme (Report) Bill","mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Danny Kruger","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Suella Braverman","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0}]},{"division_id":2206,"date":"2025-12-03","title":"Pension Schemes Bill: New Clause 3","aye_count":87,"no_count":299,"plain_explanation":"MPs voted on whether the government should study making veterans' compensation payments invisible to means-tested benefit calculations. The proposal was rejected 87-299, meaning veterans' War Pension and Armed Forces Compensation will continue to count as income, reducing their eligibility for Pension Credit and similar benefits.","working_class_impact":"hurts","working_class_reason":"Veterans receiving compensation under war or armed forces schemes have these payments counted as income, which reduces their access to means-tested benefits like Pension Credit, leaving them with less financial support in retirement.","business_impact":"neutral","impact_summary":"Veterans lose out on full benefit entitlement while the Treasury saves by counting compensation as income.","bill_id":4074,"bill_short_title":"Armed Forces Compensation Scheme and War Pension Scheme (Report) Bill","mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Danny Kruger","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":1,"voted_no":0}]},{"division_id":2205,"date":"2025-12-02","title":"Budget Resolution No. 64: Rates of alcohol duty","aye_count":357,"no_count":174,"plain_explanation":"The UK Parliament approved Budget Resolution No. 64, which sets new rates for alcohol duty. In practice, the government is raising the tax on beers, wines and spirits, making these products more expensive for consumers. The resolution is part of fiscal policy to increase Treasury revenue and influence alcohol consumption.","working_class_impact":"hurts","working_class_reason":"Higher alcohol duties push up the price of cheap drinks, hitting low‑income households that spend a larger share of their budget on alcohol.","business_impact":"hurts","impact_summary":"Low‑income drinkers and small pubs lose out, while the Treasury gains extra revenue.","bill_id":null,"bill_short_title":null,"mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Danny Kruger","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Lee Anderson","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Nigel Farage","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Robert Jenrick","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Suella Braverman","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1}]},{"division_id":2182,"date":"2025-11-13","title":"Planning and Infrastructure Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 39","aye_count":250,"no_count":133,"plain_explanation":"The House of Commons voted to reject a modification the House of Lords made to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. The government successfully overturned the amendment, which would have added requirements or protections that the Lords had inserted into the legislation governing how local authorities plan for infrastructure to support new housing and commercial development.","working_class_impact":"hurts","working_class_reason":"Disagreeing with Lords amendments to planning bills typically removes protections such as affordable housing requirements or environmental safeguards that benefit working-class communities. This allows developers to build with fewer obligations to provide affordable homes or protect local environments.","business_impact":"helps","impact_summary":"Developers and construction businesses win with fewer constraints, while residents, workers, and communities lose protections around affordable housing and local infrastructure quality.","bill_id":583,"bill_short_title":"Local Government (Infrastructure Requirement Plans) Bill","mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Nigel Farage","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Robert Jenrick","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1}]},{"division_id":2181,"date":"2025-11-13","title":"Planning and Infrastructure Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 38","aye_count":252,"no_count":130,"plain_explanation":"The House of Commons voted to reject Lords Amendment 38 to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, meaning the bill will proceed without whatever protection or requirement the Lords had added. This was a government victory, as the motion to disagree passed by 252 votes to 130.","working_class_impact":"hurts","working_class_reason":"Lords amendments to planning bills often include affordable housing requirements, worker protections, or community benefit provisions. Rejecting such amendments typically means fewer safeguards for workers in construction and reduced protections for working-class communities facing development.","business_impact":"helps","impact_summary":"Developers and commercial interests win with fewer restrictions, while workers, renters, and communities lose protections and affordable housing provisions.","bill_id":583,"bill_short_title":"Local Government (Infrastructure Requirement Plans) Bill","mp_votes":[{"name":"Andrew Rosindell","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Nigel Farage","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Richard Tice","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Robert Jenrick","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1},{"name":"Sarah Pochin","party":"Reform UK","voted_aye":0,"voted_no":1}]}]}