Can some brilliant MNer please explain to me how the fracking vote brought Liz Truss down?

[PopcornChewingGum]

Another one here watching the shambles that is our politics in horror and fear. The bit I don't understand is the fracking vote: how/why did it become a vote of no confidence in the government? Can anyone please explain very, very simply?

Before the PMs voted, conservative PMs were basically told that they had to vote the way that Truss told them (not in line with their own conscience/constituents interests etc) and anyone who didn't would basically be kicked out of the party. So essentially anyone voting against Truss's position on this was in effect saying they had no confidence in her. This was a particularly contentious thing to do because Truss' position on fracking was not in line with previous conservative manifesto promises. Things got heavy handed and even the people in charge of the voting didn't like what they were being asked to do. It sounds like Truss changed her mind about the consequences of voting against her and at the time of voting no one was really sure what the consequences were. So as well as showing that lots of her MPs disagreed with her and were willing to put their own positions on the line, the whole debacle made her look chaotic, lacking in support from her own party and out of touch.

Thank you @pidgeon - that is so illuminating! And can you explain Labour's part in this ?

Short version:

If govt declares their MPs must vote a certain way & the govt loses the vote, traditionally this means the govt has lost the support of the House of Commons, and that is same as govt falling apart ,lost a majority, general election is justified.

Long version

MPs in a party are told how to vote on specific bills.
The people who go around telling the MPs how to vote are fellow MPs, called the Whips.
if a party rejects an MP (for any reason) that MP is said to have "lost the Whip."
Losing Whip means losing party funding & support to run again for their seat in Parliament.
The Whips were told fracking vote was a "three line whip" vote. that means, if any Tory voted against govt, that MP would lose the Whip.
Whips are famous for harassing anyone who is thinking of voting against govt, and even keeping blackmail lists (which MP did naughty things the Whip could reveal). Whips are total ball-breakers, basically.

A lot of MPs were horrified at how they were being told to vote on fracking. Was perceived to break last Tory election manifesto. They'd lose their seat anyway, so unpopular with constituents.

To vote MPs literally line up at designated doors (yes/no), or 'lobbies'.

Whips came down heavy for this fracking vote. Chris Bryant (Labour MP) told Speaker to investigate because a Tory MP (Alex Stafford) was crying & got manhandled to go into a different voting group (Stafford denies he was manhandled btw). Rees Mogg was shouting at MPs in the lobbies. Loads of Tories voted against or abstained, including supposedly, Theresa May, Kwarteng and Truss herself. Nobody lost the Whip.

The Whips got furious at being asked to do the impossible and Quit on the spot. Truss ran down corridors after them begging them to stay.

It was an especially dramatic moment in a serious of incidents when Truss showed she had no authority over the Commons.

... honestly Labour's part in this is to wonder if they can do anything to make their own voters happy, when Labour get in govt., considering how dire the national finances will be, how can Labour deliver on improving services and not continue austerity?

Truss did some good things, she engaged better with Europe better than her predecessor and got some good momentum in the Brexit problems, she always gave her most honest answers to all questions (I didn't mind her robotic delivery). I hugely welcomed the straight answers.

Local decision making on fracking was something I personally supported, btw. Could fracking companies give every household in the fracking-area a rebate via their energy bills, a dividend for the inconvenience? Someone tell me why this would be a bad thing.

The current government committed in the manifesto to do not do fracking. When Truss came in she disregarded the mandate they were elected on and did other things including this.
MPs not happy as would affect their constituents.

On opposition day, Labour are allowed to put through votes so did one on this. Conservative MPs wanted to vote with their conscience and were told to vote with the government in support of fracking or they wouldn't be a Conservative anymore. If they lost the whip any previous letters into the 1922 committee wouldn't count. Chaos ensued (including allegations of intimidation and bullying) and was another demonstration of her incompetence and the wider parties chaos.

Local decision making on fracking was something I personally supported, btw. Could fracking companies give every household in the fracking-area a rebate via their energy bills, a dividend for the inconvenience? Someone tell me why this would be a bad thing.

Out of curiosity do you live in an area where fracking is a possibility?

How would it work. What would be the cut off for a majority. 52 - 48 vote. Where have the local population resents the other half for making them do something they don't want to do?

Give that shale gas will make very little difference to prices as it will have to be sold on the international market how would you sell the idea? What would be enough of a reduction, given the impact on house prices, house insurance etc?

A rebate won't be much consolation if you are in the bottom of a sinkhole.

Now I have more questions?

Who are the Whips and how do they get voted in?

Why are they dictating how MPs should vote?

Sorry didn’t mean to have a question mark after my first sentence.

@Floraflower3 It's a Government job, offered to MPs from the ruling party. Rather like being a low-ranking assistant-to-a-minister (a "Parliamentary Private Secretary") it's often a stepping stone to other higher-profile Government posts.

Out of curiosity do you live in an area where fracking is a possibility?

No, I don't believe so, anyway. We were investors in a local (community-owned, single) land-located wind turbine, though. Which is relevant because UKIP and NIMBYs united to oppose it. The test site got vandalised, the land-owners son was assaulted in the lane outside his home, every home in the area got leafleted. The leaflets said that every dog in the region would be howling in constant pain due to the sound waves the turbine generated. There were angry town council meetings. So I do know something about being part of an unpopular local energy-generation scheme.

That energy-generation would have subsidised price of electricity for most homes in local town most the time. I often think about it when Cost of Living Crisis is discussed.

Who are the Whips and how do they get voted in?

It's a post appointed to by the prime minister. What triggered the spiral of resignations that led to Boris Johnson's departure was the resignation of the Deputy Chief Whip, Chris Pincher, who resigned because he had sexually harassed some men in a nightclub.

It turned out that there had been previous allegations of sexual misconduct against Pincher. Johnson claimed that he didn't know this when he appointed Pincher to the Whips office, then it turned out that was (yet another) lie and was the straw that broke that camel's back.

Why are they dictating how MPs should vote?

That's their job, otherwise you don't have a political party in government, you have a bunch of MPs voting randomly. If you want to be a Conservative MP, you generally vote how the Conservative party want you to. Same for Labour.

If you rebel and don't vote how you are told to on an important vote (a three line whip) you can have the whip removed and are no longer a Conservative MP but an independent one.

Agree I hope the connections with EU continue it would be a huge shame to turn back on that.

Also Labour will have same issues with spending.

No issue with robotic voice at least it was direct. My big issue was market reaction to mini budget which had to be reversed, leading her to lose authority and confidence of MPs and markets.

Truss did some good things, she engaged better with Europe better than her predecessor

Like when she said she wasn't sure if Macron was a friend or foe of the UK?

I don't think wind farms cause earthquakes or cracks in your houses, do they.

Or poison the water supply.

Thank you so much for these enlightening explanations!

So do I have this right: only certain MPs are appointed whips. Nonetheless ALL MPs are said to have 'lost the whip' if they disobey party lines and are censured for it ?

All MPs at expected to 'follow the whip'. Any that don't will 'lose the whip' yes which means they're no longer in the party. The Whip (capital) is an MP appointed to tell everyone how to vote.

Thank you to those taking time to explain things on this thread, really appreciate it.

All MPs at expected to 'follow the whip'. Any that don't will 'lose the whip' yes which means they're no longer in the party. The Whip (capital) is an MP appointed to tell everyone how to vote.

Ah, ok, got it. Thanks again for these helpful explanations

Going back to fracking, I think the idea that fracking will go ahead only if there is local support is very dubious anyway.

I strongly suspect that local councils and communities will essentially be blackmailed. ie say yes to fracking and we’ll give you a shiny new sports centre/hospital/whatever, if not we’ll cut your funding to the bone and you can all wallow in poverty.

There’s no way any promised investment would in no way make up for earthquakes, pollution, damage to the environment and a terminal slump in property prices.

Fracking will not help ordinary people or bring down energy costs. It will just make a small number of high net worth individuals richer while screwing over the environment

Thank you to everyone for taking the time to explain.

I don’t know how I feel about having Whips (I’m sure there’s good reason and I’m certainly not an expert). But surely if you are an MP for a particular party, the way you vote will mainly align with the party line but if not there may be a good reason for it e.g not in the best interests of your constituent? Doesn’t feel democratic to me.

@Floraflower3 Yes, it's a real tension in the system. The way that MPs are elected doesn't quite fit with the "party" system. The theory is that we vote for the best individuals, but they are representatives not delegates; in other words they can think for themselves rather than just doing what constituents want. And part of that thinking for themselves is joining together with like-minded MPs to form parties. Obviously this is all back to front compared to what really happens. (Most people vote for a party and know very little about the actual candidates.)

Some of the time, the Whips let MPs vote however they like ("a free vote"), but as the proposed legislation gets closer to announced Government Policy, more pressure is applied. Hence "one-line", "two-line", and "three-line whips" in increasing seriousness (the relevant vote gets underlined in the copies of the Order Paper handed to MPs).

The fracking package could be presented in a million ways. We had a local referendum about allowing Tesco into a small town (80% voted for Tesco)... The referendum was advisory, though, so it came down to a 8:7 vote by the council (to allow Tesco in). If Tesco with that much public support, after a 14 year effort, still had that much trouble getting into Sheringham, I don't see how fracking is going to bulldoze a local council easily & quickly. I could be wrong, of course.

Someone must have examples of potential environmental harm projects that blackmailed & coerced planning permission from local council in England, right? In last 20 years. Just pile in here with your list of those huge number of events.