Much of the news coverage of the alternative education white paper, launched by Labour MPs on 14 December 2005, has described those MPs who have signed up to its provisions as "normally loyal Labour backbenchers", write Philip Cowley and Mark Stuart. This short briefing paper - which examines the signatories - shows that things are a little more complicated than this phrase implies.
According to Guardian Unlimited, 58 Labour MPs have so far signed the alternative white paper, although the Guardian provides only 57 names.
It is clear that some effort has gone into ensuring that these names do not include the most rebellious Labour MPs - those who are usually described (and dismissed) as "the usual suspects". Of the 20 Labour MPs who rebelled most in the 2001 parliament, and who are still in the Commons, not one has so far been identified as a signatory to the document. Put starkly then, excluding the 2005 intake, the list of so-called "normally loyal backbenchers" includes just two - Gilroy and Todd - never to have voted against the government before.
Although the list does not include any of the 20 surviving most rebellious MPs from the last parliament, it does include 14 Labour backbenchers who rebelled against the government on 15 or more occasions in the last parliament: John Austin (24), Martin Caton (19), Ann Cryer (17), Frank Dobson (27), David Drew (29), Paul Flynn (23), John Grogan (16), Christine McCafferty (16), Austin Mitchell (15), Julie Morgan (15), Gordon Prentice (32), David Taylor (39), Desmond Turner (15) and Rudi Viz (16). These are people who mostly do not belong the ranks of the "usual suspects", but for whom the habit of rebellion is not unfamiliar.
Taken as a whole, the 48 rebellious signatories rebelled on an average of 11 occasions in the last parliament. Of course, all of these MPs can rightly point out that they are normally loyal. But part of the problem with this phrase is that all MPs are "normally" loyal, in that they all normally vote with the government. Even the most rebellious MPs are overwhelmingly "loyal" - which is one of the reasons that so many of them dislike being described as "disloyal".
Even Jeremy Corbyn, the most rebellious MP in the 2001 parliament voted against the government in just 12% of divisions. Even allowing for those votes from which he was absent, and the various free votes given by the whips, Corbyn was still much more likely to vote with the government than against it. Corbyn once made this point to his whip, arguing "I'm with you in 99 % of cases". To which the whip's response was: "Yes, Jerry, but not in the 1% that matter."
Of even greater concern to the government whips is that there may be even more Labour MPs unhappy with this legislation but who have yet to declare their support for the alternative white paper. We know, for example, that those unhappy with the government's white paper include another 16 Labour MPs who recently supported EDM 898 in the name of Dr Ian Gibson which expressed "grave reservations about the new education white paper", but who did not put their names to the alternative white paper: Katy Clark, Michael Connarty, John Cummings, Jim Dobbin, Dr Ian Gibson, Kelvin Hopkins, Glenda Jackson, Dr Lynne Jones, Rob Marris, John McDonnell, Edward O'Hara, Linda Riordan, Alan Simpson, Marsha Singh, Graham Stringer, Bob Wareing.
Of these, seven were in the group of the most rebellious 20 from the last parliament, and who most people had anyway assumed would oppose the government's education bill, which means that once we add in the remaining 13 from that group - Diane Abbott, Jeremy Corbyn, Bob Marshall-Andrews, Clare Short, Dennis Skinner, et al - along with this 16, we can assume at least an extra 29 opponents to those listed today as signatories to the alternative white paper. Thus we can safely assume that the numbers expressing doubts about the white paper probably stands at around 85 Labour MPs.
One Labour insider recently compared the government's education white paper to the 2004 higher education bill. Then, 196 Labour MPs had signed various EDMs opposing the legislation, but through a combination of argument, concession, and pressure, the number who defied their whips at the Bill's crucial second reading on 27 January was just under half that.
The problem for the government is that, with its new smaller majority, the numbers known to be opposed to the current legislation have already climbed to a level which means that it even if the government could persuade Labour MPs back on board in the same way it did over higher education, any vote could still be lost. The government's nominal majority is 66. Add in the non-voting Sinn Fein MPs and it rises to 71. Assuming a full opposition turn out, it therefore takes 36 Labour MPs to vote against (or some equivalent mix of cross-votes and abstentions) to defeat the government.
Purely as an illustrative example, if we assume the exact same proportions of known opponents vote against and abstain as did over the higher education bill in 2004 - that is, 37% of non-opponents vote against, and 10% abstain - then with 85 known opponents so far, the government's majority reduces to exactly zero.
In reality, things will not be so neat as that (real life seldom is), but this is still an example of how bad the problem is for the government. Even if it can persuade over half of those who have publicly indicated their opposition to the white paper to back down, they could still lose any vote.
The only good news for the government is that many of those who signed the alternative white paper are prepared to negotiate - that, indeed, is the point of the exercise. They are looking for what one of their number described as a "dialogue" to help produce a better bill. The trouble is that - as the same MP put it - "it takes two to tango and there is no sign that Ruth and Tony are sewing their sequins on".
The strength of support for the alternative white paper suggests that if the government does not want to enact the bill as a result of Conservative votes, it is time to get dancing.
