Jump to content

Talk:Julie Cooper (politician)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Refdump[edit]

On 20 July 2015, she was one of 184 Labour MPs to abstain from the vote on the Conservative government's Welfare Reform and Work Bill, which restricted child benefit to the first two children in a family and lowered the benefit cap from £26,000 to £20,000 per household.[1] Labour's leadership had recommended its MPs abstain, but 48 of them backed an alternative motion opposing the Bill.[1] Cooper criticised those colleagues who had voted against the Bill, claiming a party split had let the Conservatives "off the hook".[2]

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b "Welfare bill: These are the 184 Labour MPs who didn't vote against the Tories' cuts". The Independent. Independent Print Limited. 21 July 2015. Retrieved 24 July 2015.
  2. ^ "All four of East Lancashire's Labour MPs refused to block drastic welfare cuts". Lancashire Telegraph. Newsquest. 22 July 2015. Retrieved 3 October 2015.
@This is Paul Thanks for bringing this to the talk page, and for finding an additional source. I'm still not really comfortable however as the quotes in it require quite a lot of interpretation. She seems to be implying that she voted inline with the party leadership, against her personal views, as part of a plan to make the Conservatives look bad. And then criticises those that voted inline with her own beliefs, for making the party look disunited. This has gone from the dull, a new MP votes as instructed to something quite controversial. I would prefer a better source, but if you must put it in off the current sources can you try to keep it as brief as possible? Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't quite interpreted it that way, but I get your point. I'll leave it for now as the Lancashire Telegraph seems to be the only outlet that printed this quote. As I started the article, over time I do want to expand it, but I'll draft anything new here first. This is Paul (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is very reasonable, and I admit that there does seem to be something to it. I suppose it might just about work combined with a source focused on why the party opted to abstain? Trappedinburnley (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll see what I can find. This is Paul (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]