Explain the number of people in the Commons

[UTH]

I don't really follow politics too closely, but I do occasionally find myself watching the House of Commons on TV. One thing I can't work out is who decides who should actually be there at any particular time?

Like right now on BBC parliament, the place is fairly empty, but they're clearly debating/discussing various things. Is it just a case of 'turn up on the day and hope there will be plenty of people to hear what I have to say'?

Obviously when Boris is in, the place is sometimes rammed, but I guess that's for the really big topics they're discussing?

Can't help thinking that much of what goes on in the Commons is only heard by a handful of people?

I hope this question makes sense, it has baffled me for years.

[Jinx]

https://www.parliament.uk/

What has happened and what is expected to happen is available at the link above.

[UTH]

Jinx said:

https://www.parliament.uk/

What has happened and what is expected to happen is available at the link above.

Hmmmm ok, so there's nothing telling MPs they have to be on there on any particular day is there? If you're the one debating something won't be you pretty disappointed to find you're talking to a room of 5 people?

[Jinx]

UTH said:

Hmmmm ok, so there's nothing telling MPs they have to be on there on any particular day is there? If you're the one debating something won't be you pretty disappointed to find you're talking to a room of 5 people?

Unfortunately that is often the case.

[Roderick Spode]

Most MPs only turn up for things they are interested in, or where it is expedient for them to appear - so PMQs is always rammed to the doors, whereas a debate on a third reading of an amendment to an obscure Fisheries bill is attended only by the proposer and a handful of opponents. Typical enough for Commons business, hence why some of the sessions stretch well into the late evening, and why alcohol is subsidised within the Palace of Westminster.

[MYOB]

The Whips are the one who compel MPs to attend for the critical matters such as critical votes etc.

[UTH]

Roderick Spode said:

Most MPs only turn up for things they are interested in, or where it is expedient for them to appear - so PMQs is always rammed to the doors, whereas a debate on a third reading of an amendment to an obscure Fisheries bill is attended only by the proposer and a handful of opponents. Typical enough for Commons business, hence why some of the sessions stretch well into the late evening, and why alcohol is subsidised within the Palace of Westminster.

So fairly obscure but potentially important things can get debated and decided by, say 10 people? But could be a very different outcome if 100 people had bothered to be there?

[Roderick Spode]

UTH said:

Roderick Spode said:

Most MPs only turn up for things they are interested in, or where it is expedient for them to appear - so PMQs is always rammed to the doors, whereas a debate on a third reading of an amendment to an obscure Fisheries bill is attended only by the proposer and a handful of opponents. Typical enough for Commons business, hence why some of the sessions stretch well into the late evening, and why alcohol is subsidised within the Palace of Westminster.

So fairly obscure but potentially important things can get debated and decided by, say 10 people? But could be a very different outcome if 100 people had bothered to be there?

Yes. Which is why back benchers can often be found on amendment days wandering the corridors and tea rooms seeking people to come along to vote. But then sometimes those 10 people are the appropriate attendees at such debates - invested, informed, and responsible for such legislation. To have others without knowledge or accountability in attendance would arguably be a waste of resources.

As others have said, the Whips office really does the heavy lifting on these occasions. If an MP or MPs need to be there, the Whips will ensure they are.

[Ntv]

UTH said:

Roderick Spode said:

Most MPs only turn up for things they are interested in, or where it is expedient for them to appear - so PMQs is always rammed to the doors, whereas a debate on a third reading of an amendment to an obscure Fisheries bill is attended only by the proposer and a handful of opponents. Typical enough for Commons business, hence why some of the sessions stretch well into the late evening, and why alcohol is subsidised within the Palace of Westminster.

So fairly obscure but potentially important things can get debated and decided by, say 10 people? But could be a very different outcome if 100 people had bothered to be there?

Not really. Most debates will have very few people there. A fair number watching on TV, and even more not watching. But when a vote is called - if whipped - then the hordes go through the lobbies.

So most votes are decided "ignorantly" if you like.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

MPs have agreements with MPs of opposing parties whereby they keep each other in the loop about their attendance. So a Tory MP and their Labour "partner" will both agree to not attend, whereas if they did, they would vote opposite ways and cancel each other out anyway.

[Gargamel]

UTH said:

So fairly obscure but potentially important things can get debated and decided by, say 10 people? But could be a very different outcome if 100 people had bothered to be there?

Unlikely to affect the outcome, The government has a majority and will usually ensure when an actual vote is coming then they have the numbers.

Often commons business in the day, is a debate on a topic, but with no legislation or voting decision coming. Or early day motions which may or may not garner support to make it to a full debate.

[marksx]

So it's an unstructured free for all, where they do as they please to best suit their own needs?

[Johnnytheboy]

A lot of the important stuff now happens in committee anyway.

[Gargamel]

marksx said:

So it's an unstructured free for all, where they do as they please to best suit their own needs?

I am not sure it’s fair to say unstructured. The Parliamentary day is well planned, in advance and the debates are well known. Some are well attended and others are not according to the topic. Voting debates are better attended, and by tradition if someone from one party can’t attend then it’s customary for someone from the other side to also step aside ( usually only if they aren’t attending due to parliamentary business)

But yes, it is down to the individual MP to decide what debates to attend in the chamber. Or when requested by the whip, or when ‘ordered’ by the whip.

[oyster]

Worth noting that MPs will more likely attend debates for which they have either a strong opinion on, a constituent with a particular point to raise or a specialist knowledge of the subject being debated.

No different than meetings at work - you don't bring in people to every meeting who have little/no knowledge of the subject.

And the OP needs to understand that a lot of legislative scrutineering is done in committee rooms not just by debating in the commons chamber.

[Ian Geary]

I had a trainee join my team, and I had to explain to him what the expression "three line whip" meant.

(Commons votes where the whips' office mandate attendance by MPs are underlined three times)

[Polly Grigora]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

MPs have agreements with MPs of opposing parties whereby they keep each other in the loop about their attendance. So a Tory MP and their Labour "partner" will both agree to not attend, whereas if they did, they would vote opposite ways and cancel each other out anyway.

Amazing logical explanation

[Ganglandboss]

UTH said:

I don't really follow politics too closely, but I do occasionally find myself watching the House of Commons on TV. One thing I can't work out is who decides who should actually be there at any particular time?

Like right now on BBC parliament, the place is fairly empty, but they're clearly debating/discussing various things. Is it just a case of 'turn up on the day and hope there will be plenty of people to hear what I have to say'?

Obviously when Boris is in, the place is sometimes rammed, but I guess that's for the really big topics they're discussing?

Can't help thinking that much of what goes on in the Commons is only heard by a handful of people?

I hope this question makes sense, it has baffled me for years.

MPs conduct business in places other than in the Commons Chamber. There are debates going on in various committee rooms in the Palace of Westminster and Portcullis House. They will also have other meetings and research to conduct. MPs may enter the chamber to make their speech, which is then recorded on Hansard, so it is not always necessary for others to be present to hear them.

The chamber is usually packed for PMQs as the leaders want big turnouts. The chamber will also be full when there is a particularly important debate, or when there is a vote.

[Hol]

Government and Politics was a right boring subject, but at least you aren’t confused by some of the things you see.

Visiting Parliament before it was televised, was an eye-opener though. Back then it wasn’t uncommon for MPs to have a lie down on the back benches.