The vote was subject to a three-line whip by the Conservative Party.

5 Nov 2021 | Full Fact's weekly news
View in your browser ([link removed])

FACT CHECK
BBC presenter corrects false claim that Paterson vote was free vote

On Wednesday, the House of Commons voted to delay the decision on suspending MP Owen Paterson for 30 days after he was found to have lobbied for companies in breach of the Code of Conduct for MPs.

BBC Breakfast presenter Charlie Stayt initially said that this was not a government vote as it was not whipped but a “free vote”. But this isn’t true. The vote was whipped.

The clip has gone viral on social media, but Mr Stayt did correct himself later on in the programme.

The BBC itself reported that “the government has instructed its MPs to vote in favour of this amendment” and the vote was reportedly subject to a three-line whip by the Conservative party.

The whip is an instruction given by a party leadership to MPs indicating which way they should vote on parliamentary business. A three-line whip is the most explicit instruction to MPs to vote in a certain way, more so than a two-line or one-line whip.

A government minister who defies any form of whip is expected to resign their position and return to being a backbench MP. A backbench MP who defies the whip may face other punishment, including having the whip withdrawn meaning they must sit as an independent.

Following the vote, the government has announced it will rethink its plans. Mr Paterson has since announced his resignation as an MP.
Our full analysis of the claims ([link removed])
Honesty matters in public debate

That's why our community of 2,500 supporters keep us spotting false claims and challenging the people who make them.

But Friend, we shouldn't have to wait for good information.

Can you make a difference today, and help grow our community that believes we deserve better?
Yes, I'll donate to support honesty ([link removed])
Yes, I'll set up a monthly donation ([link removed])
FACT CHECK
293 ‘daily’ Covid deaths likely cover more than one day after technical issues ([link removed])

Following data released on 2 November, the UK reported another 293 Covid deaths. This is the highest number reported on a single day since 315 deaths were reported on 3 March.

However, some coverage of the statistics, including a report from the Daily Mirror, do not mention a key caveat which explains why the number is at the level it is, and why that may give an inflated indication of daily deaths.

The government’s coronavirus dashboard warns that figure potentially contains two days’ worth of data.

NHS England said: “Due to a technical fault, the system used to collect daily data on individuals who’ve died with COVID-19 in hospitals was offline on Sunday. As a result, the data over the next few days may be higher while the records are entered into the system.”

So while 293 deaths were reported in the daily figures on 2 November, that doesn’t necessarily mean 293 people died over the course of one day from Covid-19.

Even without technical issues, there is often a weekend lag in the figures. That’s why it’s more useful to take a seven day rolling average, rather than looking at one particular day.
Undercounting and overcounting ([link removed])
FULL FACT TRAINING
No Fear Data is back! ([link removed])
“The course did what it said it would - I don't have a fear of data or learning about data anymore and it has given me the confidence to keep learning about data step, by step. Thank you!”

— No Fear Data Graduate — September 2021
No Fear Data is about gaining confidence in using data and spreadsheets in your job and day-to-day life. Over three mornings, you'll be learning about the basics of how datasets are structured, how to plan a data analysis, how to use spreadsheets and pivot tables to answer questions about a dataset, and how to make compelling visualisations to summarise your work.

Led by our training manager and experienced tutor and fact checker Joseph O’Leary, the sessions will give you a chance to learn, practice new skills, and work in small teams to analyse data and report on what you learn.

Learn more and enrol ([link removed])
FACT CHECK
Did the French PM really ask for the EU to ‘punish’ the UK over Brexit? ([link removed])

Amid rising tensions between the UK and France in a row over fishing, the translation of a leaked letter sent from the French Prime Minister to the EU President has caused disagreement in the media. The Telegraph, the Express and LBC reported that the letter effectively called for the UK to be ”punished” for Brexit. Others, including the BBC, disagreed—though in some cases acknowledged it could be interpreted that way.

The key word appears to be “dommages” and there’s some debate over how best to translate it. We spoke to three French speakers—a researcher, a journalist and an academic—who all said they believe “dommages” is most accurately translated as “drawbacks” or “disadvantages” rather than “damages”.

However Dr Edward Arnold, Professor of French at Trinity College Dublin, did translate “dommages” as “damaging” in a translation produced for Irish fact checkers.

The letter goes on to ask that if a satisfactory solution cannot be found, the EU should introduce tariffs. So although the word “punish” isn’t used explicitly, this could be seen to amount to punishing the UK, whether fairly or unfairly, which may explain some of the headlines prompted by the letter.

Whether this would be punishment for Brexit itself, or for failing to, in the French view, meet the terms of the Brexit settlement—and whether those are separate things—is a matter of interpretation.
Exactly what the letter said ([link removed])
MORE FACT CHECKS
Also this week...
* The Chancellor, The Budget, and departmental spending ([link removed])
* Morrisons chicken sparks backlash ([link removed])
* Joe Rogan podcast uses Covid-19 death data out of context ([link removed])
* And that Day of the Dead drone display of skull wearing sombrero didn’t actually happen ([link removed])

Read our latest fact checks ([link removed])
Stop the spread of bad information

Find these updates useful? We'd be incredibly grateful if you could share our fact checks and help more people access good information.
[link removed] Share ([link removed])
[link removed]: https%3A%2F%2Ffullfact.org%2Fnews%2Fpaterson-leadsom-amendment-vote%2F Tweet ([link removed]: https%3A%2F%2Ffullfact.org%2Fnews%2Fpaterson-leadsom-amendment-vote%2F)
[link removed] Forward ([link removed])
[link removed] Share ([link removed])
All the best,
Team Full Fact

============================================================
** Follow us ([link removed])
** Donate ([link removed])
** Like us ([link removed])
** Follow us ([link removed])
Have any questions or feedback? Please ** get in touch via our contact form ([link removed])
. We do not respond to direct replies to this email address.

Find out ** how Full Fact is funded ([link removed])
.

Copyright © Full Fact 2021 - All rights reserved

A registered charity (no. 1158683) and a non-profit company (no. 6975984) limited by guarantee and registered in England and Wales.

Our mailing address is:
2 Carlton Gardens, London, SW1Y 5AA

We use Mailchimp to send you our emails and to see which articles are most popular. ** Read our privacy policy ([link removed])
or ** Mailchimp's privacy policy ([link removed])

** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])
** update subscription preferences ([link removed])