The DUP’s voting alliance with Labour was meant to scare Theresa May

Do not build a house out of straw; especially if a wolf is likely to come-a-knocking. Now, I hate to disparage any adult’s understanding of childhood fables as much as the next person, but people are starting to wonder if this House of Tory and DUP is starting to look a little bit flimsy. Corbyn, I guess, is the Wolf of Hating Wall Street in this analogy.

The questioning has been triggered by the DUP’s siding with Labour in a non-binding vote this week about lifting the NHS pay cap and stopping an increase in tuition fees.

Ripples of shock fluttered across the political landscape when Ian Paisley MP emerged from allegations of concerning £100,000 holidays to enjoy the novelty of the moral high ground. He announced to the House of Commons that they would support Labour’s motion and he hoped it would prove to be a “clarion call” for fairer pay for the NHS.

Cue the confusion. I thought the DUP were wedded to the Tories? Does this mean the deal is falling apart? Will it? What is the evil motive behind this seemingly positive DUP action?

Let me try to explain.

When the DUP were first thrust into the UK media’s blinding glare, there was a frantic race to characterise the entire party and its voters, almost entirely apocalyptically. One of the major issues which appeared to miss its searing spotlight was the fact that the DUP are usually an anti-austerity party. Their non-binding vote against the pay cap is entirely keeping with their quite consistent anti-austerity voting record.

Well then what about the deal? Is it shattered? Well, no. As much as their handling of Brexit might make you question it, I’m sure the Tories were well aware of what was in the DUP manifesto. The confidence and supply deal only binds the DUP to vote alongside the Government for certain major issues, like the budget, Brexit, the Queen’s Speech and security, so the deal is very much intact and I doubt it’s going anywhere.

But why would the DUP do it? Why would they step out of line to aid Labour in embarrassing Grand Leader May?

The simplest answer is that the DUP MPs are not just the caricature bond villains that lazy reporting would lead you to believe. Quite a few represent genuinely deprived areas, which austerity is biting down on hard, and so they would consider it part of their representation of their constituents to vote against continued austerity. If you are in any doubt of their sincerity, read what Paisley MP said in Parliament during the debate.

Now, no one can call me a cheerleader for a politician I have found more infuriating than a supremely tangled pair of headphones, and normally as much use said tangled pair of headphones, but his speech in the Commons on the issue was passionate and important. He laid out exactly how much money nurses and care assistants were losing out on every single year due to the NHS pay cap. It was as furiously urgent as the issue itself warrants.

But it’d be naïve to ignore the political dimension to the move. Especially given that this was a non-binding vote on the pay cap, only months after the DUP’s 10 MPs voted against an amendment to the Queens Speech which would have actually ended the NHS pay cap (a beautifully cutting point made by an Independent MP for Northern Ireland in response to Paisley’s sudden concern).

The key political dimension is that, just when Gina Miller was pointing out that the DUP-Tory deal is meaningless until passed by Parliament, it provides a jolting shot across May's bow to remind her that passing the Dory deal in Parliament, and releasing its funds for Northern Ireland, is vital to the lifeblood of her government.

Yet, with the Tories dubiously passing an increase in tuition fees without a Parliamentary vote, the vote that Labour won on the NHS pay cap being non-binding and the DUP wedded to voting for the upcoming budget, come what may, due to the terms of the Dory deal, it’s hard to decipher if all this Parliamentary theatrics has made a jot of difference at all.