Preparing the U-turn
We’ve just had a fascinating email from Scottish Labour forwarded to us, from a concerned reader who’d written to them to ask if Labour would really refuse to form a government if they weren’t the largest party. The answer might not be the one anyone who’s seen the party’s election literature (below) would be expecting.
Emphases are ours.
Dear [concerned reader],
Thank you for taking the time to get in touch.
We are not referring to a policy as you suggest. From our interviews and press statements it should be clear that our point refers to election outcomes, rather than procedure.
The outcomes are clear – only the largest party has formed the Govt since universal adult suffrage was established. So it is correct to say that the largest party forms the government after the election. That has been the case in every UK election since women got the vote.
I have copied a table below for your information.
Best wishes
Nigel Anthony
Policy, Briefing & Engagement Officer
Scottish Labour
That seems pretty clear. Even though Scottish Labour’s leaflets expressly say “the ONLY way to stop the Tories is for Labour to be the largest party”, it turns out that this ISN’T actually party policy, but a misleadingly-worded historical observation.
It must therefore follow that Labour WILL be prepared to form a minority government even if the Tories have more seats, and that pretty much every sitting Scottish Labour MP is currently telling their constituents what’s technically known as a big fat lie.
It’s an intriguing development. We look forward to the nation’s media getting to the bottom of it and clarifying the situation for voters once and for all.
I’m utterly flabbergasted.
They don’t know their policy from their procedures! ;D
I think their response is factually incorrect too.
It’s correct to talk of ‘universal adult suffrage’ as not happening until after the 1923 parliament, which was the last time the largest party wasn’t in government.
However it’s not correct to say “since women got the vote”.
Women got the vote in 1918. Or at least, some of them did. Those over 30 who owned property.
Then in 1928 this was extended to cover all women over 21, bringing their rights in line with men.
Define party and Party
Party is, in this context, a Political Unitary Party.
A party could include other Parties and in fact be an association of understanding.
Or maybe I need some red biddy.
Be a long wait, methinks
Right, let’s knock this “biggest party gets to govern” guff on the head.
Here are the constitutional FACTS.
On May 7th we are NOT voting for a new Government – we are voting for a new Parliament. That Parliament has the sole right to decide who forms the next Government.
Obviously if your party has an overall majority without the need of support from other parties then that’s a done deal.
If no one party has an overall majority then a party has to convince the House that it can command a majority. The rules are quite clear – first chance to form a majority and put it to the House goes to the existing Prime Minister who remains Prime Minister until a new Government is formed. First shot DOES NOT go to the largest party unless that party happens to be the current PM’s party.
It is as simple as that.
Obviously, historical precedent did not stop the 2010 attempt by Labour to form a minority Government, according to the New Statesman article.
link to newstatesman.com
Coruscating
With Labour you prepare more for a Mobius strip than a U.
And yet they pull us up for saying the referendum was a once in a generation event! Similarly not a policy, rather what circumstances dictate.
The point is, if you use the incorrect tense then you can completely change the meaning of a statement.
In this communication they say “only the largest party HAS formed the Govt”. This is true.
However if they were to claim “can form” or “will form” or “gets to form” (as above) then that is saying something quite different. That would be a LIE.
And Labour can definitely tell the difference. They do know truth from lies! The choose to lie as a crude tactic.
Well done Stu. This lie MUST be nailed as it’s their only (weak)weapon against the SNP.
‘it is correct to say that the largest party forms the government’
Ah, no, sorry but your grammar is way off if that’s your line of argument, namely historical event.
‘ it is correct to say that the largest party has formed the government’ is grammatically and factually accurate within the context of your argument.
Pity it still falls down that gaping hole known as cabinet procedure.
From our interviews and press statements it should be clear that our point refers to election outcomes, rather than procedure.
Er….no. It is not at all clear, nor is it intended to be clear. That is the point
Actually, it doesn’t seem clear to me. WHERE’S the answer!” A history lesson is not an answer. I have got to say I find that response to read as a thinly disguised F off.
The largest (small “p”) party? The would be Eric Pickles…
I do wish, Rev Stu, that you would stop looking forward to things said and done by the Labour Party, Scottish Branch Office. (Actually it became an accommodation address some time ago).It just leads you into ever more disappointments. When your an old c- Err! Err! Ahem! Codger, like I am, you will know never to look forward to anything Labour says or does.
I am in the middle of studying an OU course in Social Science & Politics.
The block this week is about participation and why people vote the way they do.
I thought this passage was interesting considering where the Labour party are now.
A sociological explanation of voting:
In election studies in the UK after 1945, the predominant theory of voting was a sociological model that suggested that class-based variables were the most important factors shaping electoral behaviour.
In this sort of theory, electoral choice was understood as a function of a voter’s individual position within various social structures – the class position of their parents, or their own occupational status, level of educational attainment, or form of housing tenure.
On the basis of these factors, it was said, people develop long-term identifications with particular ideologies represented by political parties.
In the post-war period in the UK, this sort of explanation appeared to have some validity.
It suggested that by being working class, an elector would more likely than not vote Labour; by being middle class, the elector was more likely to vote Conservative. In the two-party system that dominated in this period, relatively few votes were cast for parties other than Labour or Conservative.
well all look and learn the clearest explanation i have seen so far from (Steve Asaneilean) thank you Steve, eh hope you don’t mind me saying thats some name fella ha ha
Universal suffrage is their get out clause – in 1923 Labour formed a minority government working with the Liberals despite the Tories having 67 more seats than Labour and 100 more seats than the Liberals.
As far as I remember it, there have only been two relevant occasions in their case. So there is nothing statistically significant in the history.
If you add the 1924 situation you have the beginnings of a case in step with the current rules or guidelines. This is also consistent with the deeper history in which political parties were less cohesive and had less sway over the individual MPs.
The system was designed (if that’s the correct expression) to elect individuals not parties and has never been properly reformed to accommodate the modern power of parties never mind the even more recent weakening of “backbench scrutiny”.
universal adult suffrage was established.
Now I,ve asked this question before, what does the above statement Mean in the contex of the overall statement,or have I to join the village idiot on this site. Lesley Anne can you explain this to me.
Ronnie@2.54pm
Just for you:-)
link to en.wikipedia.org
Macart
Nice use of ‘Mobius strip’
One for all the SLAB maths teachers out there
Another day of Labour lies and confusion. And we have 6 weeks of this to go… help ma boab!
The clause “since universal adult sufferage” is pure sophistry in this instance. There is no connection between voting franchise and parlimentary procedure at all here.
Wow!
I just hope the right wing press in England don’t hear about this, as this email is tantamount to an admission, that the Labour Party are using words to deceive unsuspecting voters about how they will conduct themselves if people vote for them.
No wonder Jim Murphy has repeatedly told interviewers such as Andrew Neil, that he did not want to talk about ‘the stuff that will happen after people have voted’
I just hope no one tells A Neil, that Murphy has been taking him for a chump like this.
So a truthful slogan for the Labour Party would be:
Vote Labour & You Never Know What Might Happen.
Lovely way to run a campaign!
@ Macart says:
25 March, 2015 at 2:29 pm
“With Labour you prepare more for a Mobius strip than a U.”
For me it would be a Klein Bottle.
They really are right up their own erses and out the top in a neverending llop.
Aye, and I look forward to watching Hibs win The Champions League.
@ Steve – 2:25pm Thanks for that simple explanation.
@
jackie g says:
25 March, 2015 at 2:52 pm
I am in the middle of studying an OU course in Social Science & Politics.
Ok, jackie g, explain why Scotland voted Conservative at local government level in Scotland and returned loadsa Conservative MP’s after WW II, although not the first Post War GE.
link to en.wikipedia.org
@ BtP
They’ll never get the analogy. 😀
Is it just me or are Labour beginning to resemble a pack of hyenas?
Liebor Lie-ing?
I am astonished……
You would think that someone would change tact if it wasn’t working.
Why has nobody asked the question about it NOT being a Tory government now?
They aren’t the largest party NOW so why are you saying only the largest gets in?
Labour if you have been spotted in battle you’d change your posistion, you are currently in battle, you’ve done nothing. Expect the same thing to happen as in combat. You get shot down.
“So it is correct to say that the largest party forms the government after the election. That has been the case in every UK election since women got the vote.”
That still doesn’t make it correct to suggest that the largest party forms the government. Purely because there is not a precedence that Labour would like to acknowledge doesn’t mean it couldn’t or won’t happen.
@Broch Landers .
Yes, also interesting about the strip is if you draw a line right down the centre and cut along it, you end up with two interlinked rings.
Macart says:
25 March, 2015 at 3:24 pm
@ BtP
They’ll never get the analogy. 😀
I knew you would though.
The Slabbers are are Social Scientists, Social Workers and Social Misfits.
[…] Preparing the U-turn […]
@ jackie g
Missed this out, sorry
🙂
ps I remember when the Progressive and Unionist Party ran Glasgow!
Then Ted Heath merged them withe Tories and Margaret Thatcher killed them.
Bugger (the Panda) says:@3.23pm
Oh you got me there eh?
As far as i am aware, it is a myth that the Working class always vote Labour.
When mens suffrage was first introduced a fair percentage voted conservative as they were entrenched in the old class system and felt that the people in power always new best.
After WW2 the labour vote did surge but there were, and still are to this day a huge number of working class tories.
What i do know though is that Labour have always built up myths around the foundings of the party and the Labour movement.
BBC will ensure that Murphy will be able to trash the SNP and tell lies about the biggest party etc on Question Time to-morrow evening without any SNP panellist to correct him.
@ Bugger (the Panda)(3:38)
I am a social worker. What are you trying to say? *sobs*
@ jackie g. thanks jackie the fug has cleared noo.
Return to your consitutencies, for the last time, probably, and blow smoke up their etc…
Bit of soul-searching for Ed come May 8th?
link to twitter.com
ronald alexander mcdonald wrote:
“Aye, and I look forward to watching Hibs win The Champions League.”
Steady, one step at a time, first you need to learn how to beat Sevco.
🙂
I’ve just been over on the Daily Mail website. Urgh. Need a wash now. It’s very disturbing to read the comments about Scots and Scotland in any article relating to the SNP holding the balance of power.
Many of them see the Scots as beggars, talking *their* money, and they are genuinely outraged by this.
So thanks for that, media.
Labour must be a quasi-religious Party,
because they always seem to use
the word ‘Abbot’, in answer to questions.
Labour also never, ever, ever, use the phrase
‘yes, you’re right’.
And one of the must avoid phrases for Labour, is –
‘please, do continue.’
Another favourite is ‘no ticket? sorry, can’t get in.’
I wonder what John ‘Tory’ McTernan’s most frequently used words are?
American Girl travelling Europe,killed in French alps airplane crash,one last pics of her–Edinburgh skyline Edinburgh castle
( : > (
What has happened to the undying love and friendship Davy Camshie professed for us daft jocks. We were needed you said!
Is it something we said Dave please let us know! We won’t miss you .. Promise and could you take the EBC and steady Eddie with you.
Macart says:
25 March, 2015 at 2:29 pm
With Labour you prepare more for a Mobius strip than a U.
Deep man, very deep!
link to caltonjock.com
Were I Mr Ed I’d be delighted at the current turn of events. I mean the fella is going to get two bites at the cherry thanks to the SNP. He either a. gets enough votes to sneak a minority government of his own via the English electorate or b. With the aid of the SNP gets to sit in the big chair anyway. I mean they even have the cast iron guarantee of the SNP that they will in no way enable a Conservative government.
So what does the establishment fear?
The unravelling of a particular anti democratic, anti Scottish, anti independence narrative years in the making.
As the third largest political voice in parliament, think of the access the UK public will have to SNP policy suggestions. Think of the media access the SNP will gain to UK daily media which half a dozen MPs couldn’t command. Just suppose the peoples of England, Wales and NI like what they hear coming from the SNP benches? What do you think will happen to Westminster when people realise that the evil foreign alien does in fact come in peace? That a narrative they’ve been spoon fed is and always has been a tissue of lies and manipulation to direct their perceptions and voting intent?
There’s many a politico and editor whose shoes I’d hate to be in should that scenario come to pass. Also kinda explains the naked fear and loathing on display by both the media and parliamentarians whenever you so much as mention the name of their favourite bogie man. 🙂
Fiona says:
25 March, 2015 at 4:00 pm
@ Bugger (the Panda)(3:38)
I am a social worker. What are you trying to say? *sobs*
I did not say all Social Workers, Housing Officers etc, just the ones who seem to make it a career route through Uni, the Students’ Labour Club, and then into “management” postions into rotten Labour burghs.
What I call part time Social Worker, full time career Labour Politician.
We all know who I mean, eh Magrit?
ps my cousin was a Hospital Socila Worker and she ended up being emotionally wounded by what she had seen and the problems she had had to hold together these human disasters with nothing more than selloptape, UHU glue and cardboard. Blue Peter were better equipped.
ps my cousin was a Hospital Socila Worker and she ended up being emotionally wounded by what she had seen and the problems she had had to hold together these human disasters with nothing more than selloptape, UHU glue and cardboard. Blue Peter were better equipped.
Now that I can relate to. The job has become impossible, like a lot of public sector work these days.
Pedantry forces me to claim that the Conservative government of 1951 consisted of more than one party united in an electoral pact. The largest single party at that election was Labour. It wasn’t until 1964 that the Conservative and Unionist Party was created. It was a coalition in all but name.
When my youngest was wee, he used to play a game,
whereby anything he said didn’t count
as long as he kept his fingers crossed,
which he did, behind his back.
Seems to me this is how all Unionist politics and propaganda
is conducted today.
Engaging with people like Murphy, Alexander & Milliband for Labour,
and Cameron & Osborne for the Tories,
is like trying to pick up an eel using a wooden spoon.
Best to ignore these people, and their ilk,
and come May 7, just vote SNP.
And then work to flush Unionist politicians out of the system.
I expect Independence will be so refreshing,
and so very liberating and energising,
with creativity and imagination,
industry and enthusiasm.
I expect the end of the opportunity permafrost,
and the beginning of the Scottish Spring,
and with it the ‘Scotland is growing’ era.
But above all, I expect I’ll feel completely free
to be a Scot in Scotland.
And I’ll look again at my youngest, now bigger than me,
and know he will have a far better future
in an Independent Scotland.
And no crossed fingers needed.
So when are Ed Balls and Gordon Brown due to be expelled from the Labour Party for trying to negotiate with the LibDems in 2010?
O/T
The Crowdfunder for Dr Philippa Whitford (remember her, Wings pin-up girl on NHS issues?) is sitting stubbornly at 99 donors.
If there’s anyone out there fancies being the 100th donor, please feel free to visit link to crowdfunder.co.uk
Numbers above 100th are also available 😛
OT and apols if this duplicates: tablet issues
Hey Stu,
What happened to the Bella Caledonia link? Has it been lost in error? I can’t see it on the wings pages any longer.
Chris
Next SNP campaign literature.
Best of both worlds.
Concessions and power for Scotland at Westminster, Tories locked out.
I’m sure, I’ve heard it before….
[…] We’ve just had a fascinating email from Scottish Labour forwarded to us, from a concerned reader who’d written to them to ask if Labour would really refuse to form a government if they weren’t the largest party. The answer might not be the one anyone who’s seen the party’s election literature (below) would be expecting. […]
I’m sending mine back without a stamp.
I’m also writing to the Electroral Society to challenge its legality. I thought election material had to be factual. This clearly is a lie.
Can’t say I’m surprised by this and this is pretty much what the Labour spokespersons will say when backed into a corner over it. (or bluster). I’m actually surprised that the Conservatives haven’t picked up on this in England; Imagine David Cameron asking Miliband in the House of Commons if he intends to form a government if Labour win a minority of seats?
So, unless Westminster disenfranchises the distaff side, were stuck with the largest party then ?
This palaver is way past silly o’clock.
If they had manned up at the start, and admitted they would do a deal, they could have had the advantage of time dimming the electoral memory.
Less sport for Eck, and us though. Pass the landing net !
orri says:
25 March, 2015 at 4:47 pm
Pedantry forces me to claim that the Conservative government of 1951 consisted of more than one party united in an electoral pact. The largest single party at that election was Labour. It wasn’t until 1964 that the Conservative and Unionist Party was created. It was a coalition in all but name.
Brilliant Orri!
We have them now. Smurph a misinformed liar again.
The largest party didn’t go into government in 1924 nor 1951.
Why did he himself say that Labour, the smaller party, were confident of forming the next government in 2010?
Strangely this was the only occasion that he wasn’t lying, but he still got it wrong. Poor Fud Smurphy!
Elliot Bulmer, as so often on this sort of issue, points the best way forward. He does so in an article headed: “The way through the maze…” on page 13 of today’s edition of “The National”. He concludes by suggesting the passing of a simple holding Act in Westminster providing for the election of the Prime Minster by Westminster in the House of Commons, along the lines of Holyrood and other modern Parliaments throughout the world.
Whilst this certainly would eliminate the confusion that Murphy’s distortions are creating, the chances of it happening before May are, IMO, close to zero. For Westminster to learn from Holyrood would take a degree of humility that this “Mother of Parliaments” is not usually capable of.