Debunking five Tory myths about the election result

Challenging the “narrative” that is emerging . . .

Can we take a step back, please? And consider some of the claims that are being made right now by politicians and pundits alike?

1) The Tories are claiming that they "won". This is nonsense. In a hung parliament, by definition, no party can claim "victory". In the British system, you win only when you have a majority in the Commons. Cameron failed to get one.

2) A Lab-Lib coalition government would not be unrepresentative of public opinion. On the contrary, the two parties combined would have the support of 53 per cent of voters. This is the "anti-Conservative" majority that Labour ministers and officials keep refering to. Remember: no government since the Second World War has ever been elected with more than 50 per cent of the vote.

3) Gordon Brown is "defying" the public and "clinging on" to office. Not true. Brown is following consitutional precedent, which ensures continuity of government and gives the prime minister the right to stay on and try to form a coalition that has the confidence of parliament. Brown is behaving as (the Tory) Edward Heath behaved in February 1974.

4) The country wants strong government, which is single-party government. Really? Why then did the voters not give any one of the three major parties a majority in parliament? The reality is that coalitions can be stronger and more effective than single-party administrations -- even in the eyes of the markets. Ten of the 16 governments that enjoy triple-A credit ratings are coalitions. Seven of the largest fiscal consolidations carried out in OECD countries since 1970 occurred under coalition governments.

5) Labour is interested in party advantage; the Tories are concerned about the national interest. Rubbish! As the Telegraph reported this week, the Tories are willing to bribe the Unionist parties in Ulster with up to £200m of taxpayers' cash in the form of postponed public spending cuts in the province. Is this putting the nation first, or is it partisan and self-interested deal-making of the grubbiest kind?

 

 

 

Mehdi Hasan is a contributing writer for the New Statesman and the co-author of Ed: The Milibands and the Making of a Labour Leader. He was the New Statesman's senior editor (politics) from 2009-12.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

It's not WhatsApp that was at fault in the Westminster attacks. It's our prisons

Britain's criminal justice system neither deterred nor rehabilitated Khalid Masood, and may even have facilitated his radicalisation. 

The dust has settled, the evidence has been collected and the government has decided who is to blame for the attack on Westminster. That’s right, its WhatsApp and their end-to-end encryption of messages. Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary, wants tech companies to install a backdoor into messages like these that the government can then access.

There are a couple of problems here, not least that Adrian Russell aka Khalid Masood was known to the security services but considered to be low-risk. Even if the government had had the ability to gain entry to his WhatsApp, they wouldn’t have used it. Then there’s the fact that end-to-end encryption doesn’t just protect criminals and terrorists – it protects users from criminals and terrorists. Any backdoor will be vulnerable to attack, not only from our own government and foreign powers, but by non-state actors including fraudsters, and other terrorists.

(I’m parking, also, the question of whether these are powers that should be handed to any government in perpetuity, particularly one in a country like Britain’s, where near-unchecked power is handed to the executive as long as it has a parliamentary majority.)

But the biggest problem is that there is an obvious area where government policy failed in the case of Masood: Britain’s prisons system.

Masood acted alone though it’s not yet clear if he was merely inspired by international jihadism – that is, he read news reports, watched their videos on social media and came up with the plan himself – or he was “enabled” – that is, he sought out and received help on how to plan his attack from the self-styled Islamic State.

But what we know for certain is that he was, as is a recurring feature of the “radicalisation journey”, in possession of a string of minor convictions from 1982 to 2002 and that he served jail time. As the point of having prisons is surely to deter both would-be offenders and rehabilitate its current occupants so they don’t offend again, Masood’s act of terror is an open-and-shut case of failure in the prison system. Not only he did prison fail to prevent him committing further crimes, he went on to commit one very major crime.  That he appears to have been radicalised in prison only compounds the failure.

The sad thing is that not so very long ago a Secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice was thinking seriously about prison and re-offending. While there was room to critique some of Michael Gove’s solutions to that problem, they were all a hell of a lot better than “let’s ban WhatsApp”. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.