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.

Getty
Show Hide image

Parliament debate could go ahead as petition to accept more asylum seekers reaches over 100,000 signatures

Parliament considers all petitions that get more than 100,000 signatures for a debate.

A petition to allow more asylum seekers into the UK has reached over 100,000 signatures. This is the figure petitions require for parliament to consider a debate on the subject.

The petition was launched by Katie Whyte, and gained almost 70,000 backers overnight following the publication of photos on 2 September of a three-year-old Syrian boy who had drowned.

The petition reads:

There is a global refugee crisis. The UK is not offering proportional asylum in comparison with European counterparts. We can't allow refugees who have risked their lives to escape horrendous conflict and violence to be left living in dire, unsafe and inhumane conditions in Europe. We must help.

With an estimated 173,100 asylum applications, Germany was the largest recipient of new asylum claims in 2014. The USA was 2nd with 121,200 asylum applications, followed by Turkey (87,800), Sweden (75,100), and Italy (63,700). By comparison, the UK received 31,300 new applications for asylum by the end of 2014. 
(Source: UNHCR 2014 Asylum Trends Report)

David Cameron has so far refused to accept further refugees into Britain, in spite of calls from campaigners and Labour frontbenchers to at least discuss the issue in the Commons.

> Read the petition here.

Anoosh Chakelian is deputy web editor at the New Statesman.