This was the result of the 1923 general election...
Conservatives 258
Labour 191
Liberals 158
Independents 4
NI Nationalists 3
Scottish Prohibition 1
OUTCOME : Labour minority government.
If Labour or their sycophantic chums in the press actually believe one word of the lies they've been churning out about so-called "British constitutional rules" over the last 48 hours, they'll have a murderously hard job explaining how the above outcome was even theoretically possible, let alone how it happened so easily in reality. Labour were miles behind the Tories, more so than was even the case in 2010, and yet they were able to form a government without entering into coalition with the Liberals, and without even a formal deal with the Liberals. Why? Because the real constitutional convention is that the monarch must appoint a Prime Minister who commands a majority in the House of Commons. The Liberals held the balance of power, and they were absolutely opposed to the continuation of Tory rule, just as the SNP are now. That made any form of Tory-led government a complete non-starter, irrespective of the fact that the Tories were the largest single party.
Nor, Torcuil Crichton, was it the case that the Tories' status as the incumbent government got them off the hook in 1923. The only special privilege that the incumbent Prime Minister has in the event of a hung parliament is the option to hold on until the reconvening of parliament, and to see if he or she can command a majority in the House on the Queen's Speech (or King's Speech) vote. If that vote is lost, the Leader of the Opposition will immediately be invited to form a government instead.
Pulpstar (From PB.com ;) ) Here
ReplyDeleteHas anyone been onto the ASA about the SLAB poster, the claim is a flat out LIE.
Also I can see a Grand coalition as more likely than an SNP deal with Conservatives personally - but full efforts need to be put into showing up the constitutional nonsense of the claim on the Ad.
Again, its a lie and needs to be publicly exposed as such.
"Has anyone been onto the ASA about the SLAB poster"
DeleteASA rules don't apply to political parties.
The lack of authority over the ASA or the Electoral Commission to enforce any form of reasonable control over campaigning is pretty ridiculous.
DeleteEven when there are rules they don't get enforced (such as Labour's hand out at the Referendum saying "if you don't know, vote no" which impersonated a Polling Card in direct contravention their own rules.
You should really be working on the assumption that politicians are lying by virtue of opening their mouths, unless of course your head zips up at the back. Besides, we wouldn't want to go against out fine traditions of freedom of speech in the political arena now, would we?
DeleteWell, as Sally Bercow found out, making untrue claims about individuals on Twitter (even in a very, very indirect way) can lead to legal problems. So, rightly or wrongly, we already accept that free speech has certain limits when it comes to lying. I'm not suggesting that Jim Murphy should be hauled before a court, but there should surely be some redress available when the Labour party is deliberately lying to the public about a constitutional 'rule' which simply doesn't exist.
DeleteWhile a Grand Coalition is a repulsive concept, I think it would herald the end of FPTP and the 2 party system as well as the Union itself.
DeleteIt's a curious quirk of things that the only people who are allowed to lie outright are politicians. Commercial advertisers are only allowed to heavily imply untruths; the people who go on to form the actual government of the country, however, could say that the Moon was made of cheese if they felt it would get them elected.
ReplyDeleteI thought there were some rules about this. Wasn't Phil Woolas forced by the courts to stand down as an MP for claiming that his Lib Dem opponent was a raving jihadist or something?
DeleteThink that is a different law. If you slander an individual, they can sue you. If you say the oil in the North Sea is going to run out next year, no problem.
DeleteThe most disappointing part of this nonsense is that STV seem unwilling to correct this lie when Labour spew it out. It is understandable that the Labourite BBC will be clearly biased but STV have generally been less willing to demonstrate deliberate bias.
ReplyDeleteThe BBC really riled me yesterday with their complete inability/refusal to challenge this point. Can you imagine if it had been the SNP saying such a thing! Any respect I had for the BBC has entirely evaporated over the past year, to the point where I now think that come independence, we should simply do away with them altogether rather than try to keep the Scottish arm.
ReplyDeleteThere is a rule in Westminster. Never let the facts interfere with what you tell the electorate. When the MSM tell tell us this in bold headlines, we will have a free press but not before.
ReplyDelete