The BBC, like the rest of the mainstream media, have been pushing the misleading line that a new general election can only take place under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act (FTPA) if a two-thirds majority of all 650 MPs in the House of Commons votes for it.
In fact, as the SKWAWKBOX showed two weeks ago, the FTPA has several sections. One of them says that MPs voting specifically for a new election do require the two-thirds majority.
However, the Act also contains another provision: that a vote of no confidence in the government sets in motion a process that results in the calling of a new general election. The government can only prevent this process by winning another confidence vote within fourteen days of the first:
(3) An early parliamentary general election is also to take place if—
(a) the House of Commons passes a motion in the form set out in subsection (4), and
(b) the period of 14 days after the day on which that motion is passed ends without the House passing a motion in the form set out in subsection (5).
(4) The form of motion for the purposes of subsection (3)(a) is—
“That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.”
The BBC’s Andrew Marr still pushed the false line during his programme on Sunday morning – until Labour’s Barry Gardiner stopped him and pointed out the truth.
But the BBC News channel, shortly afterwards, had begun to acknowledge reality – and in some detail:
SKWAWKBOX comment:
As the BBC’s commentator rightly observed, Labour’s firm commitment to call a vote of no confidence, if May loses the vote on her dismal Brexit deal, is ‘a very clear statement of intent’.
The Tories know it – and like the BBC they know they’re positioned to lose. That’s why they’re already in ‘stealth general election mode‘ and posing for sick ‘trophy’ photographs at Foodbanks to pretend to care about those they are damaging.
The SKWAWKBOX needs your support. This blog is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal. Thanks for your solidarity so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.
If you wish to reblog this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.
It is inconceivable that with all its resources and ‘expertise’ that the BBC was not aware of this. One would have thought that as our primary public sector broadcaster the BBC would have regarded it as their duty to properly inform the electorate instead of effectively lying to us for month after month after month.
The Tories will have considered their shrinking options – might they have decided it’s better to lose by a small margin now than be wiped out in 2022?
They’d get to fit Labour up for a 100% Tory clusterfuck for the second time in ten years and gloat about how they screwed Corbyn for generations.
The perfect scenario of Labour having to form coalitions would have them gleefully plotting mischief every day and partying with the BBC every night.
Maybe better to cut the strings on Blair’s puppets now and regroup for 2022/3 with some genuinely socialist candidates?
‘Maybe better to cut the strings on Blair’s puppets now and regroup for 2022/3 with some genuinely socialist candidates?’…Liked…That’s worth repeating
I agree! You have to look at things on a strategic, rather than a short term, basis.
I have the distinct feeling that the Labour Party will soon regret Conference (the Unions really) rejecting ‘Mandatory Reselection’ using OMOV.
Yes, the new system needs to be used now.
Then people will see if it is any good or not and whether ‘mandatory reselection’ will be needed.
My guess is that there will be a need to avoid discrediting the present system in order to head off demands for the real thing.
Agree with both comments by SteveH and David Mc.
I felt that the day Lansman and Len Mc sold us out that was a disaster for the future democracy of the LP.
The news output of the BBC is what it is : until the regulatory framework (remember – its a Tory one that has done its job) changes, the output isn’t going to change. My personal solution for a long time has been to rarely listen to news and current affairs – it’s not good for the blood pressure, and there’s much more that it does do well.
Which brings us to the Labour Party in power.
As Davis McNiven has pointed out, even with an apparently fair wind, it’s not plain sailing.
– Winning a ‘no-confidence’ vote will require the compliance of the Tories and their supporters – which might not be good news in the unlikely event of it happening. It would be propelled by a calculation that it’s be better to dump this mess on Labour.
– To go to the electorate will require a much clearer policy based on the reality of what possibilities are available from the point of view of the EU. Labour will have to be clear on the available options – in terms of the best outcome and the means to achieve it. Cakeism won’t do – it won’t sell, and will simply store up problems further down the line. And the policy will have to sell convincingly.
– There will be a pretty high probability of another hung parliament. Not a pretty sight. And the Tories will be hell bent on making sure that the doo-doo is as deep as they can make it.
– In the event of a clear win, there will still be rough seas. Trying to deal with Brexit and initiate economic reform is going to be difficult – and the Tories will be trying to make sure that (like the fall-out from the 2007/8 crisis) Labour will be picking up the odium from the mess. Then ther’s the longer term, which, if Brexit happens, is an economy with all its current structural weakness *plus* the additional impoverishment.
– So might the Tories bank on the following election?
Just thinking.
Re your concerns expressed in para. 5 “… a much clearer policy …”, the same concerns apply re the so called Brexit TV “debate”, where the compromised nature of the current LP Brexit policy is, for me, much more concerning than which channel may end up broadcasting it. I have elaborated slightly on this in the “BBC comes last in poll of trust” thread.
SB, as you are one of the very few I trust in these matters, is it possible for you to distill the following numbers for us:
1) From the 172 Class of ’16 coup plotters, how many came back in 2017?
2) From the current 257 MPs, how many can be counted on to vote with the leadership, considering that a paltry 40 backed JC the last time when it mattered the most?
3) Can we still assume the Blairite MPs number upwards of 150?
4) We have heard that +-90 Conservative MPs might vote against the deal. Can our Blairite MPs successfully top up the numbers under the guise of GNU? Something some of us are quietly hoping for, to save us the time and effort of de-selection battles.
5) We have been seeing a number of CLPs recently expressing lack of confidence on some Blairite MPs. Do we know roughly the numbers of such MP/CLP mismatches? This will assist us in gauging the scale of de-selections we have to carry out – both in time and resources. That is, if they – the Blairites – can’t be incentivized to join May’s Grand Coalition.
Once we have distilled the above numbers, we can have an idea of the battle ahead – both within and without Labour – should a GE materialize.
Don’t have time to crunch the numbers at the moment, but only a handful of Labour MPs are expected to vote with May. There is a right-wing hard core of 60 or so MPs, but few of those are likely to switch sides on this vote, certainly none who hope to be selected again
And on the subject of #ToryTrophyHunters this morning Sajid Javid claimed he’d been bullied in school and said he was seeking a meeting with the bullied Syrian boy on the video. The distinction being the kid survived a war zone and crossed continents to what he thought was safety, only to have his deepest fears rekindled by the neo-neanderthal offspring of a convicted criminal racist.
The family have a good lawyer and will not fall into this hostile, Tory trap.
#HostileEnvironment