When is a mandate not a mandate? When it’s a plural …

Business Secretary Vince Cable has rejected the Archbishop of Canterbury’s suggestion that the coalition government did not have a mandate for the changes it was making. In response to Rowan Williams’ criticisms he said “The two parties of the coalition got substantially more than half of the total vote at the last election… so I don’t think that criticism has much weight.” http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13713606

Mr. Cable seems incapable of understanding that the conflict concerning a mandate for their work stems from the fact that the Conservatives and Lib Dems had mandates that bore little resemblance to each other. The two mandates were ‘blended’ during the coalition’s genesis and even saw items added that were in neither of their mandates before the general election. To a great many people in this country, their position – the coalition parties that is – smacks more of political opportunism and less of following their individual mandates.

To be honest I don’t care if the Conservatives win the next election or not, because they always let themselves down at the end of the day by sticking to their hopeless addiction of serving the needs of the greedy minority. Where the Lib Dems are concerned, my money is on them being blown into oblivion for not sticking to their principles.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s