This is interesting

David Cameron and George Osborne led the way in the UK when, without an electoral mandate, they secured power

From guess who?

Yup, opening of his new book.

I do wonder whether he actually knows how the UK electoral system works.

Those who can command a majority of the elected members of the House of Commons have an electoral mandate. That\’s how it works. That\’s the only way it works: called representative democracy I believe?

18 thoughts on “This is interesting”

  1. “without an electoral mandate”

    The retired accountant from Wandsworth doesn’t approve of them, so they don’t have a mandate?

    Just like tax not owed according to the law of the land becomes tax owed when Ritchie says it does?

    Quite the authoritarian personality, this guy. Is his book called “My Struggle”?

  2. I wonder if he has complained about the new Italian PM not having an electoral mandate, and has been demanding that Berlusconi is reinstated?

    (Steve, wonderful)

  3. No, you pedants. Cameron and Osborne have no mandate, only the coalition does. The economical direction is straight from them, the LibDems did not have the policies in their manifesto.

    Gordon Brown had the mandate because that’s how it works, yeah? You don’t vote for a person do you?

    No one voted for a Tory attack on public spending, but that’s what we’ve got.

    So shut up with your dipshittedness.

  4. Arnald, the LibDems promised “savage cuts” before the election.

    If anything, the lack of democratic mandate is that the cuts aren’t deep enough.

  5. @Arnald:

    “No one voted for a Tory attack on public spending”

    Were you asleep throughout the entire 2010 election ?

    “Cuts worse than Thatcher’s” was Darling’s commitment.

    “Savage cuts” from the Lib Dems.

  6. By year, % of votes won by elected govt:

    1997: 43% (Labour)
    2001: 41% (Labour)
    2005: 35% (Labour)
    2010: 59% (Con/Lib Coalition)

    “no mandate” my left bollock.

  7. >Cameron and Osborne have no mandate, only the coalition does.

    Arnald, look up ‘metonymy’ in your dictionary, there’s a good twunt. Then fuck off.

  8. “Gordon Brown had the mandate because that’s how it works, yeah? You don’t vote for a person do you?”

    Likewise Osbourne and Cameron.

  9. Arnaud, so I guess if you don’t support coalitions for the reason stated (on the grounds that the policies are bound to be modified in power), or governments that win power with a minority of the vote (as in the first past the post), what sort of government do you think is legitimate?

    Serious question, requiring a serious answer.

  10. Jinotin Peirss

    It’s Arnald, thanks.

    In the UK system, it’s the party that wins the most seats. A LibDem voter will not think they are being represented, but would acknowledge having lost if either of the other two had won outright. Similarly, ask any proper Tory and they will tell you what an affront it is to have LibDems trying to modulate policy.

    No one votes for a coalition. They do vote for a party to be first past the post. Obviously one could argue all day about the mechanics of elections and reform, most notably low turn-outs, but the statement that there was no mandate for CamBorne’s economic idiocy is therefore correct, whereas an attack on Brown’s leadership is incorrect.

  11. @Arnald
    As I recall, the Tories won the most seats, which appears to qualify them as the winners of the election by your definition above.

    Osborne and Cameron have then implemented policy as promised (not significantly different from what Darling would have done, but that’s by-the-by).

    So if the economic policies are predominantly Tory in origin and by your definition the Tories won, aren’t you rather contradicting yourself ?

  12. “In the UK system, it’s the party that wins the most seats.”

    The above statement is factually incorrect. As the current situation shows, that is not necessarily the case.

    “No one votes for a coalition. They do vote for a party to be first past the post.”

    On that basis, no one votes for an economic policy either. In fact people vote for an MP, perhaps once every five years, and the government is what results from all the votes. It is utterly selective and inconsistent to claim that a PM has a mandate, but that an economic policy does not.

  13. “In the UK system, it’s the party that wins the most seats.”

    Yes it is wrong! FPTP is what I meant, obviously.

  14. I thought I would do you the courtesy of listening to want you said, rather than interpreting what I might have thought you meant.
    But that is wrong too, we don’t always have FPTP, as the current situation shows. We get to vote for a local parliamentary representative and that is it. Some people may believe they are in fact voting for a party, but that is their mistake.

    We don’t vote for a PM, and we don’t vote for an economic policy. It is inconsistent therefore to claim that our system confers a mandate to the PM, (who is not voted for), but not to a economic policy (which is not voted for).

  15. “In the UK system, it’s the party that wins the most seats.”

    Strictly speaking only when they have a majority of seats. If they don’t the Queen/King may ask the leader of the party with the most number of seats to form a Government. If that leader then can’t form a majority and loses a no confidence vote there is nothing to stop the Queen asking the leader of the second biggest party to form a Government ie a coalation.

    This could quite conceivably have happened at the last election when everyone expected the LibDems to be the natural allies of labour to form “progressive*” alliance, or what you might call an anybody but the Tories alliance.

    *In newspeak progressive really means conservative, especially when applied NHS and welfare .

  16. Murphy and Arnald may have point in their alternative reality – only their left-wing ideologues may have a mandate from a minority of the electorate: conservatives need to get support from 100% of the entire electorate (including those who have died between the drawing up of the electoral register and the poll) in order to have a mandate to recognise the Queen’s official birthday

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *