-
I'm not sure I follow this.
Apologies, I wasn't really making a point, just a sideways glance at the gun control debate in the US which doesn't seem to be a good example of "things change".
I'm not sure this is about protest votes.
Perhaps I've misunderstood Blair's point. In many constituencies, there is a genuine run off between two candidates. If you choose to vote for someone else, you are likely to end up favouring one of the other two candidates.
I genuinely don't think there are any mental gymnastics required to support Labour's mandate. It's as valid as any other majority govt we have had, and you could argue considerably more valid than those govts which changed leader and direction within their term.
ChasnotRobert-
A mandate is a very fluffy concept, so I'll say Labour absolutely have the legitimate right to govern (obviously legally, but also in terms of having a mandate from the people). They won (thankfully!). But I think it's problematic to claim that the size of their win is, in actual fact, representative of the wishes of the electorate because they knew that their votes wouldn't be counted, and therefore, are de facto votes for Labour. I don't think that's, strictly speaking, a particularly democratic perspective.
lol. oops.
I'm not sure I follow this.
I'm not sure this is about protest votes. It's the position that any vote that isn't for an expected winner (the presumed knowledge of which is already a democratically problematic premise) is also an implicit vote for the winner. It's intellectual gymnastics to support Labour's mandate.