You are reading a single comment by @ and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
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.
ChasnotRobert
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".
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.