Wednesday, 15 June 2011

British constitution Key Stage 1 sylabus confirmed

Last week I commented on Rowan William's distorted view of the Constitution, this week I find the the learned Philip Goldenberg has made the same point in a letter to Independent today. It is good to have the blog's interpretation confirmed!

I have no problem with the Archbishop of Canterbury saying what he did, and indeed, as a Liberal Democrat, I have some sympathy with his critique of the way in which the Health and Education Secretaries have launched policy initiatives significantly beyond the Coalition Agreement.

But I do have a problem with some of your correspondents who have sought to delegitimise the Coalition Government on the basis that "nobody voted for it".

Under the British constitution, we elect a parliament, not a government, let alone a prime minister. If for once a general election under our woeful electoral system produces a genuinely representative parliament, in that no party has an overall majority, then the Queen's government has to be carried on, and a parliamentary majority created to support it, whether by formal coalition or a different relationship. So a coalition between two different parties, with a coalition agreement as to policy which synthesises their two manifestos, is beyond peradventure constitutionally legitimate.

Where those two parties between them received nearly 60 per cent of the votes cast, it's rather more legitimate than a single-party government with 35 per cent of the votes cast.

Philip Goldenberg

Woking, Surrey

1 comment:

  1. If his grace is so worked up about parliamentary democracy not being direct democracy I'm surprised he isn't on record complaining about John Major and Gordon Brown becoming Prime Minister without general elections, or for that matter every single cabinet appointment.

    I suspect this is just the Dunning-Kruger effect at work; the man is a highly esteemed theologian so is under the delusion that his political views are worth listening to. Still, lucky we have folks with such a tight grasp of constitutional issues voting in the House of Lords.


I am happy to address most contributions, even the drunken ones if they are coherent, but I am not going to engage with negative sniping from those who do not have the guts to add their names or a consistent on-line identity to their comments. Such postings will not be published.

Anonymous comments with a constructive contribution to make to the discussion, even if it is critical will continue to be posted. Libellous comments or remarks I think may be libellous will not be published.

I will also not tolerate personation so please do not add comments in the name of real people unless you are that person. If you do not like these rules then start your own blog.

Oh, and if you persist in repeating yourself despite the fact I have addressed your point I may get bored and reject your comment.

The views expressed in comments are those of the poster, not me.