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.