"So it would be right actually to hold a general election as soon as is reasonably possible, because the British people thought they were electing Tony Blair. He's off. Someone new is coming. They need a mandate."Well, if they thought that, they're wrong - unless they live in Sedgefield. Prime Ministers don't get 'mandates' from the British people, they get them from Parliament. And it's not to lead, it's to govern. Do we really have to have another Prime Minister that doesn't get any of this?
He could brush up on some [recent] history too. I seem to remember someone called John Major who was 'without a mandate', according to David Cameron's criterion. The good thing about John Major is that no-one could ever accuse him of leading anything.
Yes very true, the fact - that Cameron seems oblivious too - is that it is the business of the Labour Party to decide who should be Prime Minister.
ReplyDeleteAnd does Cameron not remember "Vote Blair, get Brown"?
ReplyDeleteI am very tired of the Englishirazzi chirping on about this. Your point is well put. I reckon if Cameron really feels this way, he should have a manifesto to break up the UK. That way he may get some seats in Scotland and will almost certainly win the next election. He can then spend the next 10 years managing the process and implementing the other parts of his agenda.
ReplyDelete