Mullardman
Moderately extreme...
Nothing any Government does, or does not do, relies on tacit consent. The elected Government has explicit consent to implement its policies.
NO Govt. has explicit consent to steal from those who voted for it.
Nothing any Government does, or does not do, relies on tacit consent. The elected Government has explicit consent to implement its policies.
That's a tad oversimplified, I think. There is explicit consent from (usually) a minority of the electorate, and tacit consent from the rest who respect the rule that the winning party gets to do its stuff. There is also the question, as Mull mentions, of whether explicit consent is 'consent by any means' or whether there are limits on what the public would permit a government to do in pursuit of its manifesto policies. And there are policies which weren't in the manifesto, or were buried, or merely implied, in the manifesto. Explicit consent for those is less clear, I'd say. And there are policies which are anathema to those who voted for other parties. Assuming tacit consent there would be unwise.Nothing any Government does, or does not do, relies on tacit consent. The elected Government has explicit consent to implement its policies.
Which is as good a reason as any for wingeing on a social media platform, IMHO.“Silence is sometimes an argument of Consent” (Hobbes)
Well, it’s quite easy actually- text your list to Boris and he’ll see what he can get.NO Govt. has explicit consent to steal from those who voted for it.
So there are reasonable limits to the consent.
The more I drink about it, the more the Ken Loach expulsion seems a bit odd. As I understand it, Loach was expelled for refusing to “disown” groups who were supporters of Corbyn. This seems a bit McCarthyite.In fairness Ken Loach stands for something and has a functional moral compass. He clearly has no place in Labour. He had to go.