Comments on: The source of Conroy’s mandate and how he’s abused it. Part 1 http://blog.websinthe.org/2009/03/15/the-source-of-conroys-mandate-and-how-hes-abused-it/ Kieran Salsone: Freelance writer, blogger, cartoonist and content generator. Sun, 31 Jan 2010 10:02:27 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Neil McAliece http://blog.websinthe.org/2009/03/15/the-source-of-conroys-mandate-and-how-hes-abused-it/comment-page-1/#comment-285 Neil McAliece Sun, 15 Mar 2009 01:20:15 +0000 http://blog.websinthe.org/?p=560#comment-285 @Robert.... I think you are right. (..."won the election and formed a government, the democratic process had given that government a carte blanche mandate. It is likely that Conroy, and others, in the Rudd government who use the word are misusing it in the same way.") Logically though, you can never claim that everyone that voted for you did so in full support of every policy you put forth. It's a bit of a stretch to suggest a mandate for a policy that was updated 5 days before an election and never appeared on their web page of list of official policies. Lets say Labor decide to drop a nuclear weapon on Tasmania 20 days before the next federal election. The Libs have a policy buried somewhere that bans eating ice cream in public. No doubt as to which party would win, but does the Liberal Party really have a mandate for the ice cream ban? It's time for politicians to stop using the word mandate like it's the same as the word referendum. @Robert…. I think you are right. (…"won the election and formed a government, the democratic process had given that government a carte blanche mandate. It is likely that Conroy, and others, in the Rudd government who use the word are misusing it in the same way.")

Logically though, you can never claim that everyone that voted for you did so in full support of every policy you put forth. It's a bit of a stretch to suggest a mandate for a policy that was updated 5 days before an election and never appeared on their web page of list of official policies.

Lets say Labor decide to drop a nuclear weapon on Tasmania 20 days before the next federal election. The Libs have a policy buried somewhere that bans eating ice cream in public. No doubt as to which party would win, but does the Liberal Party really have a mandate for the ice cream ban?

It's time for politicians to stop using the word mandate like it's the same as the word referendum.

]]> By: Robert Hook http://blog.websinthe.org/2009/03/15/the-source-of-conroys-mandate-and-how-hes-abused-it/comment-page-1/#comment-284 Robert Hook Sun, 15 Mar 2009 01:07:36 +0000 http://blog.websinthe.org/?p=560#comment-284 I think that the concept of a mandate has been muddied and distorted by the previous Howard regime, which frequently threw the word around with the incorrect assertion that having won the election and formed a government, the democratic process had given that government a carte blanche mandate. It is likely that Conroy, and others, in the Rudd government who use the word are misusing it in the same way. It is a seductive argument for the government of the day to make, as it deflects from any analysis or consideration of the extent of popular democratic support for the government of the day. I do not need to tell you that it requires at most a bare majority of popular votes across the nation (or indeed, potentially not even that, depending how preferences and seats fall out) for one side or the other to form a government. As we lurch further towards a presidential style of government, with a distinct executive branch lodged in the PM's office, "mandate" becomes a comforting blanket to wrap around dubious regulation and decisions: "we won the election, therefore we have been given a mandate to..." I think that the concept of a mandate has been muddied and distorted by the previous Howard regime, which frequently threw the word around with the incorrect assertion that having won the election and formed a government, the democratic process had given that government a carte blanche mandate. It is likely that Conroy, and others, in the Rudd government who use the word are misusing it in the same way.

It is a seductive argument for the government of the day to make, as it deflects from any analysis or consideration of the extent of popular democratic support for the government of the day. I do not need to tell you that it requires at most a bare majority of popular votes across the nation (or indeed, potentially not even that, depending how preferences and seats fall out) for one side or the other to form a government. As we lurch further towards a presidential style of government, with a distinct executive branch lodged in the PM's office, "mandate" becomes a comforting blanket to wrap around dubious regulation and decisions: "we won the election, therefore we have been given a mandate to…"

]]>