In all press statements and discussion, FG and Labour (and SF) trot out the line that the Government has no mandate to govern in the current situation and therefore there should be a general election. It is stated whatever the actual topic of debate and goes unchallenged by any media outlet.
I presume the intention is that it becomes accepted as fact by mere repetition (see "race to the bottom").
Maybe I'm wrong and have an overly innocent knowledge of democracy, but when a government is elected/formed, doesn't that mean they're the government for the full term? It doesn't matter what happens, whether it be disease, war, nuclear annihilation or dodgy economics, they're the Government.
Based on FG’s logic, if we agree there is no mandate, because times were better during the last election and FG get in following a new general election, does that not mean if the economy gets better under FG we have to have another election because FG now have no mandate to operate under a good economy?
I presume the intention is that it becomes accepted as fact by mere repetition (see "race to the bottom").
Maybe I'm wrong and have an overly innocent knowledge of democracy, but when a government is elected/formed, doesn't that mean they're the government for the full term? It doesn't matter what happens, whether it be disease, war, nuclear annihilation or dodgy economics, they're the Government.
Based on FG’s logic, if we agree there is no mandate, because times were better during the last election and FG get in following a new general election, does that not mean if the economy gets better under FG we have to have another election because FG now have no mandate to operate under a good economy?