Who will rid us of this turbulent priest?

No one, hopefully...

The archbishop's role in the HoL, along with representatives of other faith groups, is to act as a moral filter for our system of government and speak out on the issues of the day - he's therefore doing his job - those who don't like this therefore either need to change the HoL and its membership or join the debate on the substance of his comments.

But is he right?

The central claim is that the Coalition lacks a mandate for many of its policies, so is being undemocratic.

Does he have a case?

The mere fact that there was a hung parliament must mean that by defintion there was no clear mandate between the outgoing government and the two alternative propositions on offer @ the election - so there was no majority for radical change.

If you look closely at the LibDem manifesto on the question of the pace and depth of spending cuts and compare this to the Labour proposals, it is reasonable to conclude that there was a clear majority against the Conservative proposals on this main issue, which IMHO more than justfies his central economic policy critique.

OK - election over - hung parliament - what happens now?

Firstly can we reasonably assume that any policy NOT in either the Tory or LibDem manifestos by defintion does not have any mandate because it was never laid before the electorate. Secondly any policy explicitly opposed in either manifesto shouldn't be in the Coalition Agreement either, on the grounds that if either party opposed it, they should have vetoed or amended it during the negotiations.

So are there policies that fit these two criteria being implemented right now?

The answer is yes there are - lots of them - NHS reform, 50% discount on sentences, deep & rapid spending cuts, student fees - the list is long - so an objective audit of the situation shows that Dr. Williams is quite right on the issue of policy mandates.

But we need to delve a bit deeper than he did - there are policies in the Coalition Agreement that ARE NOT IN EITHER MANIFESTO - where did the come from?

To understand this, you need to expose the reality of LibDem politics, and refer to the obscure publication "The Orange Book" - a manifesto of the Libertarian Right within the LibDems, advocating the sort of free market/freedom agenda policies of the Thatcherite era. The Orange Book policies were debated and roundly rejected by the LibDem Party and consigned to bthe dustbin of history - yet here they are, dusted off and write into the Coalition Agreement.

How can this be?

As soon as the hung parliament result became clear, the horsetrading started and Nick Clegg decided to go into coalition with David Cameron - he claims that the LibDems therefore couldn't implement their manifesto, which gave him the right to negotiate the Coalition Agreement's content - fair enough - but did Clegg go beyond the bounds of his role to negotiate within the bounds of the mandate implied in the content of his Party's manifesto?

It is my contention that Clegg effectively put his own Party's manifesto in the bin, dusted off the Orange Book and used the mechanism of the Agreement negotiations to effectively stage a coup d'etat to impose policies roundly rejected by his own party and therefore never laid before the electorate at all in his Party's manifesto.

Dr, Williams' assertion that what has gone on is profoundly undemocratic therefore seriously understates the level of political misconduct - to implement policies debated ad rejected by his own Party and actively opposed in its manifesto is ANTI-DEMOCRATIC - Nick Clegg deliberably allowed voters to think his Prty stood for an range of policies whilst actively seeking to do the exact opposite.

Therefore my assessment of Dr. Williams is that he significantly understates his case.

Can anybody understand what the drivelling old fool says? He doesn't seem to be able to compose a sentence that makes sense. This is the man who wants sharia law here. Well of course he does. Bring on the Archbishop of York. Like NOW!

Such a big fan!!!!Great to read the article (page 77) by the fantastic Victoria Coren!!! The Newstatesman need Victoria Coren to write more articles!!!!

After seeing the Victoria on 'Have I Got News For You', I think her joke about 'driving in the bus lines for £60, what a bargain!' 'I enjoy lunch too!'

I'm a big fan!!!

It is curious that NS readers, atheists to a man and a woman I would have thought, all genuflect before the head of the Church of England and fll over themselves saying what a good chap he is. Hang on, chaps andf chapesses, this is a sneke-oil salesman selling fiction as truth. Isn't he?

Rowan is right. Most politicians today are gangsters in suits.

The NS only seems to be making waves when Jason Cowley ISN'T editing...

Just pointing it out Jase, don't shoot the messenger...