"Jonathan Freedland makes some very valid points in his Guardian piece today but in the midst is this:
More than a million Britons took to the streets to oppose the war. Of course, governments should not bend to every public whim. But when close to a majority of the country reaches a settled will on a matter of great import, that surely shouldn't be ignored. Yet the war went ahead anyway, endorsed by a large majority in the House of Commons. Whatever your views on the Iraq question, this surely amounted to a democratic failure: the system did not fully reflect the views of the people it is meant to represent.
To which blogger Laban Tall replies: Apparently a large majority in the House of Commons amounts to 'democratic failure'. I think it's called representative democracy, Jonathan - we've had it for some years now.
Well, I think Freedland might actually have had a point if a large majority of the country was against war. The Spanish election showed what happens to a government when 70-80% of a country opposed the war but the government went ahead with supporting it anyway.
But as Freedland himself admits, in Britain, the Stopper position was backed by only close to a majority of the country. Close to a majority being presumably, slightly less than a majority.
Or in other words, a slight minority."