Apologies for returning to a previous theme.
Any belief in democracy must be build on the basic principle of the right of a people to determine their own future.
Gordon Brown obviously believes in this when, discussing the situation in Iran, he says "It is for the Iranian people to decide their future in elections. "
If this is the case then surely what is 'right' for the Iranian people must also be 'right' for the British people. Perhaps Gordon Brown would then like to explain how his decision not to allow a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty - and on the question of our continued membership of the European Union - can be equated with the right of 'people to decide their own futures'.
If Gordon Brown believes, on the subject of transparency in regard to MP's expenses, that "...our first principle must be maximum transparency. The public must be able to hold us properly to account.", how then does he equate this with the creation of what will, in effect, be another unelected and unaccountable quango which will review each and every member's receipts?
Pontificating on the question of the continued imprisonment of Aung San Suu Kyi, Gordon Brown believes that "to continue to suspend the democracy that the Burmese people are entitled to is a gross abuse of human rights." In which case is not the refusal to debate our membership of the European Union and thus allowing a choice on said membership thereby suspending the democracy to which the British people are entitled, likewise not a 'gross abuse of our human rights'?
No doubt Messrs Cameron and Clegg would also like the opportunity to explain the contradictions