Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To be concerned about Boris Johnson's re-shuffle?

261 replies

AlexaShutUp · 13/02/2020 23:47

I'm no fan of either Boris Johnson or Sajid Javid, but I'm not really intending to make any political points in this thread. I'm resigned to having a right wing Tory government, but I am concerned about the shift in power that seems to have occurred, and by Johnson's apparent power grab.

Specifically, I'm concerned about the circumstances of Javid's departure from the Treasury. Javid's position was made untenable and I understand why he walked out, but surely it's much better for the country if the PM has some challenge from number 11, rather than a puppet that merely does their bidding - which I suspect Javid's successor will turn out to be.

A healthy democracy needs to have plenty of checks and balances with regard to those in power, and I'm worried that these are being eroded. Meanwhile, the power of unelected advisers like Dominic Cummings appears to be ever growing.

OP posts:
Alsohuman · 14/02/2020 15:28

Cummings terrifies me, it feels like he says “Jump” and Johnson asks “How high?”. This really isn’t the country I expected or want to grow old in.

LemonTT · 14/02/2020 15:31

You are confusing democracy and government. Johnson’s won the democratic vote and formed a government.

He did so because he demonstrated 2 things. He had priorities and he was decisive. Good governance needs both. Democratic processes remain in place to limit, challenge, and check the government

Stop being histrionic. His spending plans are the opposite of hard right politics.

Labour and Corbyn lost because they showed they were indecisive and couldn’t prioritise.

ZombieFan · 14/02/2020 15:32

I'm not a fan of dictatorships

That's what a lot of people said about parliament when it spent 3 years ignoring 17.4 millions votes. Fortunately on the 12th of December Boris brought back democracy to this country and we can move forward.

EngTech · 14/02/2020 15:33

Have we got a strong opposition party?

IMHO, nope as they are still infighting amongst themselves so doesn’t really matter what the incumbent Government does with an 80 set majority

Original poster
AlexaShutUp · 14/02/2020 15:39

Why exactly would a government with a majority of 80 need to close Parliament?

Why indeed? It's a fair question. And yet the PM and his Attorney General seem to think that it's important for them to have the ability to close down Parliament, and they want to limit the law's ability to stop them from doing so.

Does this not raise concerns for you about why, with a large majority, the PM thinks that he still might need to prorogue parliament in order to get things done? What could he possibly have in mind that might make him doubt that he can rely on the support of his own party?

OP posts:
CendrillonSings · 14/02/2020 15:43

Doesn’t raise any concerns with me at all. Mainly because I’m not a conspiracy theorist.

Justhow · 14/02/2020 15:55

Parliament did not ignore the 17.4 million voters, it was grappling with finding the best way forward and was trying to do its job.

Boris has not restored democracy, he is now going to implement the type of leave that many leavers did not in fact vote for.

ZombieFan · 14/02/2020 16:00

If parliament doesn't want to be shut down they can vote to stop it, which they chose not to do last time because they wanted to play games to try and stop Brexit.

Judges should not be allowed to invent laws to dictate to our elected parliament. Judges are not elected.

CendrillonSings · 14/02/2020 16:02

The 17.4 million Leave votes in the EU referendum is more votes than have ever voted for anything in British history.

The 43.6% of the vote won by the Tories in the 2019 GE is the highest share of the vote won by any party since Margaret Thatcher in 1979 - 40 years ago.

If you don’t think this is democratic, then no electoral decision in our lifetimes has been democratic either.

Dozer · 14/02/2020 16:05

Er, judges don’t “invent law”.

JudyCoolibar · 14/02/2020 16:10

Judges have never invented law.

Honestly, if people are supporting this sort of nonsense for reasons like that, I am seriously worried. Isn't it fairly obvious that if there isn't an independent judiciary then potentially the government is free to take all sorts of illegal actions without any way to stop them. You may not care now, but you will come the day they do something that directly impinges on you or people you love.

Remember Pastor Niemoller's speech:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

JudyCoolibar · 14/02/2020 16:13

He did so because he demonstrated 2 things. He had priorities and he was decisive

But the truth is that he won because he was and is prepared to lie and cheat to get what he wants, and because he appears decisive because he does what Cummings tells him to. How is government by Cummings in any way democratic?

AlanRickmanFanClub · 14/02/2020 16:20

At least there's one thing you can't blame on Boris or Cummings and that's the total ineptitude of Labour as an effective opposition.

goose1964 · 14/02/2020 16:22

The Tories only had 43% of the vore. So why do they have such a majority? First past the post is not democracy.

AlanRickmanFanClub · 14/02/2020 16:25

Presumably you wouldn't be saying that if your party had won?

SerendipityJane · 14/02/2020 16:39

There's an old (and mysterious never quoted by the winners) adage that democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding on dinner.

Whilst democracy may imply rule of the people, it's not generally used to imply jackboot of the people. And if we really want to go down the route of allowing rule by majority (which is most assuredly not democracy) then why not let the 51% of women tell the 49% of men what they'll be doing for the next five years ? After all "will of the people" and all that. 51 beats 49. Menz lost. Suck it up ....

Cinammoncake · 14/02/2020 16:40

If you don’t think this is democratic, then no electoral decision in our lifetimes has been democratic either.

The vote leave campaign included lies. If it had been an election it would have been deemed an illegal campaign.

It's amazing how people can have complete trust in 'Boris' to do what he sees fit when a) we don't live in a dictatorship and b) this is a man who has lied to his wife, and been sacked twice for lying. In fact he even said to the CBI recently that he was keeping Sajid Javid as chancellor.

Presumably you wouldn't be saying that if your party had won? I would be very concerned about authoritarian behaviour and trying to reduce the power of the legal system irrespective of party tbh. I think this goes beyond party. People only need to look at fairly recent history to see the dangers here.

Alsohuman · 14/02/2020 16:43

Doesn’t raise any concerns with me at all. Mainly because I’m not a conspiracy theorist

It would raise a hell of a lot of concerns for you if it wasn’t a Tory government doing it.

Original poster
AlexaShutUp · 14/02/2020 16:51

I think this goes beyond party.

This. I don't have a party that I feel able to support at the moment, but I would be concerned by any party seeking to concentrate power in the hands of a few individuals and to limit the powers of the independent judiciary. I don't care who they are or what they stand for. It isn't a good way to govern.

OP posts:
Notonthestairs · 14/02/2020 16:56

"Judges should not be allowed to invent laws to dictate to our elected parliament. Judges are not elected."

Legislation is drafted by government lawyers (following instructions from Government) which is then scrutinised and passed (or not) in Parliament and then passed on to HoL for the same. If you'd had even a passing interest in our "sovereignty" you'd know this.
Judges aren't the problem here.

Pixxie7 · 14/02/2020 16:57

I also share your concerns it seems like we are heading for a dictatorship.

SerendipityJane · 14/02/2020 16:59

If you'd had even a passing interest in our "sovereignty" you'd know this.

Part of the problem may be textbooks from the 50s which defined sovereignty as "the right to spout bollocks".

I think someone rediscovered them behind the slide rules and log tables.

The same textbooks which spoke about a womans place being in the home.

MarchDaffs · 14/02/2020 17:04

Johnson got a majority because first past the post artificially created one for him based on a minority of votes. It's possible the people voting for him wanted this approach, but by the same token the majority who picked someone else evidently weren't willing to vote in support of it.

Cinammoncake · 14/02/2020 17:08

Yes and he's saying again today it's the people's government which I find chilling. Why does he keep saying this. Does he think other governments have not been. Are people who didn't vote for him not the people now

CendrillonSings · 14/02/2020 17:10

It would raise a hell of a lot of concerns for you if it wasn’t a Tory government doing it.

If Parliament is prorogued, then nothing gets done. No legislation can be passed, so it’s hardly a brilliant step for a wannabe dictator to take, especially one who already has a large majority allowing them to do what they like anyway.