To be really enjoying Boris Johnson's downfall Part 2

[ClaudineClare]

A follow on thread from

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4457488-to-be-really-enjoying-boris-johnson-s-downfall?msgid=114425763#114425763

I know because Hansard records votes in parliament. Everyone can see which MPs are, or are not, voting for their party.

Don't be deliberately obtuse. How do you know precisely what the Whips may have been pressurising Wakefield and others about? And why are you ignoring the issue of how it would reflect incredibly badly on Johnson if his MPs are voting against the party?

@Florianus

Your tone is very strange, given that you are so deliberately missing the point. Boris Johnson was the man standing at the lectern telling people the rules.

Ah, we should blame the messenger, you think?

You mean this one @jgw1?

Trilley
Yet, as more than one person has pointed out, when you purport to correct the "errors" about who appoints the PPS and the party Whips, it was you who was in error, @Florianus. Any chance of you acknowledging that?

I was correct about the whips. The procedure is explained on many web pages, such as that of The Institute for Government:

The main political parties appoint MPs and Peers to ensure their colleagues tow the party line and abide by the instructions contained in the ‘whip’. Drawing on the name of the system, these MPs and Peers are called ‘whips’. The Labour and the Conservative parties both appoint around 14 whips, while the smaller parties have smaller whipping operations.

The whips, as I said are appointed by the political parties, not by the Prime Minister. He does, though, appoint a PPS - so I was wrong if I said otherwise.

Trilley
How do you know precisely what the Whips may have been pressurising Wakefield and others about?

Nobody knows that, of course, unless the alleged evidence is produced.

And why are you ignoring the issue of how it would reflect incredibly badly on Johnson if his MPs are voting against the party?

It's a non-issue. A minority of MPs have voted against their party throughout history.

@Florianus

Trilley Yet, as more than one person has pointed out, when you purport to correct the "errors" about who appoints the PPS and the party Whips, it was you who was in error, @Florianus. Any chance of you acknowledging that?

I was correct about the whips. The procedure is explained on many web pages, such as that of The Institute for Government:

The main political parties appoint MPs and Peers to ensure their colleagues tow the party line and abide by the instructions contained in the ‘whip’. Drawing on the name of the system, these MPs and Peers are called ‘whips’. The Labour and the Conservative parties both appoint around 14 whips, while the smaller parties have smaller whipping operations.

The whips, as I said are appointed by the political parties, not by the Prime Minister. He does, though, appoint a PPS - so I was wrong if I said otherwise.

You keep telling us that Conservative Whips are not appointed by the Prime Minister. You are wrong.

For example from the page about Mark Spencer on wikipedia.

"He was appointed Government Chief Whip of the House of Commons and Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury by Prime Minister Boris Johnson in 2019."

You mean this one @jgw1?

That's the one, but I didn't want to embarrass the poster by quoting it again.

Mark Spencer clearly believes he was appointed in order to work with Johnson:

twitter.com/mark_spencer/status/1228011684658372614

Trilley
Where? You claim that no-one gained anything financially, but as pointed out that isn't necessary for the facts of the offence to be established.

Why not look for yourself? I pointed out that the whips have, throughout history, threatened recalcitrant MPs with all manner of things, such as no promotion, no jollies to exotic places, and so on. Nobody over the last 250 years has claimed this to be a criminal offence, and I very much doubt that the police will want to get involved in all the potential legal arguments now. They tend to prefer, like Sir Patrick Vallance and Sir Chris Whitty, to steer well clear of politics.

@jgw1

You mean this one @jgw1?

That's the one, but I didn't want to embarrass the poster by quoting it again.

You’re obviously much kinder than me! 😉

@Florianus

Trilley Where? You claim that no-one gained anything financially, but as pointed out that isn't necessary for the facts of the offence to be established.

Why not look for yourself? I pointed out that the whips have, throughout history, threatened recalcitrant MPs with all manner of things, such as no promotion, no jollies to exotic places, and so on. Nobody over the last 250 years has claimed this to be a criminal offence, and I very much doubt that the police will want to get involved in all the potential legal arguments now. They tend to prefer, like Sir Patrick Vallance and Sir Chris Whitty, to steer well clear of politics.

No need for the sigh, @Florianus. None of this demonstrates in any way that "this is unlikely to be a simple case of blackmail". Wragg is an experienced MP, he is likely to know better than you the difference between normal pressure from Whips and blackmail.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/23/relative-unknown-mark-spencer-becomes-chief-whip

“It is perhaps the toughest job in Boris Johnson’s new government, but the new prime minister has handed the role of chief whip not to one of his campaign enforcers such as Gavin Williamson or James Wharton, but to a relative unknown, Mark Spencer.”

I really do recommend the Matthew Parris article about whips if you can get behind the paywall

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/if-whips-have-gone-rogue-the-pm-is-to-blame-wcm2w2dlx

Whips work well when they are inclusive.

There is a difference between cajoling an MP (suggesting they might get a place in cabinet) and threatening cutting constituency funding. The latter being considered a step beyond normal boundaries.

Earlier I rather took the messenger shaped ball and ran with it. But the suggestion that the PM was merely a spokesperson and not ultimately responsible for the actions of his or her government is palpably nonsense abd is simply intended to deflect.

But given I (and others on this thread) have been accused of posting inanities, and of being idiots and liars what would I know.

Trilley
None of this demonstrates in any way that "this is unlikely to be a simple case of blackmail". Wragg is an experienced MP, he is likely to know better than you the difference between normal pressure from Whips and blackmail.

I suggest you read Jack Straw's biography. In it he recalls, as a new, young MP that the Labour Chief Whip simply grabbed him hard by the testicles and said something along the lines of You are not considering voting against the party, I hope?

I'm afraid the way that whips work is nothing like normal employment and, as I said, I doubt that the police will want to have anything more to do with it than they did with Cummings' flight to Durham or parties at No.10.

Notonthestairs:
Earlier I rather took the messenger shaped ball and ran with it. But the suggestion that the PM was merely a spokesperson and not ultimately responsible for the actions of his or her government is palpably nonsense abd is simply intended to deflect.

But that was not the suggestion, was it? Again, you fail to reflect truth.

The suggestion was that health legislation is created by parliament and health advice by cabinet, and in both cases the prime minister was, in his press conferences merely reading out what was agreed.

There was no "suggestion that the PM was merely a spokesperson and not ultimately responsible for the actions of his or her government". That was something you have invented. Shame.

I suggest you read Jack Straw's biography. In it he recalls, as a new, young MP that the Labour Chief Whip simply grabbed him hard by the testicles and said something along the lines of You are not considering voting against the party, I hope?

If that happened today the MP concerned could make a successful complaint for assault, possibly sexual assault, and would probably be taken seriously.

Times have moved on and many things that were tolerated forty years ago are not now. If whips do still act like this, they need to be dealt with.

From what I read about who appoints the whips,

"Whips are MPs appointed by each political party in Parliament. Their roles include supporting the ministerial teams in the chamber and committees, keeping backbench MPs informed of the business going through Parliament each day and working with the Leader of the House, to negotiate to arrange the day to day business in Parliament."

The suggestion was that health legislation is created by parliament and health advice by cabinet, and in both cases the prime minister was, in his press conferences merely reading out what was agreed

Do you think these laws were passed without his express approval & input or was he at a party and missed the cabinet discussion?

@Florianus

Notonthestairs: Earlier I rather took the messenger shaped ball and ran with it. But the suggestion that the PM was merely a spokesperson and not ultimately responsible for the actions of his or her government is palpably nonsense abd is simply intended to deflect.

But that was not the suggestion, was it? Again, you fail to reflect truth.

The suggestion was that health legislation is created by parliament and health advice by cabinet, and in both cases the prime minister was, in his press conferences merely reading out what was agreed.

There was no "suggestion that the PM was merely a spokesperson and not ultimately responsible for the actions of his or her government". That was something you have invented. Shame.

Oh there was definitely a poster this morning suggesting that the Prime Minister was a messenger and we shouldn't shoot the messenger for reading out messages. They posted at 10.15.54 if you want to check. The same poster was suggesting that the Prime Minister had no responsibility for either the PPS or Chief whip that were appointed by the Prime Minister. It was a very odd invention that is for sure.

It’s such a shame the Matthew Parris article is behind a paywall - it won’t let you copy and paste it either. You’d find it very illuminating @Florianus.

@Hawkins001

From what I read about who appoints the whips,

"Whips are MPs appointed by each political party in Parliament. Their roles include supporting the ministerial teams in the chamber and committees, keeping backbench MPs informed of the business going through Parliament each day and working with the Leader of the House, to negotiate to arrange the day to day business in Parliament."

Indeed, I don't think anyone is disputing that.
The only thing that some seem to struggling to grasp is that it is the leader of the party who appoints the whips for each party.

As far as I know the only role within parliament that leaders of any of the parties do not appoint is the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party which is directly elected by the members.

Oh there was definitely a poster this morning suggesting that the Prime Minister was a messenger and we shouldn't shoot the messenger for reading out messages. They posted at 10.15.54 if you want to check
The same poster was suggesting that the Prime Minister had no responsibility for either the PPS or Chief whip that were appointed by the Prime Minister. It was a very odd invention that is for sure

Bit harsh, its possible indeed probable that @Florianus wasn't told what a PM does in the UK.

@Hawkins001

From what I read about who appoints the whips,

"Whips are MPs appointed by each political party in Parliament. Their roles include supporting the ministerial teams in the chamber and committees, keeping backbench MPs informed of the business going through Parliament each day and working with the Leader of the House, to negotiate to arrange the day to day business in Parliament."

Probably so, but I still don't think the police will want to get embroiled in politics.

Probably so, but I still don't think the police will want to get embroiled in politics.

Tough. Because if a crime is suspected it’s their job, it’s literally what they’re for.

@Alexandra2001

The suggestion was that health legislation is created by parliament and health advice by cabinet, and in both cases the prime minister was, in his press conferences merely reading out what was agreed

Do you think these laws were passed without his express approval & input or was he at a party and missed the cabinet discussion?

In all likelihood Johnson was one of the hundreds of MPs who voted on the legislation. They were not, however, "his rules" as some try to claim.

@Blossomtoes

Probably so, but I still don't think the police will want to get embroiled in politics.

Tough. Because if a crime is suspected it’s their job, it’s literally what they’re for.

And did you not notice the result of the police's investigations into the breaking of Covid laws by Dominic Cummings?