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

@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.

It then depends on if it's in the public interest I believe too,

Alexandra2001:
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

But the claim is that someone posted that the Prime Minister is nothing more than a messenger who reads out messages.

That was a lie. It was NOT said that he was nothing more than a messenger.

Should I be kind and just point out that you (like many here) need to read messages more carefully? Or should I be more ruthless and report you for deliberately misquoting what I wrote?

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.

Can I just check something?

The decision to invade Iraq in 2003 wasn't Tony Blair's because he was only Prime Minister at the time, he was just one of hundreds of MPs who voted on it.

He has been so unfairly vilified since then, when it really wasn't much to do with him.

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

mmmm whilst that is also true, these were Govt 'bills not private member ones, so are you now saying Johnson wasn't involved in these? he stepped back to being a backbencher again - a rather bizarre state of affairs where the biggest threat to this country since WW2 and the PM wasn't heading up cabinet.....

Presumably too, he has little or nothing in the decision to relax restrictions.

You literally described him as a messenger and earlier said he had limited authority!

@Florianus Your muddled again, i didn't write any of the quote you attribute to me.

It then depends on if it's in the public interest I believe too,

And above all it depends, as the Met has already stated, if there is evidence of the allegation.

(I was pleased to see that they differentiate between an allegation and evidence, unlike some who seem to have a poor grasp of English)

Ok, @Florianus can you help me understand, because as you know I find it quite difficult.

Boris Johnson as Prime Minister is not responsible for
a) the work and actions of the PPS who he appointed and is the civil service he works closely with
b) the chief whip who he appointed and works closely with to ensure the governments business smoothly gets through the House of Commons.
c) the business of the government in the House of Commons including what is in legislation
d) the decisions of the Cabinet, all of whom he appointed
e) the public health messages of the government in a pandemic that he just reads out.

Have I got all of that correct?
Have I missed out anything he is not responsible for?

Other than reading out messages the content of which are not his responsibility, what is he responsible for?

Nope @Florianus You are either back peddling or you explained your self using a poor choice of words.

*Yes, IN THE CONTEXT OF READING OUT COVID INFORMATION

Really, having to explain that you need to take account of context to understand a message is like teaching a class of 8 year olds. I had no idea that such a proportion of MN users are so naive that things have to be constantly explained before they understand.*

Could the messages that Boris reads out be just as effectively delivered by an 8 year old? Some of them can read really quite well.

The Government proposed the legislation. It would have gone through cabinet and been approved by the PM. The whips then whip and with a majority you can pass pretty much what you like. (Unless the Lords chew it up).

The buck stops with the PM, it always has.

[quote Alexandra2001]@Florianus Your muddled again, i didn't write any of the quote you attribute to me.[/quote]
The quote is from the message you posted at 17:09:07, in which you asked me "Do you think these laws were passed without his express approval & input or was he at a party and missed the cabinet discussion?"

If that is not the message to which you refer, you need to be more precise in your complaint.

@Notonthestairs

The Government proposed the legislation. It would have gone through cabinet and been approved by the PM. The whips then whip and with a majority you can pass pretty much what you like. (Unless the Lords chew it up).

The buck stops with the PM, it always has.

Oh, in that case let's do away with parliament and the cabinet and live under the dictatorship that you seem to imagine.

The buck stops with the PM, it always has

Unless, of course it has to stop at the people working directly alongside him, because his sorry fat arse needs saving.

Other than reading out messages the content of which are not his responsibility, what is he responsible for?

Out of the things you list he is not responsible for the business of government in the Commons - that is the responsibility of Jacob Rees-Mogg. And neither does the P< have a veto over cabinet. I have already pointed out that health legislation is the responsibility of parliament. As I have already said, we don't have a dictatorship in the UK.

I don't imagine a dictatorship. I described the system in place.

@Notonthestairs

The Government proposed the legislation. It would have gone through cabinet and been approved by the PM. The whips then whip and with a majority you can pass pretty much what you like. (Unless the Lords chew it up).

The buck stops with the PM, it always has.

No, the PM doesn't get to approve or veto cabinet decisions. To quote the Institute for Government:

The cabinet is the senior decision-making body in government. As described by the Cabinet Manual, the cabinet is "the ultimate arbiter of all government policy" and "decisions made at cabinet and cabinet committee level are binding on all members of the government."

Got it?

@Florianus

Other than reading out messages the content of which are not his responsibility, what is he responsible for?

Out of the things you list he is not responsible for the business of government in the Commons - that is the responsibility of Jacob Rees-Mogg. And neither does the P< have a veto over cabinet. I have already pointed out that health legislation is the responsibility of parliament. As I have already said, we don't have a dictatorship in the UK.

So Jacob could introduce legislation to the House or otherwise organise business that went against what the Prime Minister wanted.

That is fascinating. I am quite familiar with how government and parliament worked under previous Prime Ministers and this is really quite a change. I wonder how Boris feels being so much more impotent than his predecessors.

Responsibilities
The Prime Minister is the leader of Her Majesty’s Government and is ultimately responsible for the policy and decisions of the government.
As leader of the UK government the Prime Minister also:
• oversees the operation of the Civil Servicee_ and government agencies
• chooses members of the government
• is the principal government figure in the House of Commons

www.gov.uk/government/ministers/prime-minister#:~:text=The%20Prime%20Minister%20is%20the,chooses%20members%20of%20the%20government

@Notonthestairs

Responsibilities The Prime Minister is the leader of Her Majesty’s Government and is ultimately responsible for the policy and decisions of the government. As leader of the UK government the Prime Minister also: • oversees the operation of the Civil Servicee_ and government agencies • chooses members of the government • is the principal government figure in the House of Commons

www.gov.uk/government/ministers/prime-minister#:~:text=The%20Prime%20Minister%20is%20the,chooses%20members%20of%20the%20government

I understand those responsibilities have changed with the current government, and perhaps the website hasn't been updated to reflect that?

@Florianus Nope, you attributed the quote to me, you placed my name in bold and then the quote - thats misrepresentation.

Your clearly not being serious with various musings and we are all missing your satire but keep going, we have no water atm so i'm bored.

As I have already said, we don't have a dictatorship in the UK.

We have a corrupt electoral system, a minority government, a lying PM and our MPs coerced into toeing the party line. Sounds like we're well on the way.

The Institute for Government (which is a think tank with charitable status, not a government department) that Flo quotes is of the opinion that Parliament lacks real power to hold the PM to account on the Sue Gray report.
www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/parliament-sue-gray-report

"Timing of publication of Gray’s findings will also be up to the prime minister. Whether parliament will be sitting at the time will be a consideration as it will change the dynamic of how it is discussed. Even if the full report is published, it is possible that it will be written in such neutral and carefully chosen language that Johnson’s supporters and his detractors can cite it equally in support of their own case."