Skip to main content

No, Mr President!

Boris Johnson is learning the hard way that the United Kingdom is not a republic, and he is not a President.  In recent decades Prime Ministers have increasingly acted as if they hold all the power.  It is difficult to pinpoint precisely when this took hold.  Prime Ministers have different styles.  Harold Wilson, in general, acted with his cabinet, who at times inflicted defeat on him.   Even Margaret Thatcher consulted her cabinet colleagues, although certainly she towered above everyone and stopped listening.

Tony Blair adopted a more presidential style of governance, which led to one of the more trenchant criticisms of the decision to go to war in Iraq.  But Prime Ministers are  'first among equals'.  Of course, they hold power through the patronage they wield.  They appoint and dismiss ministers, and through the leader of the house, they control the legislative agenda.  

Taking control of the House of Commons, MPs have reminded Boris Johnson that he governs only with their support and confidence.    Boris lost that confidence, yet he is trapped in a stand-off between parliament and his office.  Boris goes on acting as if he is a President.  He is not.  Mr Johnson is Her Majesty's First Lord of the Treasury and Prime Minister, and in that capacity, he serves the will of parliament exercised through the Queen's consent.   Thus he should now obey the law passed by Parliament requiring the Prime Minister to seek an extension to article 50.   If he cannot do so, then he must stand down and make way for a Prime Minister who is willing to do so.

No, Boris is not Mr President.  Our executive is appointed from and is answerable to parliament.  Boris needs now to understand that.  The game is up.  If he would rather be "dead in a ditch" than obey the law of the land, then he should now choose his ditch.  The United Kingdom has a parliamentary democracy.  We are all subject to laws passed by parliament.  Mr Johnson is no exception.   He should stop strutting around on his election trail and start seriously negotiating our exit from the EU.  Trying to get his way by stealth and deception is no way to run the country.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As