Where's the P.M.? Shouldn't he be in view, not hiding away ?

Don’t you find it just a wee bit worrying that our PM’s concern was equally distributed between schools (hugely important both now and for the future of the country) and the trivial matter of a media-led non-issue of jingoistic songs?
The former issue is of great interest to me geekesse as a grandparent and an educationalist.
Sadly I have no knowledge of the songs being discussed but I am broad minded and tolerant enough to realise this is of interest to a large group of people. Maybe this is Boris' appeal in that he can address wide ranging intellectual issues while seeming to get down to frivolities.
I'd quite like to employ an applicant who picks up on the diverse mood of the workplace. My employees would need a soul as well as a brain.

Admittedly he isn't always spot on with the content of what he says because he relies heavily on advisors,

He makes it up as he goes along. Complete and utter ignorant bullshit and lies. Every single time...

Startling that people are quite happy for him to 'rely heavily on advisers'. Openly admitting that he's just a puppet.

Isn't a PM supposed to have a brain of their own and to be on top of their brief whenever they speak in public?

I'm finding it very strange that all these accusations of hiding, elusiveness, nowhere to be seen etc. generate more interest than if the guy were out on the streets every day, (which he is now doing)? Boris would need a 24 hour direct line to the nation if he were to comment on every single issue.

Sadly I have no knowledge of the songs being discussed

WHAT?

You've 'no knowledge' of 'Rule Britannia' and 'Land of Hope and Glory'?

Something smells very fishy here if that is true...

^You've 'no knowledge' of 'Rule Britannia' and 'Land of Hope and Glory'?

Something smells very fishy here if that is true.^

Nope * MaizieD*. I'm hopeless with patriotic songs, tone deaf too! I only know God save the Queen when everyone stands up.

I might be an expert on ichthyology though.

When an "educationalist" (whatever that might be) doesn't have some knowledge of these two songs I truly despair. You don't need to be able to sing to know the words.They are part of our culture.

I may be incorrect but I thought we are governed by The Cabinet. And then Parliament.

An educationalist is a teacher or someone who works in education.

The songs aren't "part of our culture", maybe you should research the history of these songs, which, btw are rarely sung outside a specific concert. I bet if you asked 100 people in the street about these songs 90 of them wouldn't have a clue. Never mind, thats another thread.
Johnson is getting a few photo ops in hard hat and high viz- I wonder if he has his own set made specially for the camera?Is it to get his picture in the paper so people think he's working?

maddyone

I may be incorrect but I thought we are governed by The Cabinet. And then Parliament.

It's a bit more subtle than that.

The 'government', i.e the body that decides policy and proposes legislation, rules the country but it is answerable to Parliament (which represents 'the people') and Parliament can overrule the government if it has a mind to do so.

As the government has a majority of the votes in parliament it is unlikely to be overruled, unless it tries to push through legislation which is felt by even its own MPs to be damaging, or just completely wrong. In that case they may be defeated because their own MPs vote against them in enough numbers as to destroy their majority.

Never lose sight of the principle that Parliament , the Legislature, is the sovereign body, not the Executive (the government)

The Executive rules on behalf of the monarch. It is the 'monarch in parliament'. Parliamentary sovereignty is meant to check any monarchical tyranny.

We fought a Civil War in the 17th C and executed the monarch to establish this principle. The current government is trying very hard to overturn it.

Never mind, thats another thread.

Do start another thread on it, vegansrock.

I'm interested in why you think that thy're not part of our culture.

Thanks Maizie for that detailed reply, very informative, for me anyway, as I’m a bear of very little brain, a bit like Paddington. So the Executive advises Parliament, is that right? But Parliament unlikely to be overruled in the case of a large majority. That bit I knew anyway.

So taking the simple issue of mask wearing. Obviously Parliament hasn’t voted on that, and yet we’re told we can be fined if we don’t wear one in a shop, up to £100. What I don’t understand then is how that is law without going to Parliament. Sorry if I’m being a bit thick, but maybe you can explain. Did I miss it, and it has gone to Parliament?

What I don’t understand then is how that is law without going to Parliament.

I can't remember whether mask wearing is mandatory or advisory. However, when legislation is passed it is recognised that it may need tidying up, or bits might need rejigging. If this was done though parliament it would mean a completely new Bill and going through all the stages of 'readings', 'committee', 'Lords' and 'royal assent' before really quite minor changes could be made.

So, something called a Statutory Instrument is used by the relevant government department to amend the legislation.

Massive amounts of our laws have never gone through the process of parliamentary scrutiny been amended/added by the use of Statutory Instruments.

This is not usually sinister but it does give an unscrupulous government a way to make changes to legislation which may not be approved by parliament.

It also means that people aren't always (in fact, very rarely are) aware of changes to the law unless a particular amendment gets some publicity.

So, if the wearing of masks is a legal requirement, the Coronavirus legislation will have been amended by Statutory Instrument to include the requirement to wear them.

Government, legislation, and the law is far more complex than most people know. I'm only a surface scratcher, really. It's what I remember from my degree...

Is this because we don’t have a written constitution, something that was being talked about during the last parliament (I think the Green Party raised the issue)?

I can't remember the exact wording, but there was emergency legislation in March (?), which allows the executive power over certain matters without parliamentary approval. At the time, some people were worried because it seemed as though it was one step towards a dictatorship, which in theory it could be. It was very similar in contact to the Nazis' Enabling Act, which at the time didn't seem that significant.

I must admit I don't think I've ever been called an educationalist.

I don't know all the words, but I could certainly hum along to "Jerusalem", "Land of Hope and Glory" and "Rule Britannia". Confession time - I don't even know the words to the national anthem.

Me neither growstuff -educationalist? , Any way I looked it up . It's someone who specialises in the theories and methods of education.
Reminds me of our take on our lecturers when I was in college- a development of GBS's saying- "Those who can, do, those who can't, teach" "Those who can't teach, teach teachers "

Well, most of our constitution is written, it just isn't all written down in one place.

The 'constitution' comprises a whole mass of legislation, treaties and customary practice, some of it dating back centuries.

There are definitive writings about it, such as Walter Bagehot's 19thC description of it and Erskine May's (also 19th C) exposition of parliamentary procedures and practice (which is constantly updated). Then there is a whole host of constitutional experts, legal and others, who write and advise on discrete elements of it..

Basically, the governing structure consists of the Executive, which represents the monarch in parliament and has the power to initiate legislation. The Legislature, which is parliament as a whole (Commons and Lords) and is the sovereign bod and can pass or strike down proposed legislation. Then there is the Judiciary who interpret the law, both statute,which parliament passes, or which has been developed over centuries (common)

The Rule of Law is a key element. This maintains that no-one is above the law (though I'm not altogether sure where the monarch stands in this) and we are all bound by the same law (not one rule for advisers and PM's fathers and another for the rest of us..)

Beyond that it is very complex

Here's a Wikipedia introduction

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom

Sorry, post above is in response to MayBee. It took a while to write...

I can't remember the exact wording, but there was emergency legislation in March (?), which allows the executive power over certain matters without parliamentary approval

Was that May's Withdrawal Act.2018? Henry VIII powers. I think they are more radical and far reaching than SIs.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_Instrument_(UK)

www.historyextra.com/period/tudor/what-are-henry-viii-powers/

As the Act is still in force I have no doubt that Cummings has an eye to its possibilities...

Aren’t this government trying to change the Rule of Law? I’m sure that was something that was mentioned at a time when it was also pointed out that they wanted to get rid of Public Health England.

MayBee70

Aren’t this government trying to change the Rule of Law? I’m sure that was something that was mentioned at a time when it was also pointed out that they wanted to get rid of Public Health England.

They want to stop people using judicial review 'for political reasons'.

Judicial review is where the Supreme Court is asked to look at an issue where a public body may not have acted according to the law. Our most well known recent example is the judicial review of the prorogation of parliament last autumn. Cummings is mad because the Supreme Court judged it to be unlawful. Now he wants all legal challenges to government action to be stopped.

This makes a complete mockery of the Rule of Law as it places the government above the law. Which means that they can do exactly what they want to do without anyone to stop them.

But no-one appears to be at all bothered about it because the MSM told them that judges were the enemy of the people. If Cummings gets his way we are well and truly lost.

However, this could also remove any qualms that people might have about overthrowing this government by other means than the ballot box.

Other than the ballot box would mean civil unrest, to succeed would mean the armed forces supporting the unrest?! Can't really imagine the government being arrested by the military still less the Queen as head of state being under house arrest in Windsor Castle!! Not sure the person in the street would put up with that! I certainly wouldn't and nor would anyone I know.

Oh, we wouldn't bother the Queen. As to the armed forces, I suppose it depends on how badly Cummings upsets them. He's got plans to shake them up, too... They might equally throw their lot in with the revolutionaries.

When you abolish the Law, Jabberwok ANYTHING could happen...

Fighting in the streets? You'd approve of that?!? I don't actually think the military would support civil unrest or support overthrowing a democratically elected government. Not very British and not very democratic!