CONservative government incompetence.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 ASCPFC  Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 24 Jan 22 8.56pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
General question, are minister's posts covered by employment laws? After all, they are removed or swapped around constantly. Get removed in a reshuffle and you can take a case? That sounds unlikely as it's just par for the course.
Red and Blue Army! |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
Mapletree  Croydon 24 Jan 22 11.01pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by ASCPFC
General question, are minister's posts covered by employment laws? After all, they are removed or swapped around constantly. Get removed in a reshuffle and you can take a case? That sounds unlikely as it's just par for the course. Members of Parliament (MPs) are not employed in any legal sense of the word. MPs are elected to their position by the electorate after putting themselves up as a candidate The Ministerial Code is the go to document. The Ministerial Code is a document setting out "rules" and standards for government ministers in the United Kingdom. Clearly it isn’t good enough But a protected characteristic is valid under any circumstances and discrimination is illegal.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 24 Jan 22 11.25pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by ASCPFC
General question, are minister's posts covered by employment laws? After all, they are removed or swapped around constantly. Get removed in a reshuffle and you can take a case? That sounds unlikely as it's just par for the course. If they were I think they would fall foul of all sorts of employment laws. Appointing ministers in in the gift of the PM for want of a better word its patronage and he can sack with no notice or compensation. They are policial appointments often done to appease the various wings of the party and little to do with ability. In other words the best people don't always get the jobs. In the real world the government would keep the employment tribunals busy if they covered MPs and ministers. So why can't anyone be appointed a minister? The argument is that you have to be an MP so you are accountable to the electorate but I am not sure that is true. There are plenty of MPs who are respected by their constituents but get sacked because the PM doesn't want them. So accountability to the voters isn't relevant its more about how the PM feels about you. The USA has an unelected cabinet that reports to the President I case we could have a similar process here which would allows the gene pool to be deepened, imagine a housing expert in charge of housing, a health expert in charge of the NHS / social care etc. Anyway it will not happen but an interesting idea.
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mapletree Croydon 24 Jan 22 11.26pm |
|
|---|---|
|
By the way, it is for the prime minister to make a judgement on whether actions by a minister amount to a breach of the ministerial code. He therefore stands in judgement of himself.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mapletree Croydon 24 Jan 22 11.29pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
If they were I think they would fall foul of all sorts of employment laws. Appointing ministers in in the gift of the PM for want of a better word its patronage and he can sack with no notice or compensation. They are policial appointments often done to appease the various wings of the party and little to do with ability. In other words the best people don't always get the jobs. In the real world the government would keep the employment tribunals busy if they covered MPs and ministers. So why can't anyone be appointed a minister? The argument is that you have to be an MP so you are accountable to the electorate but I am not sure that is true. There are plenty of MPs who are respected by their constituents but get sacked because the PM doesn't want them. So accountability to the voters isn't relevant its more about how the PM feels about you. The USA has an unelected cabinet that reports to the President I case we could have a similar process here which would allows the gene pool to be deepened, imagine a housing expert in charge of housing, a health expert in charge of the NHS / social care etc. Anyway it will not happen but an interesting idea. Members of the Lords may also take on roles as government ministers. In theory many become Lords or Ladies due to expertise.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mapletree Croydon 24 Jan 22 11.35pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
If they were I think they would fall foul of all sorts of employment laws. Appointing ministers in in the gift of the PM for want of a better word its patronage and he can sack with no notice or compensation. They are policial appointments often done to appease the various wings of the party and little to do with ability. In other words the best people don't always get the jobs. In the real world the government would keep the employment tribunals busy if they covered MPs and ministers. So why can't anyone be appointed a minister? The argument is that you have to be an MP so you are accountable to the electorate but I am not sure that is true. There are plenty of MPs who are respected by their constituents but get sacked because the PM doesn't want them. So accountability to the voters isn't relevant its more about how the PM feels about you. The USA has an unelected cabinet that reports to the President I case we could have a similar process here which would allows the gene pool to be deepened, imagine a housing expert in charge of housing, a health expert in charge of the NHS / social care etc. Anyway it will not happen but an interesting idea. The Government uses unelected advisors. That has a history of going well. Also working for the Government are Parliamentary Private Secretaries, backbenchers who act as an unpaid secretary to the minister to gain experience and credit with the party.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| mezzer Main Stand, Block F, Row 20 seat 1... 25 Jan 22 8.45am |
|
|---|---|
|
I'm surprised that we've not had the explanation over this birthday get together that the Downing Street staff were following protocol by singing Happy Birthday twice while washing their hands with Boris claiming that they couldn't have their cake, yet alone eat it.
Living down here does have some advantages. At least you can see them cry. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 25 Jan 22 9.45am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by mezzer
I'm surprised that we've not had the explanation over this birthday get together that the Downing Street staff were following protocol by singing Happy Birthday twice while washing their hands with Boris claiming that they couldn't have their cake, yet alone eat it. LOL very good.
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
BlueJay  UK 25 Jan 22 10.41am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by mezzer
I'm surprised that we've not had the explanation over this birthday get together that the Downing Street staff were following protocol by singing Happy Birthday twice while washing their hands with Boris claiming that they couldn't have their cake, yet alone eat it.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Beanyboysmd 25 Jan 22 2.26pm |
|
|---|---|
|
I dont get why the Tories are trying so hard to lie their way out of this. If strait out of gate they had said "Yeah we were really naughty at a really bad time, we are really sorry". Then I would be mad but it would already be forgotten, but the constant attempts to look not guilty, or claiming that they didnt technically break any rules or "Who is really to say what is right or wrong here?" mean that it just keeps on going. Boris is not going to charmingly bumble his way out of this and the point where he could just put his hands up is probably gone now. He is killing his party (Which I love!) and I dont think he is going to walk. The country does not need this right now and he is making it impossible to discuss anything else...
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| croydon proud Any european country i fancy! 25 Jan 22 2.31pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
By the way, it is for the prime minister to make a judgement on whether actions by a minister amount to a breach of the ministerial code. He therefore stands in judgement of himself. Seems fair to me Maple-the alternative would be an independent investigation- who on earth would want that?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| croydon proud Any european country i fancy! 25 Jan 22 2.33pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Wow, Cressie has woken up- thought she was in an induced coma for the last 2 months!
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.