Pope John XXIII
Vital Football Legend
You don't seem to understand how even the most basic of politics works or any of the conventions. This argument is so remedial as to be embarrassing.
When you are elected as an MP you are a backbencher. You do not work for the government, even if you are in the same party as the government. Your whip will try to get you to vote the 'right' way, but as a backbencher there is little they can do. Chucking backbenchers out of the party (removing the whip) for defying their party orders on how to vote is completely unprecedented until Johnson (IE Cummings, because Johnson would never have done it off his own instinct) did it late last year. That was considered utterly disgusting politically.
MPs do not lose their seats unless they die or go to prison. The reason for that should hopefully be so obvious as to not need explanation even to you.
When you get promoted, I.E to a permanent under-secretary or a minister of state, you get a pay rise and you now work for the government. That is now your job. You have to represent your constituents as an MP as well (and separately). You are on the government payroll though and any voting against the government line usually requires your resignation *from that job*. Any infraction or impropriety *may* lead them to resign, be sacked or be reshuffled (resignation being the nice way of doing it).
A really good example is Priti Patel. She went on "holiday" to Israel and while there she met with several senior Israeli government figures and effectively conducted her own foreign policy meetings behind the back of her PM and contrary to her brief, which had nothing to do with foreign policy. She did not inform nor get the permission of the cabinet to do this. The PM was so weak at the time she did it the nice way and asked her to resign for her "misjudgement" (we had a different word for this in the cold war- "treason").
The equivalent to Mr Cummings job is not the role of an MP, which is that of an elected official (which Mr Cummings is not). The equivalent is that of an MP who has a government job, having to resign from that government role. The general rule is that the resigning minister spends 18 months - 2 years out in the cold before it becomes ok to bring them back in. I'm sure that would have been the case with Mr Cummings as well.
To my knowledge the only one of the whataboutary examples you have given who has an actual job in the Shadow cabinet (I could be wrong on this) is Stephen Kinnock, who has an extremely minor brief to do with Asia policy. I believe he may not have had that at the time he expressly held his hands up and apologised for his actions though. The others, as far as I am aware, do not have a job to resign from and have not actually broken the ministerial or MPs codes of conduct either. Neither of which apply to Mr Cummings who has never stood for public office.
Why do you feel the need to defend this guy LK?
He isn't a member of the Tory party. He has really undue influence; he is effectively running the government as an unelected SPAD and that can't be right.
Apart from your simplistic, tribal instincts why defend him and argue black is white? If this were anyone outside of the Tory circle you would agree that their actions were wrong (let's face it; you reckon Kinnock should for sitting 2m from his dad on his birthday, and maybe he should resign from his tiny Asia brief for that).
Aren't you embarrassed to be defending this absolutely bullshit story for no real reason? Even the Daily Mail and nearly 20% of MPs in the Conservative Party openly say he was wrong.
Last edited:
