Mibbes Aye
23-07-2010, 11:25 PM
When is a Government Minister not a Government Minister???
If your name's Nick Clegg then it turns out you're not really a Government Minister, you're just a silly boy :greengrin
Most of us have laboured under the long-standing illusion that when someone addresses the House of Commons, from the Dispatch Box, as a Government minister, then they are speaking as a member of the Government and are thus bound by the conventions of government.
It's how it works, basically.
It's part of what makes ministers accountable to you and I.
Slight change this week however. Young Mr Clegg took his place at Prime Minister's Questions, standing in for his master, but nevertheless as Deputy Prime Minister. And called the invasion of Irag "illegal"
here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jul/21/nick-clegg-illegal-iraq-war-gaffe?intcmp=239)
This was folllowed up by a Govt spokesman describing Clegg's statement as a 'personal view'. Which was funny, given he was supposed to speak for Her Majesty's Government (being he was officially answering at Prime Minister's Questions) :confused:
So when Nick (and I'm assuming, any of his LibDem coalition colleagues) steps up, they're not 'real' ministers, they're just talking personally, or 'from the heart'.
Makes you wonder quite what it was that many well-intentioned Lib Dem voters were voting for?
I'm not particularly wanting to discuss the legality of the Iraq invasion (been well-covered on here).
I'm more curious about how this proclamation by the 'Deputy Prime Minister' might sit with any court, the UN, ( or indeed many of his Cabinet colleagues who voted for military action). If the second-most senior member of the government has identified wrongdoing, then surely prosecutions must follow???
If your name's Nick Clegg then it turns out you're not really a Government Minister, you're just a silly boy :greengrin
Most of us have laboured under the long-standing illusion that when someone addresses the House of Commons, from the Dispatch Box, as a Government minister, then they are speaking as a member of the Government and are thus bound by the conventions of government.
It's how it works, basically.
It's part of what makes ministers accountable to you and I.
Slight change this week however. Young Mr Clegg took his place at Prime Minister's Questions, standing in for his master, but nevertheless as Deputy Prime Minister. And called the invasion of Irag "illegal"
here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jul/21/nick-clegg-illegal-iraq-war-gaffe?intcmp=239)
This was folllowed up by a Govt spokesman describing Clegg's statement as a 'personal view'. Which was funny, given he was supposed to speak for Her Majesty's Government (being he was officially answering at Prime Minister's Questions) :confused:
So when Nick (and I'm assuming, any of his LibDem coalition colleagues) steps up, they're not 'real' ministers, they're just talking personally, or 'from the heart'.
Makes you wonder quite what it was that many well-intentioned Lib Dem voters were voting for?
I'm not particularly wanting to discuss the legality of the Iraq invasion (been well-covered on here).
I'm more curious about how this proclamation by the 'Deputy Prime Minister' might sit with any court, the UN, ( or indeed many of his Cabinet colleagues who voted for military action). If the second-most senior member of the government has identified wrongdoing, then surely prosecutions must follow???