Quote Originally Posted by edyzmedieval View Post
Which, unfortunately, proves my point. People are upset because someone government mandated broke lockdown measures and of course, the ugly optics of enforcing harsh measures and then not following them. Which is entirely understandable and a very fair point.

Why is it such an uproar, particularly now? To an outsider that is subscribed to a dozen paying international news outlets, the constant bombardment of stories about the drunken booze parties is bizarre. There's a bazillion other important issues that deserve an uproar, such as the breakdown of relations with the EU, bad trade relations, shortages of medical equipment, fuel shortages when you had to bring the Army in, wealth disparity, acrimonious political divide, Scotland threatening to break away, Ireland talking again of Troubles... issues which have a huge impact in both societal level and personal level.

That deserves an uproar, a constant one even, these are heavy heavy issues which both sides should care about.

And yet... we're talking about a booze party. And the fact that they sent for more wine. Which many other people have done, breaking the rules as well. Endless scores of politicians have broken rules and very few have been in the constant news over a party like this.

Please, I am all open to hearing ideas and opinions, because to me - as an outsider, but one who is glued to international & national politics 24/7 and who even works in politics in a way - it is odd. I feel like I'm not fully understand.ing
Answering questions in Parliament is supposed to be the most effective check on the power of the government, with ministers (particularly the PM) required to answer questions. They are expected to tell the truth, and if they lie, they are expected to step down. That's supposed to be the sunlight into the power of government. If ministers (particularly the PM) can avoid questions (which Johnson did aplenty during his initial pre-election stint), or lie without consequence, there are no checks on government.

As it is, the person doing the inquiry has had her remit set by the PM, and reports to the PM before the PM releases the report at his discretion. Any inquiries as to whether or not a minister has deceived Parliament has to go through the PM. The head of the police force overlooking all this is the daughter of the PM's tutor. The individual police officer in charge of the Met's investigation is the brother of the health minister.

If we take away consequences from PMQs as well, what checks are there on government?