Thread by @journo_dale

Seeing a lot of “Why should the victim resign?” in my reply feed re: JWR not resigning per Shawcross Doctrine if she really was inappropriately pressured. Apparently it’s time for some remedial civics. 1/n

1) Ministers serve at the pleasure of the prime minister. He or she can appoint, shuffle, or dismiss them at will. Nobody “deserves” a Cabinet set. 2/n

2) Cabinet operates on the principle of solidarity. You stand and fall as a group, not as individuals. That’s also why there’s cabinet confidence - so that disagreements get aired behind closed doors, but you stand united in public. 3/n

If the prime minister behaves unethically or puts a minister in an untenable situation, Cabinet solidarity means that you can’t go running to Parliament or try to have the PM disciplined in some way while still being in the group. That violates how our system works. 4/n

(As an aside, this is also why it’s bullshit for opposition parties to try to move motions of non-confidence in single ministers. Cabinet is a whole has confidence or not at all). 5/n

So if a minister is in an untenable situation, including inappropriate pressure per Shawcross, they have an obligation to resign on principle. At that point, Parliament can decide to hold the prime minister to account for any transgressions. 6/n

Likewise, if a minister decides to stay on if they witnessed unethical transgressions, then they are signing onto sticking with Cabinet as a whole if Parliament loses confidence in them. Again, that’s how the system works. 7/n

Anyone who says that the minister could try to do something about the pressure without resigning doesn’t know how the system works.
Thus ends today’s lesson. 8/8