Sheryll Murray’s (wilfully?)blind devotion to Johnson trumps the ministerial code, apparently

Dear Sheryll Murray,

Thank you for your letter replying to this email:

Dear Sheryll Murray, I hope that you are well and that you enjoyed celebrating your wedding anniversary.

Fines have now been issued to people attending ‘gatherings’ at 10 Downing Street. More are in the pipeline. Mr Johnson told parliament that ‘all rules were followed’ etc when questioned on these events. It is proven beyond doubt that he misled parliament.

According to the Ministerial Code, which elected members are supposed to be governed by, MPs should not do this. It is a resignation matter. When is the Prime Minister going to resign? What are you going to do about this? Kind regards, Nicola Tipton

Unfortunately, I am bemused and at a loss to understand your reply.

I completely understand that you personally support the Prime Minister along with many of your colleagues and a dwindling proportion of voters. I also take it that you won’t ask for his resignation.

I don’t know, however, what I have assumed incorrectly. He has misled parliament. This can not be denied. He has not only said ‘all rules were followed’ but other untruths about his attendance and knowledge of these gatherings. This is very well documented.

Even Jacob Rees-Mogg does not refute this. He merely ascertains that now is not the time to ask a PM to resign. An attitude I profoundly disagree with. Chamberlain did not remain Prime Minister during the war. Besides we are not actually at war with Russia. Ukraine is. Also the opposition has stated that because the House is united over Ukraine it would not be disruptive if he resigned.

The Ministerial Code does say that those who mislead Parliament should resign:

By convention, a minister found to have misled parliament is expected to resign or face being sacked.

I’m surprised you are not familiar with this as you have to abide by the code, too. Prime Ministers are not exempt. 

Please be so kind as to write to explain to me where I am misunderstanding. Please also give me a fuller explanation as to why he should not resign, other than the fact you support/like him, when he has flagrantly breached the code on many occasions. 

This is important, in my opinion, because our democratic processes need to be seen to be upheld by the electorate. Otherwise there is no point in having them. We might as well have a dictatorship. It is a slippery slope which I find very worrying. 

I look forward to hearing from you.