UK Prime Minister | TV News Coverage

That's because when the people giving a briefing lack candour and or worse give those evasive 'I'm not prepared to say that I'm not going to give you an answer, but I'll squirm a bit' answers, it's a natural part of human nature to assume that something is being hidden from us.

The problem is that there seems to be a number of different styles at these briefings. What you learn depends not on the facts on the ground, but on who is giving the briefing. It shouldn't be happening like that.

Boris Johnson, to his credit, seemed prepared to give as much candour as he felt he could. Hancock and Rishi Sunak also seem to have a good crack at treating the populous as adults also.

Gove, Raab and Alok Sharma, however, are seem to jealously guard information that would be useful to keeping us safe. Where there is something they cannot answer they should come out and say it and the reason why.

Everybody can tell when somebody is pretending to answer a question will all filler... all it does is make you think 'oh my god, he's out of his depth'

To a journalist that's like a drop of blood in a shark tank.

That's not what we need right now.

Its always been the same Political manipulation of the media is as old as time. The always excellent Michael Cockerell made a documentary called "The Downing Street Patient" about the health of various Prime Ministers. Here's the link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CovfAFOwTS

The segment with Harold Wilson's PR Adviser Joe Hains is imho particularly revealing.

Yes, I remember speaking to one of his producers that day about that a few years ago. She said that the feeling amongst the team was very much of 'we know that Simon Mayo can do this as a speech broadcaster, but most of the public only know him as a DJ' so the team really rallied around to support him through that programme.

I'm a bit mixed on how long the lockdown will be and how the Government should announce it.

On the one hand, yes it would be nice to know how long this is going to go on for. But, does anybody really know? The Government is being cautious because it doesn't want to build people's hopes up but nor does it want to scare people to death and depress them even more. If you were told right now this is going to last 6+ months, or even indefinitely until further notice, how would that actually make you feel? I would feel absolutely deflated. By announcing it and extending it in small chunks, at least it makes it more manageable. There's a chance it might end sometime soon - but if it doesn't what have we lost? And they're reviewing it every few weeks because this is fast moving and the science behind it keeps evolving.

I'm no Tory, but I'm broadly happy with how our Government is handling this. I do agree with others that there have been some terrible questions from various political editors recently. Yes, journalists still need to make sure the Government is held to account but equally they need be mindful of what questions the public actually want answering. I couldn't give a flying fig right now who's calling the shots, provided it's the appropriate elected politician, of which Dominic Raab seems to fit the bill. The Prime Minister asked him to do it, it's not like Raab has seized power in a coup. Knowing that there's someone is all I need to know - the more pressing questions are over the handling of the virus, supplies for the NHS and the lockdown. But, as usual, the media are starting to fixate on one small political detail and trying to blow it up into something it isn't.

And a note on any kind of unity government - if this were to happen, there is no way Keir Starmer would be the PM. No right-thinking Tory would install a Labour figure as PM. The Conservatives won the election fair and square and for 5 years they have a mandate to govern. That's that.

I expect it to be extended till the end of April. In reality it is surely driven by the curve and you'd kind of expect lockdown after the peak to be as long as it was beforehand. Also of course we keep gettingvtokd we're a couple of weeks behind Italy and Spain and they're still in lockdown.

Firstly there won't be a unity government. Like it or not the Tories are in until December 2024 at the latest. Its possible that Starmer, Blackford and the rest of the party leaders will be asked to participate in some sort of cross-party discussions to ensure that the parliamentary will as a whole is united which it should be, as I stated many posts ago this is a time when party political differences should be set aside for the common good.

Secondly I like itsrobert am not a Tory (I'm a miners son who still remembers the 84/85 strike and would never vote Tory even if I was paid a million pounds to do so) but I'm satisfied with the way the government is handling it (I have to say though if Corbyn had been in charge I would have been more worried)

Thirdly, I like everyone else in the country would love to know when the restrictions are going to be lifted (on a personal note i'm struggling with things). The emergency legislation stipulated that there must be a review every three weeks. The first review is on Easter Monday. We like the media will just have to see.

Fourthly this situation has flagged up something which as a keen political watcher has always concerned me. There is no constitutional directive about who should take over if the PM is incapacitated. The USA has the Vice Presidency we don't have a Vice-Prime Minister (which sounds a bit rude).

There have been Deputy PM's before but they have been on the whole purely honorific titles. George Brown for example was Deputy PM and 1st Secretary. Geoffrey Howe was deputy PM as were Michael Heseltine and John Prescott (There was a wonderfully named documentary called "Every Prime Minister Needs a WIllie" referring to William Whitelaw which sadly doesn't seem to be on YT)

We have a "piecemeal" constitution which has developed in formal (The 2010 Fixed Terms Parliament Act) and informal states over the years. Some have argued that it allows flexibility but this situation has laid bare the weaknesses of that flimsiness. We have a strong government and a Prime Minister who has made a decision in the best interests of the nation and appointed a temporary figure to speak on his behalf and they are doing a great job but I feel in future the constitutional situation will have to be examined.

Fifthly and finally while supporting the wonderful job the media are doing during the crisis I am concerned about the magnifying glass mentality over who is doing what as opposed to what is being done.

Sorry if this reads like a mini essay

With the Prime Minister out of action, should the government want to address the nation like Boris’s address two weeks ago, would there be any hurdles towards this?

I gather that the Prime Minister himself holds the legal right with PSB’s to issue an address to the nation and mandate PSB’s to broadcast this collectively, but do the government?

If they wanted to issue another address to the nation declaring an extension to the lockdown, would this only now be able to happen under the agreement of the broadcasters?

Obviously the Government have rights to issue PIF’s for broadcast by PSB’s but I think these still are under the individual broadcasters control as to when they can be aired.

Of course, I’m very sure broadcasters would agree to broadcast an address from the government, but was just curious if the buck was more with the broadcasters given the current situation?

On his first day on 5 Live, a General Election was called during his show. Mayo joined in May 2001 and I assume the plan was that this would be straight after the election, but then the election was delayed by a month because of foot and mouth, so he ended up being on throughout the campaign.

It's also a bit like Adil Ray presenting The One Show for the first time on the day Ronnie Corbett died, and making a very credible job of all the tributes. A couple of presenters have done OK for themselves for being in the right place when a big story breaks and being catapulted into prominence.

Richard Skinner mentioned another example during Radio 1 Vintage, he was a newsreader and wanted to become a DJ and had done a couple of pilots, and then one day Tommy Vance's plane was delayed and he couldn't get back for his show, and Skinner was the only person in the building called a presenter so was asked to do it.



I'm not sure there are lots of people who think it will end on Monday, are there? I know it was mentioned in the initial announcement but I'm sure most people have forgotten about that.

Sky News: “Boris Johnson is clinically stable. Remains in ICU. Is in good spirits”.

Everything you've said is technically true. Is the Prime Minister really first among equals in the Cabinet? Technically, yes. Is the Cabinet responsible for the decision-making process? Technically, yes.

In reality, however, power centres around the Prime Minister and decision-making is informed by the preferences of those around the Prime Minister and the bureaucracies that support them. It's the bureaucratic politics model of decision-making. If you want to know more, get hold of the Essence of Decision by Graham Allison or anything by Mort Halperin.

I watched Newsnight yesterday and both Ruth Davidson and Liam Fox echoed the sentiments of David Cameron, Theresa May, et al. that Dominic Raab is deputising for the Prime Minister, that the Cabinet will make any necessary decisions and that there is collective responsibility. What rubbish. Effective collective responsibility hasn't existed since James Callaghan was Prime Minister. Under Margaret Thatcher, there was a move towards the consolidation of power around the Prime Minister and within Number 10, a move which continued under all of her successors.

If Emily Maitlis had been a little quicker on her feet last night, she would have challenged both Davidson and Fox. If there is collective responsibility and the Cabinet is as powerful as the Prime Minister, then why did Sajid Javid feel the need to resign as Chancellor? Surely a strong Chancellor surrounded by a strong Cabinet would be able to resist the controls that both Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings were attempting to put in place. Perhaps a sharper question would have been to ask Fox why he stood for the party leadership and wanted to be Primer Minister if he was merely first among equals and subject to Cabinet oversight... Indeed, if the Prime Minister is merely a participant in a Cabinet-based system, then why is the writing of 'Letters of Last Resort' the first action that a Prime Minister must take? I don't see the Work and Pensions Secretary writing them.

Decisions can only be delayed for so long. Nobody knows for how long the Prime Minister will be in ICU, let alone how long it will take him to recover fully or what the long-term implications of Covid-19 are upon the body. The idea that Dominic Raab cannot act as appropriate is bunkum. What if a member of the Government - for whatever reason - needs to be replaced? The idea that Raab should wait until the Prime Minister returns, consult the Prime Minster or allow the Cabinet to decide is folly. The current crisis requires a streamlined decision-making process. The Cabinet Secretary knows this. The Principal Private Secretary to the Prime Minister knows this. The Private Secretary to the Queen knows this. If necessary, they will 'clarify' matters and advise the Queen accordingly.

To all extents and purposes, Dominic Raab is the Prime Minister. He's reliant upon the same bureaucracies that have supported all of the previous occupants of Number 10. The Civil Service exists for a reason. Any effort by the Government to downplay the situation or to bat away any questions of command and control is foolhardy.

The review due on Monday is about relaxing the lockdown, not extending it. It already is ongoing and somewhat indefinite.

Broadcasters will act responsibly as they have done throughout. Even if a government message is by the PM I don't think any PSB is obliged to show it.