³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I want to complain about today's coverage of the appointment of the new cabinet. Your editors and correspondents show a great deal of ignorance of constitutional practice and history. The most absurd error concerns the presence of two brothers in the cabinet. This happened twice in the twentieth century. The internet story reports the Chamberlains who were both members of the cabinet between November 1924 and June 1929. The internet story suggests 'both' went on to lead the Conservative Party in fact Austen had been Leader 1921-22 and Neville became Leader 1937-40. There is, however, a later example of brothers serving in cabinet. Indeed it was under Neville Chamberlain who by appointing Lord Stanley to the cabinet as Dominions Secretary on 16 May 1938 created the situation as Oliver Stanley, Lord Stanley was already a cabinet minister (President of the Board of Trade). Your commentators also keep saying that Lord Chancellors have always been peers, wrong: Sir Thomas More was Lord Chancellor and he was not a peer. There is also a suggestion that it is a novelty for ministers not in the cabinet to attend cabinet when their portfolio is discussed but this has been happening throughout the twentieth century. All these 'facts' can be easily checked but your highly paid editors and correspondents do not seem check anything they say. At one stage Jon Sopel was claiming after the cabinet had been announced that nobody had kept the same portfolio, forgetting Des Browne at Defence. Why do we have to tolerate this ignorance ?