If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
The government reshuffle just got weird...
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
Just when you thought that the political times couldnt get any stranger, they do, Mandleson is back in the cabinet being given Business to look after.
After the last two resignations, and that letter sent to a Brazilian vodo priest I really thought he'd gone forever.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7650013.stm
After the last two resignations, and that letter sent to a Brazilian vodo priest I really thought he'd gone forever.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7650013.stm
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
Of course Oxbridge does dominate in some areas, particularly government and law - although, it shouldn't really surprise anybody that people who attend two of the best universities in the world rise to positions of authority. However, it is interesting to note that Oxbridge dominates to nowhere near the same extent in business sectors.
He'd probably be better off employing Alistair Campbell as his media adviser. He hates him as much as everyone else, but at least his speeches would have some bite...
I can't help but notice parallels with the Tories here. When Michael Howard became Tory leader, Labour taunted him by claiming the opposition was moving towards the future by going back to the past. Brown leaves himself open to similar accusations with this appointment.
Sounds like perfect material for a business secretary!
Utter desperation I think. Brown just doesn't give a toss any more. Surely if he did he would see the hypocrisy of proclaiming a new kind of politics – out with spin he said! – and resurrecting Peter - the corrupt master of spin - Mandelson.
He either thinks we're all stupid, and we won't notice this, or he's so utterly desperate that he just doesn't care any more.
Possibly in that he's shown a lack of integrity. Lots of politicians are effective at their jobs, but do we trust them when it comes to the crunch?
That's fair, do we want someone with lots of integrity managing Business at this time? Perhaps a weasel is our best bet.
Hard to tell - there's probably only a limited amount even mandleson can do. It's a lot harder to play off Home Office against DWP to get what you want than to play off Ireland vs Spain, so I'm not convinced he's this wonder politician as claimed.
Personally I think its more a case of Brown wanting in the tent pissing out than out the tent pissing in
I think you are right, plus it is a nod to the Blairite section of the party.
Given he is being made a Lord to get into the cabinet, isnt this a lot like the US cabinet where they arent directly accountable to the electorate? How long has this been going on anyway, it seems dodgy to me.
There's nothing unconstitutional about it, but it is weird. Hardly any depts have a Lord as SoS.
To be fair the US system is very different - the President is accountable. he can appoint anyone he likes to his cabinet. Our Ministers have to be members of Parliament (though he can appoint people as Lords)
But if Lord Mandy is a minister he's not accountable, like those in the US cabinet, its not like he has any voters, and it takes a lot to be able to kick someone out of the Lords.
Sorry that's what I was trying to say.
He's unaccountable to the voters (but is to Parliament). In theory each minisiter is individually accountable to Parliament and the PM is only primus inter pares. It pretty unusual for someone to be Secretary of State and not in the lower house, where he has to answer to the commons (ie the people). But to be a Minister you must also be a member of the legislature
However the US system is very different because Cabinet members are appointed by the US president and it is he who is held to account. They don't have to be senators or congressmen and don't have to be in the legislature.
They are two very different systems is what I'm trying to say
In reality (its been that way since the beginning of the 20th century) its the other way round. For the most part the government tells the House to jump, and the House asks 'how high?'. So Buddha, you should be uneasy.
With my professional hat on I wish it was so...
Often what happens is that the House says I'll only jump if you do this and this first and I ain't going to jump at all if that clause stays in. Labour has several times failed to get through pieces of core legislation and other times has had to mangle them so that its useless. Same when the Tories were in power.
the House of Lords is even worse.
I think people don't understand how important Parliament is - it's much more than a rubber stamping exercise. if it was a rubber stamp for the Government it wouldn't matter where Mandleson sat.
Like the anti terrorism detention measures. Even if people were apposed to them they still increased.
Sometimes, but even some of its supporters now say the Act is so bowlderised its useless.
Also democratic government is a battle between different arguments, sometimes one of those arguments completely wins out, often one takes the uppper hand, but with compromises towards the other.
Government isn't as powerful as people often think - its often trying to balance various interests, giving something to one and something to another.
Of course, I suppose this way there will at least be some accountability, in the US there is virtually none for the cabinet.
What I was trying to point out is that by making him a Lord he is less accountable than if he was an MP, and I'm not sure that's a good way to have our government.
Having said that though, Labour MP's in some safe seats are virtually unaccountable to the electorate, mine didnt even bother to put one leaflet through my door last election. He obviously felt so safe he didnt bother campaigning at all.
Fine. But that's legislation brought forward by the government. When it comes to the Cabinet being held to account by Parliament, short of a Vote of no Confidence (which is rare - we only had three in the 20th century) there's not much they can do.
But individual Ministers are held to account (and having worked as a Private secretary to a Minister would say they take it seriously indeed).
However we hold the Cabinet as a whole to account at elections.
That is true, but I would still rather have only those in the cabinet who actually have voters behind them. Especially given that a seat in the Lords lasts until death, not till the next election.
How? (elections aside because that's really us holding them to account as oppose to Parliament).
I mean even when it comes to Parliament discussing touchy issues there are ways for the Govt to hinder them from doing so.
Private Member's Bills rarely go through. To me, the front-bench holds most of the power, it sets the agenda.
I'd certainly prefer Secretaries of State were.
However, you'll always need one Minister who is a Lord, so that she can represent Government in that House
Well it needs enough power to get its policies through - otherwise we'd still be arguing about abolishing slavery.
Private Members Bills are a bit of a waste and nothing to do with holding Govt to account.
But select committees, Public Accounts Committee, Parliamentary Questions (oral and written) etc hold us more to account than either the media or academics realise.
We accidently misled Parliament once and I thought my Minister was about to drop dead with horror, she wrote a grovelling note of apology and ran us ragged until it was sorted.
yep, that's probably good. Select Committees aren't infallible. However from my experience I'd say they follow most of it (and if they don't have a good reason they don't).