Democracy and the new cabinet

il_principe

Since we appear to be in a debating mood today (RMT etc), what do people make of Brown's latest cabinet moves, interesting read here:

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/06/the_most_undemo.html

The Most Undemocratic Government For Over A Century

Led by Lord Mandelson, whose titles now include "First Secretary of State and Lord President of the Council", there are now seven members of the Cabinet in the House of Lords. Gordon Brown is bringing in his unelected cronies to rule us.

This is an incredible step back in time for British democracy. It is the most Cabinet Ministers from the unelected House of Lords for over a century.

My first thought was that it was the most ministers from the House of Lords since the government of Lord Salisbury was defeated by the Liberals.

But incredibly, I am pretty sure that Gordon Brown's government is less democratic than Lord Salisbury's, because several of Salisbury's ministers, like Lord Randolph Churchill and Lord Hamilton, were sons of peers and actually elected to the house of Commons. I haven't checked it, but my suspicion is that this is the most undemocratic Cabinet since the Liberal Unionists walked out on Gladstone in the 1870s.

I'm particularly galled by Mandy's elevation to de-facto deputy PM.

Jamey

Sorry, there's only room for one 'debating' thread in this forum today and that's the RMT one.

Bump this tomorrow morning and see what happens

Gussio

jashburnham wrote:

I'm particularly galled by Mandy's elevation to de-facto deputy PM.

Thanksfully, under the constitution, the title of "First Secretary of State" carries no right of succession in the event of the PM's death or resignation. You may rest easy.

Eau Rouge

jashburnham wrote:

Since we appear to be in a debating mood today (RMT etc), what do people make of Brown's latest cabinet moves, interesting read here:

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/06/the_most_undemo.html

The Most Undemocratic Government For Over A Century

Led by Lord Mandelson, whose titles now include "First Secretary of State and Lord President of the Council", there are now seven members of the Cabinet in the House of Lords. Gordon Brown is bringing in his unelected cronies to rule us.

This is an incredible step back in time for British democracy. It is the most Cabinet Ministers from the unelected House of Lords for over a century.

My first thought was that it was the most ministers from the House of Lords since the government of Lord Salisbury was defeated by the Liberals.

But incredibly, I am pretty sure that Gordon Brown's government is less democratic than Lord Salisbury's, because several of Salisbury's ministers, like Lord Randolph Churchill and Lord Hamilton, were sons of peers and actually elected to the house of Commons. I haven't checked it, but my suspicion is that this is the most undemocratic Cabinet since the Liberal Unionists walked out on Gladstone in the 1870s.

I'm particularly galled by Mandy's elevation to de-facto deputy PM.

Lame duck governemnt, less than a year away from a gerneral election, with fresh electoral proof of no real mandate from the people at all. If thats not a government Labour MP's feel they can rebel against, then the system is dead anyway. Indeed, sensible Labour MP's, wanting to still have those seats in a few months time, will happily take their cue's from their own constituencies than the party whips.
There weren't going to be too many MP's looking to freshly associate themselves with the rotting corpse of New Labour at this late stage either, so I can see why Brown had to go to the Lords to find people.

Porgy

I have a suspicion that Mandelson was behind the leaked expenses disc - after all - who has benefitted most from this so far apart from the Daily Telegraph and Esther Ranzid?

il_principe

Gussio wrote:

jashburnham wrote:

I'm particularly galled by Mandy's elevation to de-facto deputy PM.

Thanksfully, under the constitution, the title of "First Secretary of State" carries no right of succession in the event of the PM's death or resignation. You may rest easy.

I'm not worried about that, I just dislike that slimy f@cker having some real power when he's not even been elected. I'm almost pining for Blair these days!

roger_merriman

Mandy seems to be bright which i guess is why brown wants him inspite of his flaws, but yes he should be a elected MP.

Eau Rouge

jashburnham wrote:

having some real power when he's not even been elected.

Everyone knows he's not been elected, That alone limits how much weight he can throw around. An elected Mandy would be far more powerfull.

Gussio

jashburnham wrote:

Gussio wrote:

jashburnham wrote:

I'm particularly galled by Mandy's elevation to de-facto deputy PM.

Thanksfully, under the constitution, the title of "First Secretary of State" carries no right of succession in the event of the PM's death or resignation. You may rest easy.

I'm not worried about that, I just dislike that slimy f@cker having some real power when he's not even been elected. I'm almost pining for Blair these days!

Valid point, but who out of the remaining (elected) few would you have fill the role in lieu of Mandy?

il_principe

Gussio wrote:

jashburnham wrote:

Gussio wrote:

jashburnham wrote:

I'm particularly galled by Mandy's elevation to de-facto deputy PM.

Thanksfully, under the constitution, the title of "First Secretary of State" carries no right of succession in the event of the PM's death or resignation. You may rest easy.

I'm not worried about that, I just dislike that slimy f@cker having some real power when he's not even been elected. I'm almost pining for Blair these days!

Valid point, but who out of the remaining (elected) few would you have fill the role in lieu of Mandy?

Oh christ knows, but there are plenty of MP's and on principle I'd rather see elected folk in cabinet. I've got no love for Brown's Labour but was sorry to see Purnell go.

Gussio

If Brown was a bike, he would be a BSO

Sewinman

As Lord Hailsham said, we live in an "elective dictatorship".

il_principe

Gussio wrote:

If Brown was a bike, he would be a BSO

with no handlebars and flat tyres.

Gussio

jashburnham wrote:

Gussio wrote:

If Brown was a bike, he would be a BSO

with no handlebars and flat tyres.

And a squeaky cassette.

Eau Rouge

Sewinman wrote:

As Lord Hailsham said, we live in an "elective dictatorship".

Thats because there are no checks on what Parliament does. You'd need a written Constitution only ammendable by the people for that, but those things do have their own problems...

Sewinman

Eau Rouge wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

As Lord Hailsham said, we live in an "elective dictatorship".

Thats because there are no checks on what Parliament does. You'd need a written Constitution only ammendable by the people for that, but those things do have their own problems...

I think Hailsham meant that once a government is formed it gets most of its legislation through the houses with little problem. The ease that they get things done is out of line with the mandate they are given. The whip system means that most legislation gets through the commons and the salisbury convention means that the Lords can't really prevent things going through. The Queen is a rubber stamp.

We do have a written convention, its just not in one sacred document like the US.

Eau Rouge

Sewinman wrote:

Eau Rouge wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

As Lord Hailsham said, we live in an "elective dictatorship".

Thats because there are no checks on what Parliament does. You'd need a written Constitution only ammendable by the people for that, but those things do have their own problems...

I think Hailsham meant that once a government is formed it gets most of its legislation through the houses with little problem. The ease that they get things done is out of line with the mandate they are given. The whip system means that most legislation gets through the commons and the salisbury convention means that the Lords can't really prevent things going through. The Queen is a rubber stamp.

We do have a written convention, its just not in one sacred document like the US.

The US doesn't have a written constitution ammendable only by the people, look to Ireland instead. There are no checks on Parliament, and thats not healthy.

Of course a government is able to get it's laws through Parliament if it needs to, so it should be or nothing would ever get done. Acts still have to go through the various committee stages, and pass through the Lords, and while a government can ignore those and press on using the whips, any government using the whips too much will quickly find itself being unpopular, and shortly after find itself knee deep in rebels scared of losing their seats who ignore the whips altogether.
Knowing how far you can take your own party before they start rebelling is what being a good PM is all about , no?

always_tyred

Eau Rouge wrote:

jashburnham wrote:

having some real power when he's not even been elected.

Everyone knows he's not been elected, That alone limits how much weight he can throw around. An elected Mandy would be far more powerfull.

Um... but he's close to the PM and hasn't got any constituents to upset - so I think it goes the other way. He's very entertaining. Love a bit of panto.