Cabinet reshuffle

[SteveH]

At last!
As for Cameron returning - a possibility, as he's been seen arriving at No. 10, and could return to the cabinet via a peerage - he might be a moderating influence, being centre-right rather than hard-right, and socially liberal (and pro-EU).
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/nov/13/suella-braverman-rishi-sunak-cabinet-reshuffle-conservatives-uk-politics-latest

[SteveH]

The new Home Sec. is James Cleverly, who embodies the opposite of nominative determinism, but can't be worse than Cruella.

[Nearly Sane]

At last!
As for Cameron returning - a possibility, as he's been seen arriving at No. 10, and could return to the cabinet via a peerage - he might be a moderating influence, being centre-right rather than hard-right, and socially liberal (and pro-EU).
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/nov/13/suella-braverman-rishi-sunak-cabinet-reshuffle-conservatives-uk-politics-latest

What does 'pro EU' mean anymore? Given the current cabinet, I can't dislike the idea of Cameron being brought back but the undemocratic farcical method that would be necessary outweighs the window dressing for a year.

[SteveH]

What does 'pro EU' mean anymore? Given the current cabinet, I can't dislike the idea of Cameron being brought back but the undemocratic farcical method that would be necessary outweighs the window dressing for a year.

I agree - the whole idea of the H of L is undemocratic. It should be scrapped.

[Nearly Sane]

The new Home Sec. is James Cleverly, who embodies the opposite of nominative determinism, but can't be worse than Cruella.

Was watching Trevor Phillips on Sky yesterday abd he put up the approval ratings of cabinet ministers amongst Tory voters. The top 3 by some distance were
Cleverly at 72%
Badenoch at 67%
and Braverman at 43%

The rest were nowhere

[ProfessorDavey]

What does 'pro EU' mean anymore? Given the current cabinet, I can't dislike the idea of Cameron being brought back but the undemocratic farcical method that would be necessary outweighs the window dressing for a year.

So a PM without a mandate appoints a foreign secretary who isn't currently in parliament as either an MP or a peer. Yet more of the elite public school chum-ocracy.

Desperate stuff.

[Aruntraveller]

Some rumblings alrerady according to the BBC that Tory MP's are unimpressed by the return of Cameron.

The annoyance being that there are 350 sitting MP's. Presumably not one of them is good enough to fill the post.

[Nearly Sane]

So a PM without a mandate appoints a foreign secretary who isn't currently in parliament as either an MP or a peer. Yet more of the elite public school chum-ocracy.

Desperate stuff.

The 'or a peer' there seems pointless. Had Cameron already accepted a peerage, it wouldn't seem to me to be any better.

[ProfessorDavey]

The 'or a peer' there seems pointless. Had Cameron already accepted a peerage, it wouldn't seem to me to be any better.

I think it does make a difference - there are plenty of ministers who are members of the Lords, but presumably were before they were appointed as a minister. To rush through a peerage in order to ensure you can confirm someone as a minister seems different to me.

[ProfessorDavey]

Some rumblings alrerady according to the BBC that Tory MP's are unimpressed by the return of Cameron.

The annoyance being that there are 350 sitting MP's. Presumably not one of them is good enough to fill the post.

Yes - it really does suggest a paucity of talent.

And there is a democratic deficit here. Typically ministers in the Lords are there to do government business in the Lords, which seems reasonable to me as an MP cannot represent the government in the second chamber. But this is entirely different - in recent history I don't think we've had a peer hold any of the great offices of state. I may be wrong but the last was probably Lord Carrington.

[Nearly Sane]

I think it does make a difference - there are plenty of ministers who are members of the Lords, but presumably were before they were appointed as a minister. To rush through a peerage in order to ensure you can confirm someone as a minister seems different to me.

Why? The thing is still an antidemocratic farce even had he been charging for his attendance up till now.

[SteveH]

So a PM without a mandate...

Assuming you mean that he wasn't elected as PM, that is true of all PMs: We, the public, only directly elect MPs; The PM is the leader of the largest party,, which forms the government. How they become leader is a matter for the party: nowadays, all the parties elect them by a vote of the membership, though the details differ from party to party. Therefore, Risky has as much (or as little) of a mandate as any PM, from any party.

[ProfessorDavey]

Assuming you mean that he wasn't elected as PM, that is true of all PMs: We, the public, only directly elect MPs; The PM is the leader of the largest party,, which forms the government. How they become leader is a matter for the party: nowadays, all the parties elect them by a vote of the membership, though the details differ from party to party. Therefore, Risky has as much (or as little) of a mandate as any PM, from any party.

He has neither a mandate from the electorate, which in our parliamentary process means being the leader of a party that wins a general election on the basis of that person being the leader (and therefore PM-apparent) and also a manifesto.

But he also has no proper mandate within his party which has a process by which two candidates are put to a final vote of the membership - this didn't happen when he became PM and indeed when it did happen a couple of months earlier he lost.

[Nearly Sane]

He has neither a mandate from the electorate, which in our parliamentary process means being the leader of a party that wins a general election on the basis of that person being the leader (and therefore PM-apparent) and also a manifesto.

But he also has no proper mandate within his party which has a process by which two candidates are put to a final vote of the membership - this didn't happen when he became PM and indeed when it did happen a couple of months earlier he lost.

Can I just ask if yoh said the same when Gordon Brown became PM?And of course had Peter Mandelson as a cabinet minister while Mandelson was in the HoL.

[ProfessorDavey]

Why? The thing is still an antidemocratic farce even had he been charging for his attendance up till now.

As I suggested in my post to Aruntraveller the issues of how members in a second chamber are selected is a distinct matter to whether it is reasonable for there to be ministers in the second chamber.

It is, of course, reasonable for there to be ministers in the second chamber - otherwise how would the government be able to present legislation etc to that second chamber and conduct government work in the second chamber.

But that is an entirely different matter to appointing someone to the Lords in order to give them a major office of state. There is also a big issue with this as you normally expect ministers in those offices of state to be accountable to the commons - in other words to be expected to be called to give statements etc to MPs. Cameron isn't going to be able to do that as he isn't a member of the commons.

[Nearly Sane]

As I suggested in my post to Aruntraveller the issues of how members in a second chamber are selected is a distinct matter to whether it is reasonable for there to be ministers in the second chamber.

It is, of course, reasonable for there to be ministers in the second chamber - otherwise how would the government be able to present legislation etc to that second chamber and conduct government work in the second chamber.

But that is an entirely different matter to appointing someone to the Lords in order to give them a major office of state. There is also a big issue with this as you normally expect ministers in those offices of state to be accountable to the commons - in other words to be expected to be called to give statements etc to MPs. Cameron isn't going to be able to do that as he isn't a member of the commons.

So your objection isn't that he wasn't a peer, it's that even as a peer he shouldn't be cabinet minister.  Thank you for clarifying your original statement.

[ProfessorDavey]

Can I just ask if yoh said the same when Gordon Brown became PM?

The difference is that when Brown became PM he was elected on the basis of rules that had been in place for a considerable period of time. Nor had he just been defeated in a contest using those established rule.

In the case of Sunak the 1922 committee simply made up a completely new set of rule to allow the election to be "completed within the next week" (Brady's words). Sunak had, of course, been defeated in a contest using the established rule (that had been used for all leadership Tory elections since IDS). Brady's "completed within the next week" rule will, of course, never be seen again.

And of course had Peter Mandelson as a cabinet minister while Mandelson was in the HoL.

Didn't agree with that either, but he wasn't in on of the great offices of state, but in a much more junior ministerial position.

[ProfessorDavey]

So your objection isn't that he wasn't a peer, it's that even as a peer he shouldn't be cabinet minister.  Thank you for clarifying your original statement.

Nope - you are misinterpreting my comments.

[Nearly Sane]

The difference is that when Brown became PM he was elected on the basis of rules that had been in place for a considerable period of time. Nor had he just been defeated in a contest using those established rule.

In the case of Sunak the 1922 committee simply made up a completely new set of rule to allow the election to be "completed within the next week" (Brady's words). Sunak had, of course, been defeated in a contest using the established rule (that had been used for all leadership Tory elections since IDS). Brady's "completed within the next week" rule will, of course, never be seen again.
Didn't agree with that either, but he wasn't in on of the great offices of state, but in a much more junior ministerial position.

of course, dear.

[Nearly Sane]

Nope - you are misinterpreting my comments.

Am I? How? Your issue, rightly,  seems to me to be having a cabinet position in the HoL.

[Nearly Sane]

In terms of what seems to be an inflation reduced mini reshuffle, not really sure I get what Sunak is aiming for. Braverman getting sacked is fair enough - after the article was published ignoring most of the changes requested, he haf no real choice. No action looked weak, and gave Braverman a free pass for the future, while any later restriction on her, she could resign over, win her safe seat and look to be the next leader of the opposition.

Moving Cleverly who seems popular with Tory voters then works as a sop.

Bringing in Cameron has any number of risks, not least that in comparison Sunak looks inexperienced, while annoying a section of Tory voters. It's at least a novelty which might work as a distraction for the year.

It leaves the question of what Sunak's vision is as murky as before.

[Nearly Sane]

Oh more excitement, Coffey gone. She managed to hit the wet spot and annoy virtually everyone. It's ok to be Environment Secretary and not really care that much about it but pymping shite into the water doesn't win over anyone.

[jeremyp]

So a PM without a mandate appoints a foreign secretary who isn't currently in parliament as either an MP or a peer. Yet more of the elite public school chum-ocracy.

Desperate stuff.

The prime minister does have a mandate, from Tory party members and, to a lesser extent from the Tory MPs, but under our current electoral system no British prime minister has ever had a mandate from the people - on a technical level.

Cameron is not the first minister to be elevated to the HoL just so he could be in the government. All governments do it some extent. Personally, I welcome somebody half way competent coming in to this government in the short period before we kick them out, no matter how they get here.

[jeremyp]

Oh more excitement, Coffey gone. She managed to hit the wet spot and annoy virtually everyone. It's ok to be Environment Secretary and not really care that much about it but pymping shite into the water doesn't win over anyone.

Should that be "pimping shite" or "pumping shite"? I think either works.

[ProfessorDavey]

The prime minister does have a mandate, from Tory party members ...

But when Sunak was put to the membership as one of two options in summer 2022 the membership rejected him. The process in Oct 22 that appointed him as leader (and de facto as PM) did not have any membership involvement. So, no, he doesn't have a mandate from conservative party members.