E-mail address to contact Admin direct is admin@religionethics followed by .co.uk.
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.
Personally, I welcome somebody half way competent ...
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.
Cameron, competent?!?
Good point. Sunak only has a mandate from the parliamentary party and even then, he was unopposed, as was Gordon Brown.
You may not like what he did but he did it competently.
What holding an unnecessary referendum when you didn't want to change the status quo and then losing it resulting in years of political turmoil and harm to the UK ... hmm yup that shows real competence.I know he's got some real rivals from the past few years but in my view Cameron is probably the worst PM in my living memory in terms of the harm he bestowed on the UK.
Surely that was the electorate?
Am I? How? Your issue, rightly, seems to me to be having a cabinet position in the HoL.
Where have I ever said that members of the Lords shouldn't be in the cabinet - I never did. And actually there should always be at least one cabinet member from the Lords as the Leader of the Lords is a member of the cabinet.The point is about holders of the great offices of state being in the Lords as this prevents them from being properly scrutinised by the elected members and also the principle that you should select your cabinet members from the pool of existing members of parliament, not announce someone has been appointed when they aren't actually a member of parliament.
Had Cameron not gambled the future of the UK on an unnecessary referendum (the clue is that you don't need a mandate if you don't want to change something) then the turmoil would have been avoided. And if you are going to gamble then you'd better win - gambling unnecessarily and then losing seems to be the height of incompetence. Ok if the issue is pretty irrelevant, but not when it was as fundamental as membership of the EU.
And yet the electorate are the ones that chose to vote for leave.
What's the difference in principle between a 'great office of state' and any other cabinet post where the person holding it being in the Lords would 'prevent them from being properly scrutinised' such as Mandelson as business secretary?
He wasn't unopposed - Mourdant (and possibly Johnson stood against him).
What holding an unnecessary referendum when you didn't want to change the status quo and then losing it resulting in years of political turmoil and harm to the UK ... hmm yup that shows real competence.
I know he's got some real rivals from the past few years but in my view Cameron is probably the worst PM in my living memory in terms of the harm he bestowed on the UK.
He said we'd have a referendum and we did. It was a political disaster for him and for the UK, but you can't say he did it incompetently.
The great offices of state are PM, CofE, Home Sec and Foreign Sec.And I've said I didn't agree with the Mandelson case either. The point is that if you are in change of a government department (that would then include Secs of State not just the great offices) then you should be expected to have to account for your department to elected members. If you are a more junior minister this doesn't matter so much as you will have a departmental boss (the Sec of State) who can do it on your behalf.In the current case Cameron will only be able to deliver from the despatch box in the Lords - does that mean he'll need some commons mouthpiece, but even if that happens he cannot be held accountable directly by the commons. Does it mean that Labour will have to appoint a peer as shadow FS, as that would be the only way that the normal process of government minister being questioned by their shadow could happen.
Only because Cameron decided to hold a referendum when he didn't want to change the status quo and therefore there was no possible justification for a referendum - that was due to his incompetence.
Some rumblings alrerady according to the BBC that Tory MP's are unimpressed by the return of Cameron.
Cameron, [half] competent?!?
I certainly can.He didn't think it through. He should have insisted on a super majority, already knowing that it was a close vote, for any chance of uniting the country and carrying through the change. You need to carry a lot more than 50% of the votes. He should have raised the bar to 60% and I personally am not sure that would have been enough. That was incompetence. Combined with his trademark complacency.
Agree with that and also squeakyvoice's points.Another element of incompetence was the decision over the referendum 'electorate' - typically this reflects the nature of the question. So this should have been the electoral roll used for EU elections, which of course includes EU citizens with residency in the UK. But they chose to use the general election roll thereby disenfranchising those most likely to be impacted and also more likely to vote remain. Incompetence on the part of Cameron and his government.Aruntraveller is correct - not just incompetent, but complacent. But when you are part of an elite which will always be fine whatever way political decisions go then complacency is likely to be baked in.
