UK election 2024

[Nearly Sane]

I've long thought that the House of Lords should be abolished, and replaced (if at all) by a directly-elected body of fixed size. However, I must admit that the appointment of James Timpson as prisons minister, via a peerage, suggests at least one argument in favour of the present system: it allows the PM to appoint people with relevant experience from outside politics to ministerial posts. Maybe we could have a directly-elected second chamber of fixed size, plus a small number (say three max) of places for appointed ministers.

Don't disagree, though to an extent I thought when they came up with the idea of 'czars', it was to give ministerial authority in areas but not involve them in cabinet.

[Nearly Sane]

Tory Shadow Cabinet...


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13613245/Rishi-Sunak-shadow-Cabinet-Tory-chair-Ric-Holden-Lord-Cameron-quit-election.html

[Nearly Sane]

'Levelling up phrase to be erased, says minister' - while I agree with this, I can also see the significance in having the aim in the name, just perhaps not quite such an empty one.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0veqgr7lw4o

[jeremyp]

Tory Shadow Cabinet...


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13613245/Rishi-Sunak-shadow-Cabinet-Tory-chair-Ric-Holden-Lord-Cameron-quit-election.html

And as usual, the right wing thinks they lost because the party was not right wing enough. The same thing tends to happen with Labour after they lose big but in the left wing direction.

[Nearly Sane]

And as usual, the right wing thinks they lost because the party was not right wing enough. The same thing tends to happen with Labour after they lose big but in the left wing direction.

There's a certain irony that more so than being in the EU, it was the leaving of it that has ruined them.

Johnson managed to keep the right wing happy with no real effort in terms of actions, after all why change the habit of a lifetime. Since that the spat they are now having was happening in govt, they now have that concentrated by the loss of seats. If I were 'Suicide Sunak', I would be off since half of them at least appear to hate him.

[ProfessorDavey]

I've long thought that the House of Lords should be abolished, and replaced (if at all) by a directly-elected body of fixed size. However, I must admit that the appointment of James Timpson as prisons minister, via a peerage, suggests at least one argument in favour of the present system: it allows the PM to appoint people with relevant experience from outside politics to ministerial posts. Maybe we could have a directly-elected second chamber of fixed size, plus a small number (say three max) of places for appointed ministers.

You are correct that the current second chamber structure allows governments to bring in specific expertise to ministerial posts, and any revised chamber should probably allow something similar I guess.

However I'm not sure it is necessary to have people in ministerial posts - it is perfectly possible to appoint a range of expert advisors without having to make them ministers, nor to elevate them to the second chamber.

There is also a risk - that someone with a particular expertise, and potentially a commitment to a particular policy position, may not actually understand the role of a minister, nor the levers that need to be pulled within government, parliament and the civil service to get things done. There have been previous examples where similar appointments haven't worked because the individual in question rather expected their 'pet' policy simply to be implemented, but sometimes things are more tricky than that!!

So actually I'm more positive towards Vallance's appointment than Timpson. This is for a number of reasons.

First Vallance was Chief Scientific Officer so he will understand how Whitehall and Westminster work.

Secondly science is an area where government's tend to operate at arms length, via funding priorities, regulation etc rather than directly. This, I think is a better fit for an 'outsider'.

Finally, I have a bit of a concern that Timpson's policy interests are a bit narrow - his focus has been largely on providing employment for ex-offenders. Not I'm not dismissing that this is really important - it is. But the role of a prison's minister is surely much broader than this and I'd want to be confident that he is interested in the entirety of his brief, not his (albeit very important) 'pet' policy.

[ProfessorDavey]

Don't disagree, though to an extent I thought when they came up with the idea of 'czars', it was to give ministerial authority in areas but not involve them in cabinet.

I think you are misunderstanding government.

Not all ministers are in the cabinet - only the most senior ones. So-called policy czars weren't appointed as ministers at all - they were experts that worked alongside and advised ministers due to their specific expertise and commitment to a specific policy area

[ProfessorDavey]

'Levelling up phrase to be erased, says minister' - while I agree with this, I can also see the significance in having the aim in the name, just perhaps not quite such an empty one.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0veqgr7lw4o

Good - actually I thought as a phrase it was pretty good but it is now so tarnished by failure and associated with the incompetence and (frankly) corruption of the outgoing tory government it is very sensible that the new government has consigned it to the dustbin of history.

[Nearly Sane]

I think you are misunderstanding government.

Not all ministers are in the cabinet - only the most senior ones. So-called policy czars weren't appointed as ministers at all - they were experts that worked alongside and advised ministers due to their specific expertise and commitment to a specific policy area

I didn't say czars were ministers. Rather I was suggesting that they were used so that they didn't need to be in cabinet but could have similar authority in getting things done to ministers. Apologies for not being clear.

[ProfessorDavey]

I didn't say czars were ministers. Rather I was suggesting that they were used so that they didn't need to be in cabinet but could have similar authority in getting things done to ministers. Apologies for not being clear.

Sorry you are still being unclear - you still seem to be implying that being a minister and being in cabinet are one and the same thing - they aren't.

[Nearly Sane]

Sorry you are still being unclear - you still seem to be implying that being a minister and being in cabinet are one and the same thing - they aren't.

Agree. Again apologies for being unclear.

[ProfessorDavey]

Agree. Again apologies for being unclear.

Hmm - to err once is human - to err twice looks careless.

What is it exactly that you are trying to say about:

Cabinet ministers
Ministers who aren't in the cabinet
Policy czars

[Nearly Sane]

Hmm - to err once is human - to err twice looks careless.

What is it exactly that you are trying to say about:

Cabinet ministers
Ministers who aren't in the cabinet
Policy czars

Are you OK? I wrote something unclear. Thanks for help clearing it up.

[ProfessorDavey]

Are you OK? I wrote something unclear. Thanks for help clearing it up.

I'm asking you what you meant to say (but without being unclear) - you haven't done so yet. All you've done is make two rather unclear comments where you seem to scramble the distinction between those in the cabinet, ministers (who may or may not be in the cabinet) and policy czars.

I'm trying to get you to explain your point in a manner that isn't completely unclear.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm asking you what you meant to say (but without being unclear) - you haven't done so yet. All you've done is make two rather unclear comments where you seem to scramble the distinction between those in the cabinet, ministers (who may or may not be in the cabinet) and policy czars.

I'm trying to get you to explain your point in a manner that isn't completely unclear.

  And I think with my agreeing with your kind points, and you plugging that into the original comment it makes it clear, again, many thanks.

[Nearly Sane]

Watching the HoC after 14 years of Tory Govt, and after the huge change in seats, it feels very odd looking at the changed personnel and benches.

[jeremyp]

Hmm - to err once is human - to err twice looks careless.

Oh FFS. He's apologised twice. Let it go.

[ProfessorDavey]

Oh FFS. He's apologised twice. Let it go.

He apologised for being unclear (when he was actually wrong), but then continues to be unclear (when he was actually continuing to be wrong).

When I picked him up on his comment that implied that ministers and cabinet ministers were one and the same (reply850) - he apologised but in the very same post made exactly the same claim (reply858). Surely you can understand my frustration, particularly with a poster who will jump upon the slightest lack of clarity and misrepresent it at the drop of a hat.

But actually my broader point is that NS seems (maybe - slightly unclear to me) have accepted that the cabinet are a subset of ministers and than policy czars are not ministers, but I still have no clue what point he was trying to make in his comment about czars, ministers and the cabinet.

[ProfessorDavey]

  And I think with my agreeing with your kind points, and you plugging that into the original comment it makes it clear, again, many thanks.

Nope - still have no idea what point you were trying to make in relation to policy czars and their interaction with ministers as a broad group and the subset of ministers that are in the cabinet.

I'd appreciate hearing your view on this matter as you haven't provided it yet with any clarity.

[jeremyp]

He apologised for being unclear (when he was actually wrong), but then continues to be unclear (when he was actually continuing to be wrong).

When I picked him up on his comment that implied that ministers and cabinet ministers were one and the same (reply850) - he apologised but in the very same post made exactly the same claim (reply858). Surely you can understand my frustration, particularly with a poster who will jump upon the slightest lack of clarity and misrepresent it at the drop of a hat.

I didn't bother to read any of that. I don't care.

But actually my broader point is that NS seems (maybe - slightly unclear to me) have accepted that the cabinet are a subset of ministers and than policy czars are not ministers, but I still have no clue what point he was trying to make in his comment about czars, ministers and the cabinet.

Actually, the broad point is how do you introduce domain experts into the government without them having to be elected to a constituency.

[ProfessorDavey]

Actually, the broad point is how do you introduce domain experts into the government without them having to be elected to a constituency.

Indeed - and I think NS has a point about that but I have no idea what that point is as he hasn't articulated it in a manner that has any clarity, due to his repeated confusion between the cabinet, ministers in general, the government (which also includes the civil service) and so-called policy czars.

I'd like to hear his point, but he seems reluctant to make it clearly.

[ProfessorDavey]

Fantastic graphic that demonstrates the phenomenal (and cooperative) targeting of seats by Labour and the LibDems

https://x.com/HzBrandenburg/status/1809633522115661993
https://x.com/HzBrandenburg/status/1809633522115661993/photo/1

There is an inflection point at which Labour vote share drops like a stone and at exactly the same point the LibDems suddenly rises. When Labour were targeting the LibDems simply didn't target and compete and vice versa.

If you check his feed you can see equivalent graphs for 2015
https://x.com/HzBrandenburg/status/1810652821840105685/photo/2

and 2017
https://x.com/HzBrandenburg/status/1810652821840105685/photo/3

you don't see the same effect - there is no sudden inflection point in Labour (or LibDem) vote share.

[jeremyp]

Fantastic graphic that demonstrates the phenomenal (and cooperative) targeting of seats by Labour and the LibDems

https://x.com/HzBrandenburg/status/1809633522115661993
https://x.com/HzBrandenburg/status/1809633522115661993/photo/1

There is an inflection point at which Labour vote share drops like a stone and at exactly the same point the LibDems suddenly rises. When Labour were targeting the LibDems simply didn't target and compete and vice versa.

If you check his feed you can see equivalent graphs for 2015
https://x.com/HzBrandenburg/status/1810652821840105685/photo/2

and 2017
https://x.com/HzBrandenburg/status/1810652821840105685/photo/3

you don't see the same effect - there is no sudden inflection point in Labour (or LibDem) vote share.

A very interesting set of graphs. I'd be interested to see the equivalent graphs for Conservatives and Reform UK Party ltd. My impression from this graph is that the proportion of votes taken by Reform UK Party ltd from the Tories is fairly constant.

[ProfessorDavey]

A very interesting set of graphs. I'd be interested to see the equivalent graphs for Conservatives and Reform UK Party ltd. My impression from this graph is that the proportion of votes taken by Reform UK Party ltd from the Tories is fairly constant.

I'm not sure these graphs tell us about vote switching - there are other analyses that have done this. Merely the vote share in each seat ranked (in this case) by Labour vote.

[ProfessorDavey]

A very interesting set of graphs. I'd be interested to see the equivalent graphs for Conservatives and Reform UK Party ltd. My impression from this graph is that the proportion of votes taken by Reform UK Party ltd from the Tories is fairly constant.

Ranked by tory vote share here:

https://x.com/HzBrandenburg/status/1809889955130273840/photo/3