Has Jack Straw been sold short?
June 28th, 2007-
Should he have got a better job for fixing Gord’s coronation?
In the immediate aftermath of Jack Straw’s appointment as Brown’s campaign manager there was a widespread assumption that the man who has been both Home secretary and Foreign Secretary would be in line a top ministerial post.
Following his hugely effective operation that closed off other potential contenders and then stopped any challenge being mounted the chances of Straw getting something really big appeared to be a near certainty. Surely, it appeared, Gordon would show his gratitude when he drew up the cabinet list. There was even talk for a while of him being made Deputy PM?
So what are we to make of his new job in charge of the new Ministry of Justice. This looks like scant reward for all that he has given his leader.
In the new cabinet list that has just been issued Straw ranks in seventh position after Darling, David Miliband, Jacqui Smith, Alan Johnson, Ed Balls and John Denham. That looks like a demotion to me.
Maybe Gord doesn’t do gratitude?
UPDATE: Since writing the post the Cabinet website has “Jack Straw has also been appointed to First Secretary of State, the most senior Secretary of State in Cabinet.” So maybe I have done Gordon an injustice.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
The rattling of skeletons may have something to do with this…
im pretty sure straw WANTED this job. isnt he also in charge of constitutional reform?
It is Gordon showing his true Stalinist colours.
Not impressive is it Mike, but I believe as Charlie says ot involves constitutional reform.
Mike just checked the No10 website and Jack Straw is listed above in 4th place above Jacqui Smith. Theoretically the Lord Chancellor gets a larger salary than the PM
Mike just checked the No10 website and Jack Straw is listed in 4th place above Jacqui Smith. Theoretically the Lord Chancellor gets a larger salary than the PM
the Lord Chancellor is a very senior position - and higher than the PM in the order of precedence - and as noted above his salary is a lot higher than Gordon’s now
What was it Dr Johnson said about the struggle for precedence between a louse and a flea? Surely the People’s Party isn’t unduly concerned as to whether Buggins is perceived to be more senior to Snuggins? What does it matter, as long as the pay is the same? (OK, the old Trade Unionists in the Cabinet (!) might be concerned about “differentials”, but so what?) Presumably one Cabinet Minister would have to walk behind another on entering a state banquet or something, based on these ludicrous ideas, but that’s all.
O/T - I think the bets at 14/1 on a non-Labour MP have gone down but before tearing up the slips, can anybody clarify the following?
The specific terms of the bet are “Will G Brown’s 1st Cabinet Include A Non Labour Party Politician?”
Not sure if Baroness Scotland attended today but if she did I suspect Hills would argue that she isn’t a Cabinet Member and she’s not actually a politician.
Anybody any views?
Totally OT but one for those who take an interest in the Middle East.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6249222.stm
9. Pushing it a bit Peter….
11 Especially if she didn’t attend?
Special cabinet session (today or tmrrw) chaired by Straw on constitutional reform - transferring power from Whitehall to people. What’s up?
Also, related, did anyone notice that GB spent an hour with her maj yesterday - way too long to say ‘yes, I thought you’d never ask, of course I will’! Was he pre-briefing on forthcoming constitutional changes?
9. Peter, Baroness Scotland was a junior minister. So I suppose she’s considered a politician. And she’s Labour, so I don’t think she would qualify for that bet
Probably a regional government for everywhere north of Brum.
‘transferring power from Whitehall to people. What’s up?’
You can be sure that doesn’t mean more referendums. Perhaps we will have local ‘Soviets’ of Labour Party members to make decisions on a neighbourhood level.
This is a bit of a silly thread.
I’m sure Straw wanted this job, and as it is also combined with being Lord Chancellor and consitutional reform. For all we know, it might still be Straw who is officially in charge in Gordon’s absence, even if he’s not styled as Deputy Prime Minister.
12. Chancer….
15. Jamie it looks something of that kind of ilk, apparent decentalisation..but no mention of voting system reform.
14 Yes, I don’t think there’s really much doubt, Andrea. The terms of the bet clearly imply The Cabinet and not various other attendees, hangers-on, civil servants, tea-ladies etc.
I’ll tear up the slip.
Was a good bet though.
Sodding Ashdown. Wait till I see him.
Proportional representation for local government?
BREAKING NEWS
There is a major fire at a North German nuclear power station!!
I want to know why Woodward is payless. It’s not fair. We need to call the unions to protect Woodward!
(what is his union? Unison? Call Unison to save SW! Start a picket line…
Peter at 9.
I think Sir Mark Malloch Brown as Minister for Africa, Asia and UN attending the Cabinet might put us in with a shout as I think he is a former civil servant not a Labour man…
“Maybe Gord doesn’t do gratitude?”
I would argue that putting Miliband in as Foreign Secretary shows a great deal of gratitude for him not standing for the leadership…
17 - “For all we know, it might still be Straw who is officially in charge in Gordon’s absence”
Well I certainly hope someone will know. Maybe that was the subject of GB’s lengthy discussion with Liz? He was telling her he’d leave the decision up to her?
What happened to Stephen Timms?
22. Oh, no, Woodward is Amicus, not Unison
26. yup, I was surprised not see him among Cabinet members.
Augustus Carp - from the previous thread - Yes it seems Blair was interviewed by police TODAY for the third time. Fortuitous timing, one might say. Arise, Lord Yates. And this after the Labour Party has been dissing the Met for a year about anti-Labour bias!
1 or 2 days earlier and this news would have ruined the takeover and kicked Quentin Davies well over the garden fence. But it slips out the day after Blair resigns, and the Beeb does its best to bury it on page 845.
Likesay, I’m not normally a Beeb-basher but I can’t see them handling Maggie with such politesse, if she’d been questioned by police the very next day after her resignation.
21 - Rik W, where did you hear that?
No Cooper, no Cruddas. I don’t think much of the former so am not surprised but Cruddas could have pacified the left a little, this cabinet looks very ‘new labour’ to me.
22 PM is only allowed so many paid posts in cabinet. If he has gone over the maximum then those extra cabinet members are not paid.
32. but do they pay junior ministers and not Woodward?
19. Careful Peter
I hear Ashodwn can land a deadly blow with his eyebrows. Aparently its something that all Comber born have. At least it is according to a mate of mine from Comber.
The whole in vcabinet thingw as the killer for me and why I didnt go into the bet. Once I reflected on it I realised that it was going to be a hell of a task, not least to persuade his own party that he shoudl be shoving previous opponents or so calledneutrals into high level posts just like that.
Didnt you make a few around the Darling market though?
21. Where you hear this?
Nick Browne is to be Dep Chief Whip and Minister for the North of England!!!
22 Andrea - can’t find it confirmed anywhere but think there is a maximum number of Cabinet Ministers in terms of pay & rations.
29. Sorry Augustus - my mistake - but the various reports are confusing. The BBC website actually now says this:
“On [last] Tuesday morning the then prime minister’s official spokesman was asked by BBC News website if there had been any further contact between the police and the prime minister and he replied his previous answers “had not changed”.
According to the Evening Standard newspaper, however, the prime minister had been interviewed for the third time about three weeks previously.
The second time Mr Blair was interviewed, the spokesman explained he had not told journalists because he had not been informed himself.”
Curioser and curioser. So it seems Blair was interviewed by the police three weeks ago, for the third time, but no one found out until today, after he resigned, on the same day Brown bags all the news for his Cabinet changeover. Which is, when you think about it, even more… unusual.
Nice news management though.
35. Oh, no, are they going with ministers for all regions?
30/34 - It was on BBC News 24
Timothy @ 30 - http://www.zdf.de/ZDFheute/inhalt/20/0,3672,5560340,00.html backs Rik up, but says there is no danger. Good job, I have a meeting in Hamburg tomorrow morning.
From BBC News “latest news”: “Fire reported near nuclear plant in northern Germany. More soon.”
If the fire is merely “near” this maybe isn’t a problem? Or they having a heatwave? Bush fire?
34 Oh yes, I’m with you on the interpretation of the bet, Yokel, but if he did attend attend the first meeting it might be worth a quick email to Hills.
And yes thanks, up £600 on Darling. Bit unlucky on the Home Sec market. Had Johnson, Blears and Denham all at 10/1.
Bloody Smiths get everywhere.
I’ll take your advice on Ashdown and give him a swerve.
Special cabinet meeting tomorrow to discuss constitutional reform…
Thanks for the clarification, Sean, and I agree with you - even more unusual indeed!
tell me that one of you regulars is in the process of making a fortune on the back Tim Henman at the moment?!?
43 Is there a price available on Gordon introducing PR?
No, I thought not.
38 Well cameron has shadow ministers responsible for cities so Gordon has trumped him by regional minsters. It could indicate something in his “constitutional plans” though.
re 22 and 36. Andrea that’s the reason. I did raise it on the other thread but didn’t get an answer. IIRC the limit is something like 22/23. It’s probably in some Ministers of the Crown Act or other.
Jack Straw is also the First Secretary of State (source MoJ) a title previously held by Prescott, Heseltine, and Jack’s mentor Barbara Castle etc.
47. I was wrong it seems - rather than local Soviets we will have a new brand of regional satrap to ensure that the Labour writ runs throughout the land, even in the growing number of places where they have no represenatation in local government.
It’s the usual doublespeak - ‘constitutional reform’ means ‘more power for the executive’ and ‘decentralisation’ means ‘more power for the prime minister albeit exercised through patsies of various kinds’.
Scallywag - I’m a natural sceptic but not necessarily with you on this one. Only because GB has a lot to gain from doing significant constitutional change - real evidence that he is not control freak (whether true or not), it’s economically free and could resolve some of WLQ issues. Also lots of scope to make the LibDems feel warm in their sandles and ‘come home’ in a few marginals. I think this agenda and the govt response to it is going to be bigger than many of us envisage. Any betting markets?
49 correct
http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/announcement_280607.htm
“Jack Straw has also been appointed to First Secretary of State, the most senior Secretary of State in Cabinet.”
50 - “It’s the usual doublespeak - ‘constitutional reform’ means ‘more power for the executive’ and ‘decentralisation’ means ‘more power for the prime minister albeit exercised through patsies of various kinds’.”
But it’s good to see that you are waiting to see exactly what is proposed before making your mind up though.
51. I admire your optimism Jon, let’s see shall we? Regional governments won’t happen because no-one wants them. PR in local elections might be a possibility though as that would a) help Labour prevent the further decimation of its activist base and b) open the way for plenty of Lib-Lab stitch ups - a dry run for the GE…
Re 53, Neil, “But it’s good to see that you are waiting to see exactly what is proposed before making your mind up though.”
Re 51 - ‘optimism’ - it’s better to travel hopefully etc? Although Ruth Kelly might put pay to that shortly!!
And has Stephen Timms been sacked or overlooked ?
I wonder if Chris Leslie may return to Government on the basis of representing Sedgefield from July 19.
I see that my long standing prediction for next Chancellor (Stephen Timms) has sunk without trace. Oh well….
I’ll get me coat.
re 54 Does Scallywag have any evidence for there being more Lib-Lab “stitchups” than Con-Lab or Con-Lib coalitions in local government?
UPDATE: Since writing the post the Cabinet website has “Jack Straw has also been appointed to First Secretary of State, the most senior Secretary of State in Cabinet.” So maybe I have done Gordon an injustice - I’ve added this as an update to the main article.
59. I never said there were…but I’m sure the Lib-Lab stitch-up quotient is set to rise across all levels of government in the near future…
Re 60, Mike, “So maybe I have done Gordon an injustice”
And what is wrong with that?
54 Bristol and Gloucester run by Con Lab pacts so will PR help that stitch up
re 22. Andrea you might find (a href=”www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/m06.pdf”>this interesting. it’s a factsheet about the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975 - the governing legislation - which, inter alia, sets the number of paid government ministers to 109, of whom 95 at most can be in the HoC
The Queen has been pleased to approve the following Ministerial appointments.
Minister for the North of England and Deputy Chief Whip (Treasurer of Her Majesty’s Household)
The Rt Hon Nick Brown MP
Minister for the North West
The Rt Hon Beverly Hughes MP
Minister for Yorkshire and the Humber
Caroline Flint MP
Minister for the Olympics and for London
The Rt Hon Tessa Jowell MP
Minister for the South West
Ben Bradshaw MP
Minister for the East Midlands
Gillian Merron MP
Minister for the West Midlands
Liam Byrne MP
Minister for the East of England
Barbara Follett MP
Amidst all the fun of the change of PM, the rather bland reshuffle, the lack of defections, and the police questioning Blair again and the Govt burying it, something just struck me…
Alistair Darling’s in charge of the economy now (albeit nominally I guess)
F*ck!
Let’s hope he’s better at it than he was with our transport system. The omens are not good though. He looks just the sort who would hike up tax on Middle Britain given half a chance. A sort of lefter-wing Gordon Brown.
Are ministers with incredibly rich wives exempt from the minimum wage?
10. Yokel, could be real internal problems in Iran in coming weeks and it will be interesting to see how the present leaders handle it. Seems to be some disquiet from young Iranians at the old guard, and the direction they are taking the country in. I think it was discussed on here before that they make up the largest part of the population?
57.A journalist on the Beeb (I think) mentioned that there might have been some behind the scenes tensions between Brown and Timms but not sure it that is true.
re 65, Jon, nominister for the South East outside of London? bizzare!
Well two of the possible contenders who might have stood against Gordon in a leadership contest have done very well for themselves in the new cabinet.
65 - “The Queen”?
Not a very nice way to refer to the new PM. I thought all those rumours had finally been quashed when he married the fragrant Sarah?
Lucky Tykes though - Caroline Flint as their Minister. I might move. We’ve got Beverley Hughes, whoever he/she is…?
Why the need for regional ministers anyway. Is this the supposed “answer” to the WLQ?
Clueless he is, clueless..
Is gordo setting this up for a bunch of regional assemblies with less powers than the Welsh effort to quash the WLQ ?
Re. 69 - I think the cabinet website needs updating because elsewhere I have seen Jowell referred to as ‘London and the South East’. (Clearly not her personally, in physical form - but as a representative for said regions!!)
0/T Henman out but hit more aces than Lopez. Apols punters. Hope some of you backed the other 2 tips and are still ahead.
69 - I think that’s Tessa Jowell.
69. It’s Jowell I believe.
The north-west doesn’t do too badly out of this though - one Cabinet minister for the Duchy of Lancaster, and a junior minister as well to include the rest of the region.
74 Yup, still ahead Henry.
Perverse isn’t it? More aces, fewer points. All logic dictated the other way round was more likely.
No matter…I’ll just off and recount my Darling winnings.
78. I bloody hate Henman.
Peter, Milord Rennard is asking for some cash to turn into bar charts for the elctions. Write to him and tell him how much you would have given him if Paddy had helped you out.
72. How could he set one up for the NE though when it has been rejected by a referendum? How could he plan assemblies for other ‘regions’ without offering referendums (which would be lost)?
More likely - give the current unelected ‘regional assemblies’ even more power than they already have to override local government.
Windies overpriced at 2.6 for the 20/20 game tonight - worth a small wager or a trading bet.
68. From what i gather Chris if they didnt do this rationing now they were about to run out of money to fund the imports and subsidising by the end of August. The speed with which this was done and the fact no one, including the Iranian police, were ready for the announcement suggest someone looked at the kitty and found it was nearly empty.
The president blokey has been resisting many calls for petrol price rises as well which has made things worse. It’s pure economics…they import finished petrol for about 52-55 cents a litre and sell it at about 40 odd cents a litre at the pumps.
Does this mean that Ken will have to report to Tessa
re 65, 72. How come we in the West Midlands (pop 5.5m) get a Minister of State, yet N Ireland (pop ca 1.5m) with it’s own devolved assembly gets a whole cabinet level secretary of state as well, and Scotland (pop ca 5.2m) with its own tax raising parliament gets half a secretary of state?
Answer to the WLQ? Pull the other one, this is a complete dog’s breakfast and hasn’t been thought through at all. I thought GB had 10 years to plan this.
‘Labour to lose a byelection’ now 3-1 was 10-1 yesterday
85, Cos if we don’t we’ll start shooting and bombing again…alright?
On a more practical level, NI has less devolved powers than either of the other two. There’s a lot more to do across a number of areas.
86. Prob below value now - was good at 10-1 yesterday despite what PtP said
83.Maybe the president ( can’t never pronounce his name and won’t take a stab at spelling it) should have been paying more attention to the domestic situation in Iran rather than concentrating on interfering with other countries?
Even before the rumblings about the fuel rationing I was seeing reports that the young Iranians were beginning to get very restless and unhappy at the present regime’s behaviour in general?
88. I thought it was great value yesterday, got 20 quid on. Less attractive now I agree though I still think Labour could struggle in Ealing.
89. It would be a mistake to assume the Iranian regime’s sabre rattling at the US and Israel is unrelated to domestic economic difficulties. Think Argentina, Falklands etc….
Why hasn’t Billy Hill’s paid out on Darling as Chancellor?
90. Not with Tom Watson in charge. Home win.
86. Where’s the other by election apart from Sedgefield again?
93. Problem with Ealing is that LDs and Cons both in with a shout and will split the anti-lab vote. Sedgefield - the only hope is a “anti Blair’s war” independant and all other parties pull out…
89. Looking at some pictures of the trouble in one area the local yokels don’t seem to be overly concerned about hiding their identities. If what I see was maybe paralleled in a dozen other locations it would be a pain but not amount to much in terms of trouble though its a sign that things are not well.
89.I wonder what is going on in parts of the country of the media radar completely?
97. My spelling is not great today.
97. An excellent question. Remember - no-one saw the Shah’s downfall coming either.
99 - no, and nobody would have predicted he’d launch a tabloid daily printed in Wapping, either.
Regional ministers?
The Revolution starts here!
Lord Owen on PM - What a smarmy git!
88 Jamie - I had misunderstood the bet and corrected myself shortly after. In fact I’ve taken the 10/1 myself.
My apologies (again) if I misled anybody.
92 Pregethwr - Hills are generally a bit slow in settling. It should be through soon, but do check the returns. I have known mistakes.
From ConHome: “A lot of traditional Tories feel quite bruised by the Cameron project. Telling supporters of grammar schools that they were “delusional” was incredibly unhelpful. I’m hearing rumblings from Ealing Southall that the local Association were hardly involved in the choice of the candidate. There are party candidates all over the country who hardly receive any information about selection processes.”
Sounds as if the Tories might have chosen someone that Cameron met somewhere at a party.
The Ladbrokes price for no Tory MPs defecting has tightened from 6/4 to 8/11. Lots of people must be hedging their 5/1 bets with Hills from yesterday I expect, me included.
How many more Tory MPs will defect to the Labour Party before the end of 2007?
None 8/11
One 3/1
Two 7/2
Three or more 8/1
105 - They’ve also picked someone whose father polled almost 6,000 votes as an Independent.
Thats quite impressive.
Is he Smashi-ji or Nicey-ji?
Recieved an excellent mailing today from Mr Cameron attacking Brown’s record (and, of course, asking for money). Did this go to just members I wonder … CCHQ really quite on the ball at the moment. Well done them!
65. Welcome to the era of spinless, uncorrupt politics. Why on earth do we need all these regional ministers of state, you ask yourself? Simple. It allows Brown to use taxpayers money to mount regional propoganda campaigns. Each regional minister will have a large budget to ‘explain’ the ’success’ of government initiatives, including the use of billboards, radio and TV advertising as well as the employment of regional ‘delivery’ Tsars whose job it will be to trumpet the doings of His Brown Majesty. Cynical? Not me, guv.
109. Mine, and the wife’s, landed on the mat just after Blair’s standing ovation. Now, that’s what I call timing.
109 “Recieved an excellent mailing today from Mr Cameron attacking Brown’s record (and, of course, asking for money).”
This is quite ironic. Is Cameron saying Brown has wasted your money, so solve the problem by sending me your money…?
Re 111, baskerville, I have not opened it yet. Oops. It arrived yesterday morning!
Iain Dale moaning that no minister for the South East is appointed. Good to see he’s keeping up his usual high standards of accuracy.
93. Henry ” Not with Tom Watson in charge. Home win. ”
wasn’t he also in charge of Hodge Hill byelection where Labour got a swing against whose dimention would be enough to lose ES?
And some of the Labour posters in Hodge Hill looked like BNP materials
Chris A, thanks for the link about members salaries.
And here was me dialling in to see who had defected today. Shucks
Well if Ed Balls thinks that today is the day for something big to happen, er, still waiting.
But if I was managing the news from a Labour POV, I’d get defections to announce late on Friday evening - let everyone get excited about the cabinet for a couple of days, then get the story all over the weekend papers. Today would have been a really odd day to announce a defection I’d have thought.
61 So just a cheap (attempted) point, then, Scally?
Osbourne kebabed on PM re venture Capital Tax rates.
Even this “Cabinet of all the Talents” will be able to run rings round the Tories.
118 - when will Osborne be moved by Cameron? It will happen.
“Has Jack Straw been sold shortie?”
I didn’t think that Clare was on the market.
Or has he purchased Hazel for his amusement?
119.
“when will Osborne be moved by Cameron?”
Top hole. Young David’s gone into trade. ‘Twill make a man of him, taking on the might of Pickfords.
Paddy Power get their 1st sacking market up. No obvious value bets at first glance…
First cabinet minister to resign/be sacked?
Jacqui Smith 2 - 1
Ruth Kelly 3 - 1
Des Browne 4 - 1
David Miliband 6 - 1
Alan Johnson 6 - 1
Peter Hain 8 - 1
Alistair Darling 10 - 1
Ed Balls 12 - 1
Jack Straw 14 - 1
Harriet Harman 16 - 1
59. “any evidence for there being more Lib-Lab “stitchups” than Con-Lab or Con-Lib coalitions”
Tory councillors have just shoed-back-in the Labour Administration on the Merseyside Passenger Transport Authority rather than allow the majorityish (9-7-2) Lib Dems to take control. They did something very similar in Greater Manchester last week. Obviously a strong Conservative desire to see tens of thousands of pounds in Labour councillors’ pockets. Or is it that the Tory and Labour policies (or lack of them) are pretty identical these days?
123 Or they dislike the LDS more? Actually its perfectly rational to keep the LDs out in those case - LDs don’t get to strengthen their local presence through incumbency and Tories can campaign against Labour next time.
124. “LDs don’t get to strengthen their local presence through incumbency and Tories can campaign against Labour next time.”
Yes, I understand the theory. They tried it out in Rochdale MBC in similar circumstances last year. Remind me of the two parties which both lost seats in Rochdale this year. And who now have overall majority for the first time ever.
122.
“First cabinet minister to resign/be sacked?
Jacqui Smith 2 - 1″
A bit unfair on the first ever Home Secretary to wear women’s clothes? Well, possibly….
122 Caveman - No, nothing very attractive there. Maybe Des Browne at 4/1, on the basis he had one ‘life’ over the Marine who were captured in Iraq, but I won’t be knocking anybody over to take it.
125 And would it have been better or worse in Rochdale for the Tories if they had supported the LDs? I don’t know.
123 - the Tories have often been cosy with Labour in St Albans. They use to let Labour (who were the smallest party with 9 councillors) have all the key council positions, just to keep the LDs in opposition. Not sure if this changed when Labour won the Westminster seat in 1997.
Hope some of you took the 2.6 on the Windies - they are on fiiire.
128. The Tories lost to the Lib Dems in the Norden/Bamford area, the area with the highest per capita income in Greater Manchester and the place where traditionally Cyril Smith and his successors have very effectively squeezed voters who support Tory councillors to keep Labour out in General Elections. It must have been relatively easy to get these voters to dump the Tories (for good?) in those circumstances. I doubt whether it would have happened without the Tory/Labour pact which led to a convicted criminal (assault) becoming Labour leader of the Council.
Come on Gordon, call Nick and make him junior minister…or at least Parliamentary Under Secretary!
132 PUS would be good. He likes cats.
A PUS in boots perhaps!
132: Well he hasn’t been on here today….the phone maay already have rung!
Re 126, Zebidee “A bit unfair on the first ever Home Secretary to wear women’s clothes? Well, possibly….”
Who do you suspect did that previously?
127. PtP, FWIW these are the Hills prices for a smaller pool of ministers. I’m going to steer clear as these are very event driven and you can’t predict which department will have a crisis first.
WHICH OF THESE MAGNIFICENT 7 CABINET MINISTERS WILL BE THE FIRST TO LEAVE THE JOB?…..7/4 Smith; 3/1 Browne; 4/1 Hain; 5/1 Johnson; 6/1 Miliband; 7/1 Darling; 10/1 Straw.
If I had to guess I’d go on who Gordon is unlikely to stick by in such a crisis, probably Browne (on previous form over Iran as you say) or Hain, so the 8/1 with PP may have some value since Hills have him at 4/1.
Peter hain at 8:1 not a bad one.Nobody is going to be moved, short of a disaster in the next year and the retention of Des Browne shows you can keep your job even then
Hain will be less loved in a year’s time except by Nick and chums.
What has happened to Stephen Timms by the way
Caveman - What would your view be on Will Hill’s paying out on non-Lab in Cabinet thanks to Mark Malloch-Brown?
So where’s this 2nd defection then? did I miss it and what about Woodward in NI! Amazing…
Ming gives permission for Shirley Williams to act as an independent adviser to the Government….
On the subject of the thread is the Home Secretary still one of the great offices of state? Its been shorn of various areas over the years and now is a pale imitation of what it was, merely English policing and UK security, important yes but arguably on a par with the Ministry of Justice. It’s only really the Treasury and Foreign Office that remain great offices and the latter now has lost International Development and has a minister attending Cabinet for Africa, Asia and UN.
Been wicked busy at work today.
So it seems that all the bluster about defections and big surprises was just that - bluster.
3 - Marcus, you just look silly when you say that. It’s really, really stupid, an unjustified insult on Gordon Brown that cheapens the atrocities Stalin was responsible for. Grow up you stupid, stupid man.
PBS chosen to be part of the National Web Archive
139. I’m no expert but his wiki page says this, so i wouldn’t be hopeful..
“He was appointed to that position by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown on 28 June 2007 and awarded a life peerage. He will also attend Cabinet meetings, although he is not officially part of the Cabinet.”
Conservatives quick of the blocks in Ealing. What about Liberal Democrats
On the thread topic, it astonishes me that a non-peer will be Lord Chancellor. Just doesn’t seem right!
30 - only Rik W would wet himself with excitment at the possibility of a major nuclear disaster. What a charming man.
144 - not sure what that means but congratulations…
not sure being part of an important archive will suit some of the more ambitious Tories on here, after all they’ve said a fair few things here they’ll probably find embarrassing in future.
Re 139, Tipster, yes he is after all attending cabinet.
147. RikW was doing nothing of the sort!
Re 144, Mike, The barstards, they have not invited me yet!
Well done
Re 144, Mike, The bastards, they have not invited me yet!
Well done
150 - what about the double exclamation marks then? not a biggie, just a bit pathetic
141 - Pathetic decision by Ming, surely he has to be challenged over this. There is no such thing as an *independent* government advisor, you advise the government or not, if you do you are responsible for that government’s decisions.
All that capital provided by Quentin Davies, lost because he won’t face up to his own side. Lib dems being part of Brown’s circle, what’s the point in trying to claim equidistance now?
152 - me neither, it’s as if my tales of pub crawls and ale excess aren’t of national importance.
Re 154, UKPaul, want a membership pack
Re 155, Stonch, why that is a disgrace! We should put a petition on Number 10’s website!
145 and 149 - Thanks. There are arguments on both sides - the wording of the best is will the ‘cabinet include a non Lab’ so I think there is a reasonable case to say attending is being included.
156 - No, just Ming’s head on a plate.
re 158, UKPaul, I see. Well now you have made the request public, I can hardly do that I’d be prime suspect. Besides which I don’t have your address
It’s been noted by the media how Brown has brought a number of younger people into the cabinet and its average age has gone down by five years.
One other effect that perhaps hasn’t been commented on as much is that there is now a good majority who have only ever been MPs under a Labour government. With the retirements of Prescott, Blair, Beckett and Reid, a lot of experience has gone out of the cabinet. Being in opposition is no fun, but you do learn to appreciate things from both sides and are less likely to take government for granted. I think that was one of the attitudes that overtook the Tory government after the 1992 win, possibly in no small part for the that reason.
Of the 22 named cabinet ministers, 14 were first elected in the 1997 landslide or later (if you include Baroness Ashton who became a life peer in 1999). Only Straw (1979), Harman (1982), Brown (1983), Darling (1987), Hain (1991) and Hutton, Denham and Hoon (1992) have sat as opposition MPs. There are five who were first elected this century.
Obviously, it remains to be seen if this generational shift affects the attitude of ministers and if so, how. It might be worth watching out for though.
As a resolute non-partisan I find it alarming that the general view is that the government ought not to seek advice from anyone who is not a member of the governing party.
154: ukpaul I actually thing Ming has called this one right. In being an advisor, there’s no requirement to take collective responsibility, to vote with the government, and to criticise the line of your own party, as there would have been for ministerial positions. (Which would have made taking them too difficult imo)
But if Gordon wants advice, I would rather that he is receiving it from members of my own party than others, and if there is no-one in Labour circles up to the job, thankfully he recognises the talent in other parties.
Indeed, SW will make no claims to be independent, nor should she! The LDs can present this as a great news story, getting their voice heard in Government, working across party lines for the sake of crucial issues, gaining experience of Government for when the next election comes round.
So I welcome this one - and hope that she will be a success in her role.
160. I should have mentioned that Shaun Woodward briefly sat as an opposition MP from 1997-9 before his defection, but even with him there’s still a 13-9 majority to those whose experience in parliament is only that of membership of the governing party.
162 - Comments on lib dem voice have been less charitable.
You can spin it as being good but ‘think of the voters’.
At its heart, it puts across two poor messages - one, that you can vote labour and get lib dem (so why bother voting lib dem?) and two, that you can vote for a party but your views will be ignored because politicians (who are all the same) will just appoint people you didn’t want. As such democracy is sullied.
I’ve just realised, Ed Balls is *in charge of schools*.
He’ll be ripped to pieces.
Watch this space……
164: You don’t have to spin, this genuinely is a good move, even if it is contested at first.
It’s good because it gives us a foot in the door of Government policy without having to take any of the responsibility for the policies we oppose. Crucially, SW can still criticise and campaign against Government policy, and avoids all of the flack for events. With that comes the Government’s option of ignoring what she suggests, but that’s the nature of opposition politics anyway - speak up for your views, and if you get people behind you and do it well, you may get your way.
Neither of your two messages do come across here - it’s not voting Labour and getting Lib Dem because none of our policies will get adopted unless Labour decide to do so, and as a party we will still be opposing the Government as strongly as before.
Your second point is surely the activist in you speaking - taking a step back that’s true of any single political party, that once you’ve voted them into power they’ll do pretty much what they like until another election comes round. Appointments are in the gift of the prime minister, so it’s hardly democracy being sullied when they appoint their team from those interested, rather than from those purely with the correct label. I think the days when a politician was defined first and foremost by their party affiliation are over (not least because of Tory Blair!) as are the days when people stick with the party they support for life. Ideas and policies (and for the time being at least, presentation) are proving more important than labels - and so they should.
165. Speaking of schools, I know someone who was at a teacher’s conference a couple of years ago when Jacqui Smith was a schools minister. He found her arrogant, rude, abrasive and inconsiderate. To give one example, she turned up for the debate she was replying to, sat at the back of the hall doing her paperwork then read her speech and disappeared straight off. The contrast with Alan Johnson (for example) was marked.
If she adopts the same attitude at the Home Office, then her being favourite to be the first from this cabinet to go is fully justified.
166 - that idea of responsibility is important, being part of a government under an official coalition - fine. Trying to have it both ways and having power without responsibility - not fine.
I’m thinking as a regular voter (I’m not an activist), who would see labour’s spin about working with lib dems and make their conclusions. To those in the bubble it may look laudable but we shouldn’t be giving labour credibility in such a way.
Turnout is also down because of disaffection with the main parties, to try and snuggle up to them is not the way to tease out those potential voters.
165. “He’ll be ripped to pieces.”
I must have missed something about Ed Balls. Has he done something to wind the teachers up? The classic Tory/Labour Government approach of “Teaching is really difficult, so lets make it even more difficult with tests, targets, paperwork, changing everything around every two years, etcetera.
169 - Just that he appears either less than robust or eye poppingly annoyed, either way he’s a (rather pale) red rag to a bull.
Johnson was pretty good, human and urbane, someone like that is needed.
170. Well, let us hope that Ed Balls grows into the job. Regardless of partisan feelings, no-one wants to see huge problems in the areas of education and health. The opposition might gain some political advantage in the short-term, but it is the country at large that is the loser.
143 and 147 - Stonch you really are the most low and loathesome individual on here, and you are up against some pretty stiff competition.
Having been in the forces and been a Nuclear Cell controller and having lived in Cumbria post Chernobyl, I have a better idea than most about the potential awefulness of a nuclear disaster.
I suggest you crawl back to your beer and just shut up for a while!
143 and 147 - Stonch you really are the most low and loathesome individual on here, and you are up against some pretty stiff competition.
Having been in the forces and been a Nuclear Cell controller and having lived in Cumbria post Chernobyl, I have a better idea than most about the potential awfulness of a nuclear disaster.
I suggest you crawl back to your beer and just shut up for a while!
I didnt intend posting twice but the stupidity of Stonch’s previous postings somehow deserve it!
172.
“really are the most low and loathesome individual on here”
Are we in ‘takes one to know one’ territory?
175 - Oh please dont sink to Stonch’s level!
Rik W:
I will be honest. I wouldn’t pick on you but for one reason: you have serious ambitions of becoming a politician. I don’t think that should happen.
Something you said here some time ago has always coloured my view of you, and will continue to do so. You probably know what I’m talking about.
The “crawl back to your beer” thing just proves the fact that, for you, nothing of note is going on upstairs - that’s one of the worst comebacks ever.
Anyway, thanks for inviting me to become your number one enemy, but the waiting list’s far too long. I’ll pass.
176 - it’s not a question of sinking to my level. It’s probably just that someone else doesn’t like you either.
Rik, for the record, what I am objecting to in this instance is the over zealous relaying of potentially tragic news - the double exclamation marks seemed somewhat inappropriate to me.
That is all. As I said, earlier, no biggie. Lets leave this dead thread alone, and leave each other alone from now on. You annoy me. I’ve told you. That’s it. The end.
173 - ps: I don’t care whether you were in the armed forces or not. It doesn’t make you a better person. We don’t all share your world view.
Salaries and Cabinet Office rankings are for the birds. It’s the politics that determine the de facto ‘ranking’. On tha