UK Politics

[mattheus]

Just waded through details of the Cabinet.

Only one has ever done a proper job, Mrs Rayner

Not one has started or ever run a business

We should get Trump in - he's started plenty of businesses.

[pwa]

Just waded through details of the Cabinet.

Only one has ever done a proper job, Mrs Rayner

Not one has started or ever run a business

We should get Trump in - he's started plenty of businesses.

Or Musk. If we think business people make good leaders of nations, he must be supremely qualified. I may not be serious about that.

[al_yrpal]

Just waded through details of the Cabinet.
...
As for the farmers, I'm hoping they take their muck spreaders

Al

An inspired teacher has lifelong positive effects on their pupils, a poor one can do lasting damage. It sounds like you've experienced the latter.

Yes, 50% inspirational and good and 50% awful. Only one in the cabinet besides Rayner that has done anything actually useful. The Dud seems to get animated any time a bit of prosecution is required. His dad was a toolmaker but he seems to have produced the ultimate useless tool. Four more years of this

Al

[Biospace]

Yes, 50% inspirational and good and 50% awful.
...

Not sure whether Streeting is inspiring or awful in his lecturing of Ken Livingstone here, although he appears to have loyalty to Starmer. The new leader and his cabinet did come across as exceedingly pale and stale at PMQ's this lunchtime.

[Nearholmer]

For now, I don’t give a monkeys if they seem pale and stale, or attract a load of opprobrium from entrenched interests, and “yah, boo, sucks” stuff from the faragists. They’ve got a big enough majority to allow them to do stuff, so what I’m interested in is whether they crack-on and do it, and don’t allow themselves to be blown off course by the gales of bad breath from the likes of the daily mail.

If they do, and it works in terms of improving the lot of a significant number of people, those actions will tell in their favour, and the time to worry about looking all bright and shiny and full of bounce will be twelve to eighteen months out from the next general election.

Of course, all sorts of outside influences, from putin to the maga-cult, with plenty besides, will attempt to distract and topple them, and to rev the faragists, and the Scot’s nats, and all of the other soft underbellies, up to fever pitch for next time, cos nobody wants a functioning example of social democracy on the go, so it won’t be easy, it will be very tough.

[axel_knutt]

An inspired teacher has lifelong positive effects on their pupils, a poor one can do lasting damage.

Wot, only teachers?

[PH]

Just waded through details of the Cabinet.

Only one has ever done a proper job, Mrs Rayner

Not one has started or ever run a business

Mostly just a bunch of lawyers and policy wonks.

No wonder they appear so out of touch
Al

Have you done the same with the shadow cabinet? There's been a growing trend in the professionalisation of politicians over the last thirty years. A quick google will bring up plenty of research on the subject (I know, I know, looking at the research isn't a very Tory thing to do) In the good old days, there was a clear route to being a Labour candidate from the shop floor, through being elected a union rep and then sponsored by that union, I suspect there were some objected to that as well. The lawyers were usually the Tories, there's such a long tradition of that, that the HoC hours are designed not to interfere with their practice at the bar. I don't know about the Liberals, it feels like most I've met used to be teachers.
Is it a bad thing? The role has changed, those things that keep you in touch are as likely to be due to your upbringing than your previous employment. Good MP's, of whatever party, have a lot of contact with their constituents, if they don't know what their concerns are, they've failed the fundamental part of the job. I'm not sure that running a business makes someone a better MP, anymore than running a union branch would. The new Tory leader likes to present herself as an engineer, but apparently she was a software engineer, a highly skilled job no doubt, but it does feel like she's misrepresenting herself.

[Nearholmer]

I personally think that experience of running something significant outside of politics, with a high load of responsibility and accountability, would/does make for better senior politicians. It sort of doesn’t matter what the organisation in which the experience is gathered is, but gathering it does. Vince Cable always struck me as very grounded and capable in that regard. And actually, whether you like the cut of the current PMs jib or not, having been the DPP probably fits the bill.

[mjr]

I personally think that experience of running something significant outside of politics, with a high load of responsibility and accountability, would/does make for better senior politicians. It sort of doesn’t matter what the organisation in which the experience is gathered is, but gathering it does. Vince Cable always struck me as very grounded and capable in that regard. And actually, whether you like the cut of the current PMs jib or not, having been the DPP probably fits the bill.

Like the current PM, Vince Cable spent most of his career working in the public sector (various governments and university) apart from a few years in private practice (at Shell) but not running it. It's shameful how differently these similar career paths are reported by the media and reveals how partisan the press is now.

[Nearholmer]

It doesn’t matter a fig whether the role has been public sector, private sector, military, charity, trades union, church or w,h.y., the important things are whether it involved a stack of accountability, and overseeing lots of resources and/or making far-reaching decisions, because those are the things that hone people’s abilities to do the things that a senior role in government involves, give exposure to the “real world” challenges of actually running a show, at peril of humiliation if you make a cod’s of it. Cable was Chief Economist at Shell ….. that’s not a role you screw-up lightly, because if you do, the monetary implications are immense.

[mjr]

It doesn’t matter a fig whether the role has been public sector, private sector, military, charity, trades union, church or w,h.y., the important things are whether it involved a stack of accountability, and overseeing lots of resources and/or making far-reaching decisions, because those are the things that hone people’s abilities to do the things that a senior role in government involves, give exposure to the “real world” challenges of actually running a show, at peril of humiliation if you make a cod’s of it. Cable was Chief Economist at Shell ….. that’s not a role you screw-up lightly, because if you do, the monetary implications are immense.

Arguably, the implications could have been even more immense if Starmer had sunk Doughty Street Chambers when second-in-command there, it was the first Chambers set up outside the Inns and would be missed much more than just another oil company. Did Starmer have a stack of accountability? Yep. Lots of resources? Hard to say because it's not a public company and doesn't seem to publish accounts. Far-reaching decisions? Yep. So why doesn't he get similar coverage to Cable? It's because he's a bit leftie, isn't it?

[Grangerider]

Reeves was an economist with the BoE. Mahmoud was a barrister. Benn, Milliband and Cooper have all run major departments. I prefer bureaucrats to plutocrats and oligarchs.

[mattheus]

An inspired teacher has lifelong positive effects on their pupils, a poor one can do lasting damage.

Wot, only teachers?

You could put "Star Wars movie" in there, with much the same truth.

[Jdsk]

So we pay because she decided that rather than investigate, rather than raise her concerns with the body privately, instead she went for publicity on Twitter for the whole world to see ... defamation (unfounded accusations) ... as a Minister she expected the taxpayer to fund her defamatory posting (which it seems we did).

And one cannot help but think about all those public services that can't be funded, all those in desperate need not getting the help they need whilst our money is spaffed away by publicity seeking Conservative Ministers committing unfounded defamation.

She decided to defame others, she should pay the bill.

"A DSIT spokesperson said: "There is an established precedent under multiple administrations that Ministers are provided with legal support and representation where matters relate to their conduct and responsibilities as a Minister, as was the case here. The Secretary of State received the appropriate advice from relevant officials at all times. A sum of £15,000 was paid without admitting any liability. This approach is intended to reduce the overall costs to the taxpayer that could result from protracted legal action, no matter what the result would have been."

A completely irrelevant and inappropriate response. Defaming people isn't part of her job "as a Minister".

I agree (with you, not with DSIT). Her Ministerial responsibility would have been to raise her concerns with UKRI (privately). Posting on Twitter to the whole world was NOT a Ministerial responsibility. Also, as a Minister she would have had the responsibility to investigate before making defamatory allegations in public.

New advice to Ministers from the Attorney General:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... dium=email

The first paragraph is a good start:
"A central element of the rule of law is that everyone – including the government – is subject to the law. As such, the government is required to comply with legal obligations arising under domestic and international law. This is affirmed in the Ministerial Code which refers to “the overarching duty on Ministers to comply with the law”, including international law."

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

...
New advice to Ministers from the Attorney General:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... dium=email

The first paragraph is a good start:
"A central element of the rule of law is that everyone – including the government – is subject to the law. As such, the government is required to comply with legal obligations arising under domestic and international law. This is affirmed in the Ministerial Code which refers to “the overarching duty on Ministers to comply with the law”, including international law."

"Keir Starmer’s rewrite of the ministerial code is long overdue":
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org. ... erial-code

The headline is very misleading, but it's a good article on a big improvement.

Jonathan