Awol Posted February 13, 2020 Share Posted February 13, 2020 5 minutes ago, snowychap said: You wot? From whom? Control of the Treasury shifting to the PM. They’ve operated as rival poles of power since at least Thatcher and Major, often undermining each other. The Chancellor is now subordinated to the PM again, as government is actually meant to operate. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted February 13, 2020 Share Posted February 13, 2020 7 minutes ago, Chindie said: Rishi Sunak will nicely do what he's been told. Er, yes. He’s supposed to. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted February 13, 2020 Share Posted February 13, 2020 Be interesting to see if Johnson gets to keep his job in Cummings' cabinet reshuffle. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 13, 2020 Share Posted February 13, 2020 13 minutes ago, Awol said: Control of the Treasury shifting to the PM. They’ve operated as rival poles of power since at least Thatcher and Major, often undermining each other. The Chancellor is now subordinated to the PM again, as government is actually meant to operate. That is comical beyond measure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted February 13, 2020 Share Posted February 13, 2020 (edited) 2 minutes ago, snowychap said: That is comical beyond measure. Care to explain why/how? Edited February 13, 2020 by Awol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted February 13, 2020 Share Posted February 13, 2020 All hail King Dominic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 13, 2020 Share Posted February 13, 2020 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Awol said: Cate to explain why/how? This bit: 27 minutes ago, Awol said: as government is actually meant to operate It would apppear to be a particularly skewed reading of how things are 'meant to operate'. It seems to ignore any ideas of Cabinet government, Primus Inter Pares, &c. (which I'll admit have become less of the norm but to write them off as above is quite tellling, I think). It's bad enough that the FPTP system in this country allows for (and tends towards) an elected dicatorship in the form of a relatively unbound executive (especially when backed by a substantial majority), but it's more than alarming that there are people arguing that this power should be concentrated in the hands of an individual within that executive (not even on the basis of it being an improvement but seemingly on a claim of that is how it is meant to be). And that's without even going in to the influence of any particular individual behind the scenes. Dark, dark times. Edited February 13, 2020 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted February 13, 2020 VT Supporter Share Posted February 13, 2020 Once you drink the kool-aid... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post NurembergVillan Posted February 13, 2020 Moderator Popular Post Share Posted February 13, 2020 48 minutes ago, Awol said: We also now have our first Hindu Chancellor (for those interested in that kind of thing). Any evidence that this will make him particularly more or less equipped for the role? If not I couldn't give a shit, ta. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted February 13, 2020 Share Posted February 13, 2020 I thought we left the EU to take power away from 'unelected elites' Who voted for Carrie Symonds, Dominic Cummings and Zac Goldsmith? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted February 13, 2020 Share Posted February 13, 2020 8 minutes ago, snowychap said: This bit: It would apppear to be a particularly skewed reading of how things are 'meant to operate'. It seems to ignore any ideas of Cabinet government, Primus Inter Pares, &c. (which I'll admit have become less of the norm but to write them off as above is quite tellling, I think). It's bad enough that the FPTP system in this country allows for (and tends towards) an elected dicatorship in the form of a relatively unbound executive (especially when backed by a substantial majority), but it's more than alarming that there are people arguing that this power should be concentrated in the hands of an individual within that executive (not even on the basis of it being an improvement but seemingly on a claim of that is how it is meant to be). And that's without even going in to the influence of any particular individual behind the scenes. Dark, dark times. Disagree. The PM, as First Lord of the Treasury, should be able to his job without being deliberately undermined from next door. Thatcher and Major, Blair and Brown, May and Hammond, it’s been a feature of, and a contributor towards dysfunctional government. Ensuring all ministers and departments are focused on delivering government policy, which is agreed by Cabinet, is exactly how things are meant to work. The fact we’ve become accustomed to it not working is evident in the horror at that being corrected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted February 13, 2020 Share Posted February 13, 2020 Just now, StefanAVFC said: I thought we left the EU to take power away from 'unelected elites' Who voted for Carrie Symonds, Dominic Cummings and Zac Goldsmith? Advisers advise, ministers decide. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 13, 2020 Author Moderator Share Posted February 13, 2020 43 minutes ago, Awol said: Er, yes. He’s supposed to. Not really. As with any Minister, they have a specific role and specific responsibilities. They are not there as an errand boy/girl or as a lackey of the PM. Whilst the PM can hire and fire, the government of the Country is supposed to be by cabinet, not by a dictator telling everyone else what to do or not to do. Add in to the mix that Johnson is not a details person, is inconsistent, dishonest, error prone and a grade a tool, and it's problematic. That said, it's all basically replacing one set of words removed with a different set, so **** 'em. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted February 13, 2020 Share Posted February 13, 2020 3 minutes ago, Awol said: Advisers advise, ministers decide. And who elected Zac Goldsmith to be a minister? Advisers advise, fine. Cop out, but fine. How much power should an adviser wield? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 13, 2020 Author Moderator Share Posted February 13, 2020 1 minute ago, StefanAVFC said: How much power should an adviser wield? None at all. But with a weak charachter in post, then they unfortunately have too much power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted February 13, 2020 Share Posted February 13, 2020 1 minute ago, StefanAVFC said: And who elected Zac Goldsmith to be a minister? Advisers advise, fine. Cop out, but fine. How much power should an adviser wield? Appointing people from the Lords isn’t unusual, Lord Goldsmith appointed as Blair’s AG springs immediately to mind. Alistair Campbell virtually rain Blair’s government with no electoral mandate. Cummings has no personal power over politicians, only as the PM’s enforcer over other SpAds. He was against HS2 but Johnson likes trains so ignored that advice. But kool-aid/insert snark, etc. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted February 13, 2020 Share Posted February 13, 2020 23 minutes ago, Awol said: Disagree. The PM, as First Lord of the Treasury, should be able to his job without being deliberately undermined from next door. Thatcher and Major, Blair and Brown, May and Hammond, it’s been a feature of, and a contributor towards dysfunctional government. I don't really understand your examples. May and Hammond clearly did have different opinions, and I can see where you're coming from with that (it was a sign of May's weakness that she couldn't reshuffle a Chancellor she disagreed with so much). But Blair and Brown largely agreed on most important issues, and where they disagreed, Brown's independence led to mostly better results (canonically, staying out of the Euro). And Thatcher is a bit before my time, but my impression was that Major only really stuck the knife in during the poll tax disaster, which (if I'm right) probably led to 5 extra years of Tory government than would otherwise have been. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted February 13, 2020 Share Posted February 13, 2020 3 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: I don't really understand your examples. May and Hammond clearly did have different opinions, and I can see where you're coming from with that (it was a sign of May's weakness that she couldn't reshuffle a Chancellor she disagreed with so much). But Blair and Brown largely agreed on most important issues, and where they disagreed, Brown's independence led to mostly better results (canonically, staying out of the Euro). And Thatcher is a bit before my time, but my impression was that Major only really stuck the knife in during the poll tax disaster, which (if I'm right) probably led to 5 extra years of Tory government than would otherwise have been. The briefing against Blair by Brown’s team was epic and really the beginning of the end of New Labour, splitting the government. Blair wanted to sack him but never had the balls. Major was working against Thatcher for several years behind the scenes (with Heseltine), they drove the knife in when she said ‘no, no, no’ to the single currency. The wider point is the Treasury acting as power base and platform from which to challenge the authority of No.10, which is the opposition’s job. The Treasury was given its head under Hammond trying (successfully) to hijack May’s premiership. Javid’s advisers saw theit job initially as undermining Brexit (spad then sacked for leaking) and then differentiating ‘their guy’ from No.10 with more negative briefing. Johnson/Cummings called it out today and Javid chose to quit instead of accepting a joint spad team run from No.10. His call, but the internal debate about spads is over! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted February 13, 2020 Share Posted February 13, 2020 18 minutes ago, Awol said: The briefing against Blair by Brown’s team was epic and really the beginning of the end of New Labour, splitting the government. Blair wanted to sack him but never had the balls. Major was working against Thatcher for several years behind the scenes (with Heseltine), they drove the knife in when she said ‘no, no, no’ to the single currency. The wider point is the Treasury acting as power base and platform from which to challenge the authority of No.10, which is the opposition’s job. I think you're looking at this only through the PM's perspective. Blair and Brown often didn't get on, but their electoral success as a team is not irrelevant. 'The beginning of the end of New Labour' came after a] winning power, and b] holding it for a decade, which certainly seems like success to me. True, Blair didn't get his way on everything, but as I say, the times when Brown overruled him or outfought him usually led to better decisions being made. This was better for the long-term health of the government. The same is true for Major replacing Thatcher - for all we know, she'd have lost the election in 1992 (in fact, that seems to me quite probable). I guess my point is that of course it's nice for the PM to just fill a Cabinet with incompetent patsies who'll do everything he tells them without question, but that probably won't lead to better or more competent government. Whatever else you can say about him, surely no-one can deny that Johnson isn't much of a details man, so he more than anyone would benefit from a more qualified Cabinet. The final thing I will say on this is that 'the institutional Treasury' will often disagree with number 10, for structural reasons, no matter who is in charge. There is an argument to be made that an inexperienced Cabinet member (and remember, Sunak has been in the Cabinet for less than a year) will be more easily 'captured' and 'institutionalised' by the civil servants in the Treasury, which might be one forseeable but unintended unintended consequence of this appointment. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted February 13, 2020 Share Posted February 13, 2020 3 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said: Any evidence that this will make him particularly more or less equipped for the role? If not I couldn't give a shit, ta. Key criteria is indeed his ability as you point out but to have a Hindu in a key role and in a role that arguably puts him one step away from PM , is certainly a big deal you might not give a shit , but Khan reminds us every 30 secs how he is the son of an immigrant bus driver , a quick google of "posh White boys" and even a search with the VT keywords of "i'm not a labour supporter, but they have more diversity than the Tories " suggests it is a big deal for some Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts