Gordon so far

Prozac the Robert · Post by **Prozac the Robert** » 2007-07-02 04:28pm

It's been quite a long week in politics I think. In the last week:

Tony Blair's last day.

Gordon fails to woo Paddy Ashdown onto his side, apparently the offer was made for him to be Northern Ireland Secretary.

A Tory MP defects to labour. His rant about Cameron is a joy to see.

Gordon takes over, and launches the biggest reshuffle since, well, ages ago. Lots of Tony's lot went when he did, so Gordon had a pretty free hand. We get a Cabinet made up of what's left of the veteran Labour talent. Putting Alan Johnson in health is probably a good move.

And then we get some very surprising junior ministers including a former UN deputy and a former admiral, appointed by making them peers. Along with that we get a liberal peer as an advisor. The 'government of all the talents' is ready to go. The defecting Tory doesn't get anything.

Latest poll shows Labour have overtaken the Tories again to be up at 39% against 35%.

Terrorist attacks. Jacqui Smith, the new Home Secretary, wins praise for her 'measured response', i.e. not introducing draconian new laws or going to war with anyone. It seems no one can criticise the government because of the terror thing.

The good old dinosaur faction of the Tory party say that now Labour are ahead again, the best thing to do is lurch to the right, but Cameron isn't having any of it at the moment.

Cameron has his own reshuffle. It seems to be a pretty low key mirror of the Labour one. He's brought in his own former member of the JIC, a Muslim, some younger MPs and some women.

All in all, I'd say Labour are in a pretty strong position right now. The terrorist attacks must have lead to a pretty stressful first few days, but they haven't done any harm politically. It's too soon to see what policy is going to look like, but I'm hopeful of some good stuff. What we have so far is a commitment to a more parliamentary and cabinet style of government.

So, what do my fellow Brits think of things? Are you part of the 39%? Will Gordon Brown prove to be better than Tony Blair was?

And how about the Americans? Apparently a lot of Americans in Washington don't really know who he is, despite the fact that he's been about to take over for years. Apparently Bush's lot are a bit worried by Brown putting David Milliband as Foreign Secretary (was against Israel over the Lebanon thing) and what's his name the Deputy UN man as a minister (UN, can't be trusted, obviously).

Non Brits and Americans are obviously free to comment as well of course.

chitoryu12 · Post by **chitoryu12** » 2007-07-02 04:44pm

I'm not that involved in politics across the pond (too much shit in this country as it is), but I have a feeling that Britain is changing for the better. Don't ask me how I know this, it's just a gut feeling, but I just think that he'll do well.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2007-07-02 04:45pm

My main issue with Labour is the utterly incompetent and ideological way that they've handled "reform" in the House of Lords. It would have made much more sense to tie it to the proposed regional assemblies, replacing the hereditary Lords with Lords who were selected by the regional assemblies to represent those regions. Granted, the whole regional assembly idea has been dead in the water for a while but it was good in concept and will probably happen eventually. If the government wants to seriously reform the Lords, it should do in a fashion which doesn't leave it hostage to the whims of the government. And any reform to replace the hereditary lords should, necessarily, also entail a restoration of powers to the Lords--the justification for stripping them of their power in 1911 and 1949 is gone if they're no longer hereditary.

I think British politics has been at a considerable disservice since the crippling of the upper house; there may have been no other choice at the time from your perspective, but its reform must be utterly comprehensive, and it should under no circumstance be one which is intended to bind the Lords into the government. Most of the bad things in your politics can be traced to the lack of effective opposition on a higher level.

At the same time, the whole point of having a second house is to maintain a somewhat rarefied body of opposition--so I don't think direct elections are at all suitable, or terms of any short duration. Perhaps 11 - 12 years like French Senators, or even still have them elected for life. The main problem is that England is such a unitary state that it will be hard to find a suitable body for electing members of the Lords to represent any region of England except London.

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2007-07-02 04:49pm

chitoryu12 wrote:I'm not that involved in politics across the pond (too much shit in this country as it is), but I have a feeling that Britain is changing for the better. Don't ask me how I know this, it's just a gut feeling, but I just think that he'll do well.

Wow, thank you for that refreshing blast of insight. Up next is Planetary Alignment with the winning lottery numbers, followed by the local weather forcast from Sparrow Guts.

chitoryu12 · Post by **chitoryu12** » 2007-07-02 04:53pm

Darth Raptor wrote:
chitoryu12 wrote:I'm not that involved in politics across the pond (too much shit in this country as it is), but I have a feeling that Britain is changing for the better. Don't ask me how I know this, it's just a gut feeling, but I just think that he'll do well.
Wow, thank you for that refreshing blast of insight. Up next is Planetary Alignment with the winning lottery numbers, followed by the local weather forcast from Sparrow Guts.

Sorry, but my gut is a little underpowered.

Prozac the Robert · Post by **Prozac the Robert** » 2007-07-02 05:19pm

To the Duchess:

Ah, the House of Lords. There really isn't anything sensible on the cards at the moment. Hopefully we might get something radical out of the new cabinet, but otherwise there's a good chance we're going to end up with 100% elected, probably by proportional representation. I have no idea what the point of a proportionally elected second house is really. They would all just end up voting on party lines. Depending on how it was set up it would either cause gridlock, repeated use of the parliament act to override said gridlock, or one part being completely unopposed if they could win enough of the popular vote.

What we really need is a lords capable of in depth scrutiny, with the power to stop terribly bad ideas, but also one that doesn't threaten the primacy of the elected lower house. What I certainly don't want is a system that gridlocks like the American model, leaving lots of matters that ought to be addressed by legislation to float around unresolved until they get settled almost arbitrarily by the courts.

And ideally the solution ought to somehow help deal with the other big constitutional white elephant: the West Lothian question, that is the unevenness caused by Scots MPs being able to vote on matters that affect certain bits of English policy but not vice versa thanks to devolved government in Scotland.

Your point about regional assemblies is a good one. They were intended to help with that issue, and if successful they could have lead to a good way of selecting lords. However, I'm not so sure that we'll be seeing them again, so that might just be a moot point.

Oddly enough it seems I broadly agree with you on the considerations behind how the lords should be chosen, but disagree as to the actual purpose of the second chamber. Thanks for bringing this up by the way, I find it interesting that you picked this as such a major issue when so many people in this country couldn't care less about it.

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2007-07-02 05:36pm

The Lords should be left as they are, they are a body made up of professionals (business men, lawyers, doctors etc) who can turn a knowledgeable eye to government laws and add suggestions and occasionally embarrass the government if they consider it a bad idea.

There could be some amendment to how Lords are chosen but that is about it.

Elected Lords are pointless because they would cause gridlock (unless we end up with a pointless, and expensive, duplicate) and if PR was used we would end up with BNP senators or whatever, I'll pass.

Lord Woodlouse · Post by **Lord Woodlouse** » 2007-07-02 06:29pm

I could only accept a Yorkshire Assembly, I did not like the boundaries they had in mind.

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2007-07-02 07:48pm

Lord Woodlouse wrote:I could only accept a Yorkshire Assembly, I did not like the boundaries they had in mind.

Personally I think we should have lumped you in with (greater) Lancashire and had the assembly sit in Lancaster, just for the comedy value.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2007-07-02 07:56pm

TheDarkling wrote:The Lords should be left as they are, they are a body made up of professionals (business men, lawyers, doctors etc) who can turn a knowledgeable eye to government laws and add suggestions and occasionally embarrass the government if they consider it a bad idea.

There could be some amendment to how Lords are chosen but that is about it.

Elected Lords are pointless because they would cause gridlock (unless we end up with a pointless, and expensive, duplicate) and if PR was used we would end up with BNP senators or whatever, I'll pass.

I'm not proposing elected Lords, but rather Lords who are appointed by lesser elected bodies. "Gridlock" is not a bad thing but rather in many cases necessary to stop enormously bad legislation. The majority in the Commons--especially since it appoints the Lords now--is allowed to do whatever it damn well pleases. Wouldn't you have liked some gridlock when Blair tried to take the country to war in Iraq?

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2007-07-02 08:07pm

I'd suggest re-jigging the regions to reflect the historical regions, and the regions of the national trust and other list references, making sure not to divide any ceremonial counties up between the different regions. Give the Cornish an assembly, too. That deals with the West Lothian question and at the same time should create some sort of regional identification. Then the powers of the Lords can be restored (at least back to those they had post-1911, if not even their full powers before 1911) and the slates of the Lords will be elected by the assemblies, rather than by popular vote. I suppose the RA's can be elected by proportional representation since Scotland's is. If they have limited powers--those that the Lords had before '49--they could still be elected for life. Otherwise I'd suggest a term of 12 years if they had full powers as a co-equal chamber.

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2007-07-02 08:39pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: I'm not proposing elected Lords, but rather Lords who are appointed by lesser elected bodies.

But as you point out such an idea isn't viable because we don't have such bodies.

Asking councils to elect Lords would just end up with an opposition chamber (since council votes almost always have an anti-government tinge, although they usually favour the Tories on balance) all but guaranteeing nothing gets done.

"Gridlock" is not a bad thing but rather in many cases necessary to stop enormously bad legislation. The majority in the Commons--especially since it appoints the Lords now--is allowed to do whatever it damn well pleases. Wouldn't you have liked some gridlock when Blair tried to take the country to war in Iraq?

It wouldn't have mattered, the opposition was in favour of the war (60% or so of those voting against were from Blair's party) and technically speaking Blair had the right to take us to war without a vote (I'm not all that pleased that he established the precedent).

In any case I would rather the PM be able to take us into a war he shouldn't than unable to take us in to a war he should.

As for gridlock being a good thing, I just differ from the American view of this matter.

I want my government governing not prevented from doing so by design and thus left impotent and at the whim of petty men in the legislature.

I am quite happy with an elected dictatorship, if the policy is truly disastrous and the public understands it to be so then it is electoral suicide to push forward with it.

The party itself will vote against it and depose their leader.

My view on government is that they should be given their shot and after 4 (or 5) years they are held to account, beyond that it is up to the MPs with an eye of their seats to make sure nothing to untoward happens.

If they all lose their minds and don't listen to the public crying out against the "Extermination of Ginger people Act 2008" then the Queen doesn't sign it and dissolves parliament, although it is extremely unlikely to ever come to that short of Fu Manchu using his mind ray on Parliament.

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2007-07-02 09:04pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:I'd suggest re-jigging the regions to reflect the historical regions, and the regions of the national trust and other list references, making sure not to divide any ceremonial counties up between the different regions. Give the Cornish an assembly, too. That deals with the West Lothian question and at the same time should create some sort of regional identification. Then the powers of the Lords can be restored (at least back to those they had post-1911, if not even their full powers before 1911) and the slates of the Lords will be elected by the assemblies, rather than by popular vote. I suppose the RA's can be elected by proportional representation since Scotland's is. If they have limited powers--those that the Lords had before '49--they could still be elected for life. Otherwise I'd suggest a term of 12 years if they had full powers as a co-equal chamber.

Splitting England up into regions is all some dastardly conspiracy by evil children eating EU bureaucrats.

Just ask any Sun, Daily Hate ermm Mail or Torygraph reader.

Adding several more layers of elected officials (with the attendant costs) isn't something people seem interested with.

If you give the Cornish their assembly (and I wouldn't on general principle) it won't be long before some other county wants one especially when you lump places like Cheshire (Tory land) with Manchester and Liverpool (where it would take divine intervention to get a Tory on the city council).

Birmingham (Labour core) would apply for London like status because it sits in a sea of blue (or vice versa if the sea of blue doesn't like the interferences of the densely populated Labour Birmingham).

People won't go for the idea because there are certain areas which will always vote a certain way no matter what happens nationally and there will be people trapped in those regions who would be submitting to indefinite "enemy" control.

At least at a national level their guys elsewhere can help them take control.

Don't get me wrong I prefer the region idea to an English Parliament but the most likely course is things remain as they are (unless the Tories betray their principles, such as they are) which I am fine with.

The regions idea is dead and tying it into Lord's reform just makes that even less likely, the government would just be accused of going over people heads and pushing something already rejected.

If the Lords absolutely has to be altered then just abolish it and be done with the matter

Dartzap · Post by **Dartzap** » 2007-07-03 01:14pm

Amusingly, Brown has just said that he's going to review the rules about the banning of spontaneous riots outside of Westminster, which sounds good.

Giving powers and royal prerogatives back to the Commons as well seems like a good idea. He's also thinking about using some of the more useful American things as well - cross party committees to select public officials and the like.

I shall give him atleast 6 months to make my mind up about him. the fact that he didn't go and some random policy into law in respnce to the slapstick terrorism is also a good sign.