• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

A Political Thread pt. 2

Starmer has made 3 appointments that already set this new government apart from the Tories. Attorney General, Prisons Minister and Minister for Science, innovation and technology are all highly regarded names in each of those fields and not wholly incompetent and inexperienced MPs or mates. The AG appointment in particular should be much more independent and therefore actually do the role of an AG rather than the likes of Braverman turning the whole office into a yes man office for dodgy activity.
 
Starmer has made 3 appointments that already set this new government apart from the Tories. Attorney General, Prisons Minister and Minister for Science, innovation and technology are all highly regarded names in each of those fields and not wholly incompetent and inexperienced MPs or mates. The AG appointment in particular should be much more independent and therefore actually do the role of an AG rather than the likes of Braverman turning the whole office into a yes man office for dodgy activity.
The fact he sacked off Emily Thornberry as shadow AG to do it probably isn't a bad thing.

I just wish they didn't have to give them life time peerages to to do it though. We should be able to appoint experts without the need of having to use the House Of Lords to do it. From what i know if you are not elected it is the only way of doing it, so it is what it is.
 
Ragey Erasmus said:
Starmer has made 3 appointments that already set this new government apart from the Tories. Attorney General, Prisons Minister and Minister for Science, innovation and technology are all highly regarded names in each of those fields and not wholly incompetent and inexperienced MPs or mates. The AG appointment in particular should be much more independent and therefore actually do the role of an AG rather than the likes of Braverman turning the whole office into a yes man office for dodgy activity.
The fact he sacked off Emily Thornberry as shadow AG to do it probably isn't a bad thing.

I just wish they didn't have to give them life time peerages to to do it though. We should be able to appoint experts without the need of having to use the House Of Lords to do it. From what i know if you are not elected it is the only way of doing it, so it is what it is.

Exactly why I think the house of lords should be abolished and replaced with a "house of professionals".

Appointments to the that house being in some way chosen representatives of professional bodies - with or without some form of cross vetting from house of commons.

Question is whether it should be that house that proposes legislation for agreement/disagreement by house of commons (neatly allowing PR into house of commons without a coalition being unable to do anything), or the inverse - which may result in the same continuation of confrontational crap we have right now.

Rationale being the proposed bills are coming from people in the best place to foresee the consequences and side-effects; and without stigma of any good idea being proposed by any party then killed by "not invented here" syndrome - and the house of commons (supposedly) expresses the will of the people in accepting or rejecting it.


Better than the ill-considered shite currently being forced through.
 
Personally thinking about it last few days.
All cabinet secretary positions should be elected officials (excluding AG) but all minsters could come from anywhere and in some ways actively encouraged to come from experts.
 
Personally thinking about it last few days.
All cabinet secretary positions should be elected officials (excluding AG) but all minsters could come from anywhere and in some ways actively encouraged to come from experts.
But then again would experts want to become ministers really?
 
To quote the PM "it's about service" if they are looking for something else why do we want them?

Maybe because they would want to focus on what they are actually good at and have experience v having to do the 100 other stuff that comes with being a MP.

I'm sure Timpson who is passionate at prison reform would be dying to hear Barbara from Crewe talk about the potholes. It's already been mentioned about candiates running on one policy and likely will hate the overall MP job
 
TFFT

Now to see if A] it's right, and B] if the leftists and centrists can form a coalition.
Presumably both would demand the other shed their "furthest from us" wing to do so.
Alternatively, a minority government.

Both seem doomed to failure - but then, we said that when Cameron and Clegg were negotiating a coalition (though without the personal hatred Macron and Melanchon have for each other)
 
Maybe because they would want to focus on what they are actually good at and have experience v having to do the 100 other stuff that comes with being a MP.

I'm sure Timpson who is passionate at prison reform would be dying to hear Barbara from Crewe talk about the potholes. It's already been mentioned about candiates running on one policy and likely will hate the overall MP job
I'm not sure you read entirely what I wrote I said secretaries should be elected not minsters. Timpson is a minister not a secretary.
 
TFFT

Now to see if A] it's right, and B] if the leftists and centrists can form a coalition.
Presumably both would demand the other shed their "furthest from us" wing to do so.
Alternatively, a minority government.

Both seem doomed to failure - but then, we said that when Cameron and Clegg were negotiating a coalition (though without the personal hatred Macron and Melanchon have for each other)
It's quite amusing this happens regularly in France though.

"OH NO THE FAR RIGHT ARE GOING TO TAKE CONTROL"

Everyone else tactically votes to stop that happening.

"SHOCK AS IT DIDNT HAPPEN AGAIN"
 
Well, except that this is the first time it's looked actually likely, rather than a scare tactic.

We're not talking about Reform getting 5 seats out of 650, and people losing their ****.
We're looking at huge relief that they I ly get 150 seats out of 577, instead of the clear majority that would have happend had last weekend's vote shre been repeated.
 
I'm not sure you read entirely what I wrote I said secretaries should be elected not minsters. Timpson is a minister not a secretary.

But are you voting for Timpson or his secretary?
How is he serving the country anymore than he would be now?
What's the difference between Secretary or the current MP's?

I just makes things convoluted and harder to change if it doesn't work out.
 
But are you voting for Timpson or his secretary?
How is he serving the country anymore than he would be now?
What's the difference between Secretary or the current MP's?

I just makes things convoluted and harder to change if it doesn't work out.
Cabinent Secretaries sit in Cabinent
Below them are minsters who looks after a portion of thr brief.

All I'm saying is all cabinet members must be elected MPs. Everyone doesn't need to be.

James Timpson isn't a member of thr cabinet.
 
Top