politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Opposition Leader Corbyn would be playing a dangerous game

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Opposition Leader Corbyn would be playing a dangerous game if he refused Privy Council status

The reports earlier this week that Jeremy Corbyn would refuse membership of the Privy Council if he’s elected leader of the Labour Party would be more than a symbolic gesture against a seemingly anachronistic body; it would be a serious strike against the country’s unwritten constitution.

Read the full story here

Alanbrooke

There are quite a lot of things he hasn't thought through.

DavidL

There really should be some positive vetting of Privy Councillors, especially if they are to be given privileged access to sensitive information. I really don't see how this muppet could pass such a procedure.

CD13

Why not give Jezza the benefit of the doubt?

Perhaps he fears he'll give away confidential information to his "friends"? So he's just being public-spirited.

Edit: This issue never really arose with Michael Foot because he was a patriot at heart. A little barmy, but basically a good if misguided man.

flightpath01

''he would be rejecting the idea that his is a loyal opposition.'' Pretty much sums it up. He would not be.

HYUFD

Donald Trump's principled stance on gay marriage

"I’ve gone to gay weddings. I’ve been at gay weddings," said Trump. "I have been against [same-sex marriage] from the standpoint of the Bible, from the standpoint of my teachings as growing up and going to Sunday school and going to church, and I’ve been opposed to it, and we’ll just see how it all comes out. But, you know, if I was ever in that position I'd just have to explain it."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-gay-marriage_55df3412e4b029b3f1b1d228?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices

JackW

DavidL said:

There really should be some positive vetting of Privy Councillors, especially if they are to be given privileged access to sensitive information. I really don't see how this muppet could pass such a procedure.

This is hardly practical.

Most vetting officers wouldn't have cleared Harold Wilson and a raft of other cabinet ministers.

......................................................................................

FPT - HoL reform - Demurring from the JackW proposals is a valid as an unwise Mrs JackW shoe purchase - utterly inexplicable !!

NickPalmer

I don't think he's taken a definite position on it - as with some other things, it comes from associates, and David is probably right that he's not given it much thought yet - he does, after all, need to win first. It's a non-trivial decision, since part of his appeal is that he's not really Westminster-clubbable. The press decision on whether to be part of the official Lobby system is analogous.

The extent to which he's briefed on confidential terms is to some extent separate. There have been suggestions here that he wouldn't be even as a Privy Council member; conversely, if he wasn't, it would be odd to make it a reason not to maintain a channel of communication. MPs all get confidential information from time to time and some are notorious at leaking it. It's not something I recall arising in his case.

FPT

(Alex)
There is a lot of talk that many in Labour oppose Corbyn because he is "unelectable". I suspect that many oppose him because they think his policies will be disastrous not just for Labour but for the country. And that if he is allowed to go into an election proposing them then they would rather he lost. So they may feel they can't take the chance of "waiting to see" how he does at various elections, and whether he can manage to turn himself into a vote winner.

What you suggest is unusual among members - not unknown, but not common. More generally, members feel they like a lot of what he says and especially how he says it, they disagree with some of it and doubt if it's electable, but they're willing to give it a try since winning looks difficult anyway. Cf. for instance

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/29/jeremy-corbyn-moment-bridget-christie

People like that will understand leading figures who express doubts and work with him conditionally, but they'll be less sympathetic to those who just throw their toys out of the pram.

It's also a misreading of the position of either new or old members to think that they've mostly turned into fanatical Trots who will deselect anyone who wavers. A typical member is a fairly moderate socialist trying to make the best of a tricky situation and expecting leading figures to do the same.

Out for most of the day so will leave it there.

runnymede

Hardly surprising that a Trot wouldn't consider himself the 'loyal opposition'. Bit of a non-story this one.

Recidivist

Well maybe the problem isn't so much Corbyn as the arcane system that centuries of never being invaded and not having revolutions has left us with? So a key part of the way the country is run is a body with no written constitution that nobody who isn't a participating gentleman knows the rules of? Is that any way to manage a country in the modern world? I wouldn't call an opponent of that way of doing things disloyal. In fact, it sounds like quite a patriotic position to me.

Plato

https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/637383961333903360

RobD

Recidivist said:

Well maybe the problem isn't so much Corbyn as the arcane system that centuries of never being invaded and not having revolutions has left us with? So a key part of the way the country is run is a body with no written constitution that nobody who isn't a participating gentleman knows the rules of? Is that any way to manage a country in the modern world? I wouldn't call an opponent of that way of doing things disloyal. In fact, it sounds like quite a patriotic position to me.

'nobody who isn't a participating gentleman knows the rules of'.

It's not that he doesn't know the rules, he's just choosing not to play by them. And our discussions here demonstrate we know a fair bit about the rules, although I will admit we are not a representative sample.

kle4

I think this does indicate one of the reasons I have reservations about Corbyn or even other reform minded people like carswell. Some things desperately need reforming, but sometimes things that look like anachronisms are either actually useful or merely harmless and add flavour to the system. If it's the latter it might be a bit galling to try to get rid of it or ignore it, but it's not a huge deal when all is said and done, but if there actually is a useful purpose behind such a seeming anachronism, refusing to engage is worrisome. Blanket refusal to play by the current rules of the game, even if perfectly reasonably seek to change the rules should you win, change a mistake.

With people like carswell it can be annoying as he has some good ideas, but occasional,y a t like any reform no matter how small, is the most important thing ever and how dare the establishment prevent the inevitable engagement with young people or whatever because they don't want him periscoping in Parliament or whatever. He seems to see any issue as part of a grand reforming crusade.

HYUFD

Plato said:

https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/637383961333903360

So Labour won clear victories in 2 of the lowest turnout elections of recent times, 2001 and 2005 and one by a landslide. The Tories won in 1992 on one of the highest turnouts of recent times and Labour lost the popular vote in Feb 1974 on the highest turnout of recent times showing that it is a myth that higher turnout really helps Labour

MonikerDiCanio

Corbyn has many of the qualities of an eighteenth century gent, he's an abstemious Charles James Fox. I'm confident a gentleman's agreement can be achieved on this matter.

isam

"David Cameron: net immigration will be capped at tens of thousands

Immigration levels would be capped every year and be limited to “tens of thousands” more than the numbers departing to live abroad, under a Conservative government, David Cameron has said.

An annual cap on new arrivals would be announced, with a figure based on the number of people who left Britain to move overseas.
Overall, net immigration would be kept in the “tens of thousands,” rather than the current rate of “hundreds of thousands”.
Saying he opposed a rise in immigration which would take the population above 70 million, Mr Cameron said that limits needed to be imposed to ensure public services did not become overwhelmed.

He said: “In a country like Britain you’re going to have large numbers of people going and living abroad every year and working abroad, and also large numbers of people coming in. It seems to me what matters … is the net figure.
“In the last decade, net immigration in some years has been sort of 200,000, so implying a 2 million increase over a decade, which I think is too much.

“We would like to see net immigration in the tens of thousands rather than the hundreds of thousands. I don’t think that’s unrealistic.
“That’s the sort of figure it was in the 1990s and I think we should see that again.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/6961675/David-Cameron-net-immigration-will-be-capped-at-tens-of-thousands.html

Financier

Presume that JC has sworn the Oath of Allegiance for MPs or else he would not be sitting there:

"In the House of Commons, after election, an MP must swear an Oath of Allegiance before taking his or her seat. Members who object to swearing an oath may make a Solemn Affirmation instead.

In the House of Lords the Oath of Allegiance must be taken, or Solemn Affirmation made, by every Lord on introduction and at the beginning of every new Parliament. This must be done before he or she can sit and vote in the House of Lords.

While holding a copy of the New Testament (or, in the case of a Jew or Muslim, the Old Testament or the Koran) a Member swears: "I...swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God."

The text of the affirmation is: - "I...do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors according to law".

http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/oath-of-allegiance/

MattW

From the last thread.

The Christian Socialist Movement was where many of the Blairites and I think Brownites gathered in the 1990s.

I think there was a time when they had most of the Cabinet as members.

No idea how much of it was "to be near to Tony".

At some stage the CSM will have deliberately moved on, but given that Cat is a UNITE / McCluskey supported type, I can see why she would emphasize the difference as a matter of politics.

ydoethur

CD13 said:

Edit: This issue never really arose with Michael Foot because he was a patriot at heart. A little barmy, but basically a good if misguided man.

He was also of course an ex-Cabinet Minister, so the question of swearing him to the Privy Council as LOTO didn't arise.

Thank you for another thoughtful article Mr Herdson (although - and I'm feeling guilty, but it's the last Saturday of the holidays and I'm back in teacher mode - you might want to check 'principle' in the second paragraph). The problem for Corbyn, I suppose, is that he has got as far as he has by saying what he's in favour of, something the other candidates haven't yet done. However, if he goes down the route of saying what he won't do, he runs the risk of just looking like another sour opportunist, a sulky child refusing to eat his vegetables. I don't suppose people will care about the Privy Council much one way or another - but supposing he starts making a big issue of welfare reforms, to which he has made clear his opposition on principle (fair enough) but to which he has, to my knowledge, not advocated a plausible alternative to.

With regard to Macdonald, and I think also Bonar Law, the key point is that 'party leaders' were also regarded as more or less unofficial titles until the 1920s, unless the party was (a) in government, in which case the PM was acknowledged leader or (b) there was an ex-Prime Minister at the top of the party. For example, Hartington was the official leader of the Liberal party in the 1870s, or at least co-leader with Granville, but Gladstone was appointed PM in 1880 despite technically being a backbench MP. Campbell-Bannerman was regarded as a caretaker for Asquith when elected leader, although he slightly spoiled things by refusing to let Asquith replace him when the Liberals entered government. Fox, of course, was considered leader of the opposition for around 25 years in the late eighteenth century, without ever being a party leader or even a candidate for Prime Minister. So the 'leader of the opposition' was a bit of a difficult one to define.
(continued)

ydoethur

(continued)
In fact I think I'm right in saying that it was only in 1937 that the title was officially recognised in parliamentary procedure, and granted a salary (ministers having been paid for centuries at that stage) and it was almost immediately suspended again in 1940 when the new National Government was formed, although a number of senior Labour backbenchers acted as leaders of the opposition to allow the House to function as normally as possible. Since then leaders who have not themselves been ministers have been Kinnock, Blair, IDS and Cameron. All have been made PCs as a result.

So therefore, Corbyn wouldn't be breaking an old tradition, but as you say it is an important one. If he makes his contempt for parliamentary procedure clear in this way, will he be trusted with anything else? Moreover, how could he be considered a possible PM if he refused to join the Privy Council through which all major decisions/legislation are ratified (by the 'Queen in Council')? It would be a constitutional nightmare.

Toms

Gentlemen "understand the limits of what’s acceptable without needing to write it down."

By no means intending an aspersion on the messenger can I just say---
"how sad is that?"

Steven_Whaley

I'm having a struggle processing the idea that Labour are actually going to elect Corbyn. It makes no sense on any level. This is clearly a party too traumatised to be taking major decisions about the future and the public (Corbyn cheerleaders aside) are noticing. This is not a leadership election - it's a childish temper tantrum. That or self harm. One or the other anyhow.

For me it's not so much Corbyn's own political views which make him so unacceptable but his unwillingness to see anything beyond his own dogma. He can't process information in a rational way because anything that challenges his own prejudices is not given a moment of consideration. Indeed he seems completely unable to handle having his opinions questioned.

As the 3rd Doctor once said in Doctor Who: "Allow me to congratulate you sir. You have the most totally closed mind that I've ever encountered."

Labour have now made net seat losses at 4 consecutive general elections. Even accounting for the high starting point this is a terrible record. They seem hell bent on making it 5 or worse.

kle4

Recidivist said:

Well maybe the problem isn't so much Corbyn as the arcane system that centuries of never being invaded and not having revolutions has left us with? So a key part of the way the country is run is a body with no written constitution that nobody who isn't a participating gentleman knows the rules of? Is that any way to manage a country in the modern world? I wouldn't call an opponent of that way of doing things disloyal. In fact, it sounds like quite a patriotic position to me.

He can change things if he wins, until then he needs to follow the rules. (Though isn't being pm not strictly speaking in the rules, that is there is no statutory position of PM, is that right?). Unless the rules are harmful. If it isn't harmful, but merely arcane, i think it adds character to our system but others may reasonably disagree and they can bring forward legislation to remove that part of the system. If a rule is harmful, don't follow it and the system changes. Plenty of conventions have developed to accept the world is different now, and we didn't even need a law to change the rule.

Our system cracks around the edges sometimes because it adapts to situations in fits and starts in response to crises and changes in the culture, with bodge jobs by politicians of the day and natural evolution. It generally works however, with significant, sudden change rarely necessary (we may have missed the chance to create a viable unionist solution for keeping the home nations together unfortunately, the temporary fixes are running out of time). When they are, or people think they are, they can clarify things by making laws so there is more than convention to follow. Not following a harmless rule or one which is usefuluntil then is just petty gesture politics.

ydoethur

MattW said:

From the last thread.

The Christian Socialist Movement was where many of the Blairites and I think Brownites gathered in the 1990s.

I think there was a time when they had most of the Cabinet as members.

No idea how much of it was "to be near to Tony".

At some stage the CSM will have deliberately moved on, but given that Cat is a UNITE / McCluskey supported type, I can see why she would emphasize the difference as a matter of politics.

Thanks, Matt, I didn't know that. But that in itself gives even more of the lie to her disparagement of it. She was dismissing it as 'not important', when it was, at one time. Even if it still isn't, to forget just how important it was is to be wilfully blind to the actual antecedents of Labour, and what made it a genuinely mass movement in a way that pure Marxism, or even 'developed socialism', never could have done and almost certainly never will do.

It's all of a piece with Corbyn's iconoclasm for this thread - a lot of arrogant talk, with little thought for the practical realities of their disregard for what they regard as arcane features.

HYUFD

Steven_Whaley said:

I'm having a struggle processing the idea that Labour are actually going to elect Corbyn. It makes no sense on any level. This is clearly a party too traumatised to be taking major decisions about the future and the public (Corbyn cheerleaders aside) are noticing. This is not a leadership election - it's a childish temper tantrum. That or self harm. One or the other anyhow.

For me it's not so much Corbyn's own political views which make him so unacceptable but his unwillingness to see anything beyond his own dogma. He can't process information in a rational way because anything that challenges his own prejudices is not given a moment of consideration. Indeed he seems completely unable to handle having his opinions questioned.

As the 3rd Doctor once said in Doctor Who: "Allow me to congratulate you sir. You have the most totally closed mind that I've ever encountered."

Labour have now made net seat losses at 4 consecutive general elections. Even accounting for the high starting point this is a terrible record. They seem hell bent on making it 5 or worse.

The Tories elected IDS in 2001 after net seat losses at 3 consecutive general elections and a net gain of 1 seat at the most recent election so it is not without precedent. When Hague lost Tory members simply decided they were not willing to abandon the principles they had fought the election on and especially when none of the alternatives looked like really troubling Blair, Labour look like doing the same after Miliband's defeat with none of the alternatives looking like really troubling Cameron

kle4

runnymede said:

Hardly surprising that a Trot wouldn't consider himself the 'loyal opposition'. Bit of a non-story this one.

He's sworn into the system to sit as an MP for 32 years. If he did not accept some arcane rules regarding that, and his commitment to play within the system, he'd be an abstentionist. Why draw the line at this issue?

One reason he might do it, as a mere gesture, or maybe people worried he would and keaked he wouldn't to force his hand.

maaarsh

Toms said:

Gentlemen "understand the limits of what’s acceptable without needing to write it down."

By no means intending an aspersion on the messenger can I just say---
"how sad is that?"

I'm not sure your point is as self evident as you believe. So much so that I haven't a clue why you think so.

The world is a much better place when shared values and common decency are applied rather than a set of imperfect rules.

kle4

HYUFD said:

Plato said:

https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/637383961333903360

So Labour won clear victories in 2 of the lowest turnout elections of recent times, 2001 and 2005 and one by a landslide. The Tories won in 1992 on one of the highest turnouts of recent times and Labour lost the popular vote in Feb 1974 on the highest turnout of recent times showing that it is a myth that higher turnout really helps Labour

So it would seem. Another election myth shattered.

ydoethur

kle4 said:

He can change things if he wins, until then he needs to follow the rules. (Though isn't being pm not strictly speaking in the rules, that is there is no statutory position of PM, is that right?).

I think both Leader of the Opposition and Prime Minister were first officially recognised by the Ministers of the Crown Act 1937, which also established the various salary scales for them. Therefore the first holders of each office, at least officially, would be Chamberlain and Attlee.

flightpath01

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

Plato said:

https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/637383961333903360

So Labour won clear victories in 2 of the lowest turnout elections of recent times, 2001 and 2005 and one by a landslide. The Tories won in 1992 on one of the highest turnouts of recent times and Labour lost the popular vote in Feb 1974 on the highest turnout of recent times showing that it is a myth that higher turnout really helps Labour

So it would seem. Another election myth shattered.

'Come friendly clouds pour on Slough'

kle4

MonikerDiCanio said:

Corbyn has many of the qualities of an eighteenth century gent, he's an abstemious Charles James Fox. I'm confident a gentleman's agreement can be achieved on this matter.

Possibly, it's not unsolvable and perhaps a new convention arises. I wonder if his bandwagon, which is barely connected to him, will let him.

Toms

maaarsh said:

Toms said:

Gentlemen "understand the limits of what’s acceptable without needing to write it down."

By no means intending an aspersion on the messenger can I just say---
"how sad is that?"

I'm not sure your point is as self evident as you believe. So much so that I haven't a clue why you think so.

The world is a much better place when shared values and common decency are applied rather than a set of imperfect rules.

I had in mind the implied equating of "gentleman" with "decency", under the banner of "class". Some of the kindest and gentlest people I know are rough hewn and hardly "gentlemen" and would be considered lower class. Sorry, but that's how I perceive it. And anyway we need a few more formal rules for government, especially apparently, the Lords.

HYUFD

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

Plato said:

https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/637383961333903360

So Labour won clear victories in 2 of the lowest turnout elections of recent times, 2001 and 2005 and one by a landslide. The Tories won in 1992 on one of the highest turnouts of recent times and Labour lost the popular vote in Feb 1974 on the highest turnout of recent times showing that it is a myth that higher turnout really helps Labour

So it would seem. Another election myth shattered.

Indeed, most of those who do not turnout are probably not that different ideologically from the rest of the population, not diehard Marxists waited for a socialist leader to inspire them!

flightpath01

maaarsh said:

Toms said:

Gentlemen "understand the limits of what’s acceptable without needing to write it down."

By no means intending an aspersion on the messenger can I just say---
"how sad is that?"

I'm not sure your point is as self evident as you believe. So much so that I haven't a clue why you think so.

The world is a much better place when shared values and common decency are applied rather than a set of imperfect rules.

Yes - As I said previously in another context, the best defence for a woman from a cad a bounder and a rake is a gentleman.

SimonStClare

Excellent Mr Herdson, it was always a bit hazy in my mind, so appreciate a succinct appraisal of the role of the Privy Council and the implications for the opposition in rejecting it.

kle4

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

Plato said:

https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/637383961333903360

So Labour won clear victories in 2 of the lowest turnout elections of recent times, 2001 and 2005 and one by a landslide. The Tories won in 1992 on one of the highest turnouts of recent times and Labour lost the popular vote in Feb 1974 on the highest turnout of recent times showing that it is a myth that higher turnout really helps Labour

So it would seem. Another election myth shattered.

Indeed, most of those who do not turnout are probably not that different ideologically from the rest of the population, not diehard Marxists waited for a socialist leader to inspire them!

Indeed. I know it's anecdotal and so cannot be taken as indicative, but I've come across lifelong non voters who have, somehow, heard snippets of this contest and of Corbyn and who think he'd be a total disaster. Given the strategy apparently relies on massively wining non voters, getting them all to vote and also consolidating all non Tory votes, I just don't see how that is viable.

Steven_Whaley

HYUFD said:

The Tories elected IDS in 2001 after net seat losses at 3 consecutive general elections and a net gain of 1 seat at the most recent election so it is not without precedent. When Hague lost Tory members simply decided they were not willing to abandon the principles they had fought the election on and especially when none of the alternatives looked like really troubling Blair, Labour look like doing the same after Miliband's defeat with none of the alternatives looking like really troubling Cameron

Indeed so. As you rightly say, the Conservatives only just avoided 4 consecutive net seat losses - but avoided it they did nonetheless. Goodness only knows what they'd have done if they'd ended up with 164 seats rather than 166 in 2001? Had a similar collective mental breakdown to the one Labour are having now, I suspect.

kle4

Toms said:

maaarsh said:

Toms said:

Gentlemen "understand the limits of what’s acceptable without needing to write it down."

By no means intending an aspersion on the messenger can I just say---
"how sad is that?"

I'm not sure your point is as self evident as you believe. So much so that I haven't a clue why you think so.

The world is a much better place when shared values and common decency are applied rather than a set of imperfect rules.

I had in mind the implied equating of "gentleman" with "decency", under the banner of "class". Some of the kindest and gentlest people I know are rough hewn and hardly "gentlemen" and would be considered lower class. Sorry, but that's how I perceive it. And anyway we need a few more formal rules for government, especially apparently, the Lords.

As colon firth said recently in 'kingsman' - a delightfully entertaining if graphic and vulgar movie - being s gentleman has nothing to do with class.

Though some in the upper classes may not agree. I'm always struck by fictional portrayals of blue bloods or just plain rich people, who are astoundingly rude but think they are really polite and how dare people be rude to them. Mr darcys aunt comes to mind.

We could do with some more formal rules, to be sure. Corbyn can bring forth legislation to that effect no problem if he wins.

HYUFD

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

Plato said:

https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/637383961333903360

So Labour won clear victories in 2 of the lowest turnout elections of recent times, 2001 and 2005 and one by a landslide. The Tories won in 1992 on one of the highest turnouts of recent times and Labour lost the popular vote in Feb 1974 on the highest turnout of recent times showing that it is a myth that higher turnout really helps Labour

So it would seem. Another election myth shattered.

Indeed, most of those who do not turnout are probably not that different ideologically from the rest of the population, not diehard Marxists waited for a socialist leader to inspire them!

Indeed. I know it's anecdotal and so cannot be taken as indicative, but I've come across lifelong non voters who have, somehow, heard snippets of this contest and of Corbyn and who think he'd be a total disaster. Given the strategy apparently relies on massively wining non voters, getting them all to vote and also consolidating all non Tory votes, I just don't see how that is viable.

Indeed and it is the floating voters who voted for Blair then moved to Cameron who Labour should really focus on and as Newsnight showed last night Cooper or Burnham are more likely to win them back than Corbyn though while Cameron is leader few are likely to switch for now

Plato

Isn't it just akin to pornography, difficult to define - but we know it when we see it?

Toms said:

Gentlemen "understand the limits of what’s acceptable without needing to write it down."

By no means intending an aspersion on the messenger can I just say---
"how sad is that?"

HYUFD

Steven_Whaley said:

HYUFD said:

The Tories elected IDS in 2001 after net seat losses at 3 consecutive general elections and a net gain of 1 seat at the most recent election so it is not without precedent. When Hague lost Tory members simply decided they were not willing to abandon the principles they had fought the election on and especially when none of the alternatives looked like really troubling Blair, Labour look like doing the same after Miliband's defeat with none of the alternatives looking like really troubling Cameron

Indeed so. As you rightly say, the Conservatives only just avoided 4 consecutive net seat losses - but avoided it they did nonetheless. Goodness only knows what they'd have done if they'd ended up with 164 seats rather than 166 in 2001? Had a similar collective mental breakdown to the one Labour are having now, I suspect.

The key difference between 2015 and 2001 was Scotland, excluding Scotland Miliband gained a net 14 seats in England and Wales so actually did slightly better than Hague south of Hadrian's Wall. Of course it looks slightly better to have only 3 consecutive net losses to 4 but the end result for both parties seems to be the same, party members putting their fingers in their ears and saying 'the voters don't like us and we don't care' and electing a new party leader who is even further away from the centre than the old one!

Morris_Dancer

Very interesting post, Mr. Herdson. I hadn't heard Comrade Corbyn might refuse such an offer.

Scrapheap_as_was

spurs to ruin my weekend again later, I've work to be done...

What to have on whilst working...

oh look, there's just 8 months more on iplayer to watch this beauty....

click.

Scrapheap_as_was

Bong...

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Scrapheap, are you quite alright? You appear to either be appealing for apparatus related to narcotic consumption, or to have gone stark raving mad and believe yourself to be a broken clock.

Plato

And to accompany your viewing pleasure http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/05/07/the-exit-poll-is-great-news-for-the-tories/

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Bong...

david_herdson

ydoethur said:

kle4 said:

He can change things if he wins, until then he needs to follow the rules. (Though isn't being pm not strictly speaking in the rules, that is there is no statutory position of PM, is that right?).

I think both Leader of the Opposition and Prime Minister were first officially recognised by the Ministers of the Crown Act 1937, which also established the various salary scales for them. Therefore the first holders of each office, at least officially, would be Chamberlain and Attlee.

That's right re the official recognition of the LotO, however the first formal acknowledgement of the role of prime minister was in a Royal Warrant issued in 1905 (Campbell-Bannerman had just become PM at the time).

(Sorry about the misspelled principle/principal, by the way).

Philip_Thompson

Recidivist said:

Well maybe the problem isn't so much Corbyn as the arcane system that centuries of never being invaded and not having revolutions has left us with? So a key part of the way the country is run is a body with no written constitution that nobody who isn't a participating gentleman knows the rules of? Is that any way to manage a country in the modern world? I wouldn't call an opponent of that way of doing things disloyal. In fact, it sounds like quite a patriotic position to me.

Absolutely its a way of running things!

If it is not broke then don't fix it, the 'permanent revolution' to try and improve things through codified means in many nations across the globe has been utterly disastrous. Our system OTOH works well enough. If you have a better alternative propose another nations model that has a long and better track record than ours.

SouthamObserver

Corbyn cannot be briefed on matters of national security as he cannot be trusted. The other thing about an unwritten constitution is that it can be adapted to suit the circumstances. And when JC becomes Labour leader the circumstance will be that a man who has consistently shown himself to be comfortable consorting with the UK's enemies and all types of anti-US entities will be the leader of the opposition. All Labour party members and £3ers voting for Corbyn just have to accept this one and understand that in the real world that's how it works. It is, of course, one of the very many reasons why Corbyn is unfit to be Labour leader and why, in choosing him, Labour is showing that it is totally unfit to be a party of government.

JEO

If Trump opposes marriage based on the Biblical definition, presumably he supports polygamy? The one man, one woman thing was largely a Roman custom.

OchEye

JackW said:

DavidL said:

There really should be some positive vetting of Privy Councillors, especially if they are to be given privileged access to sensitive information. I really don't see how this muppet could pass such a procedure.

This is hardly practical.

Most vetting officers wouldn't have cleared Harold Wilson and a raft of other cabinet ministers.

Interesting thought, but if I remember correctly, wasn't Wilson and many of his cabinet members of the Attlee government at junior minister level. Wilson was President of the Board of Trade in 1951. So being vetted was not an option.

Although to my way of thinking, much of the communist hysteria was overdone by those who had done reasonably well out of 13 years of Tory Government and wanted a return to the good old days. Just think, they ended up with Edward Heath.

Alanbrooke

Germany is getting overrun by more than a million immigrants !

Raccoons are becoming a problem and are spreading from two regions: Hessen where they were released in 1934 and Brandenburg where they escaped from a fur farm in the forties. They are now moving in to towns and neighbouring states.

German government now has to decide how to control them - makes badgers look simple.

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wissen/natur/waschbaeren-freundliche-neulinge-oder-invasoren-13750411.html

david_herdson

ydoethur said:

CD13 said:

Edit: This issue never really arose with Michael Foot because he was a patriot at heart. A little barmy, but basically a good if misguided man.

He was also of course an ex-Cabinet Minister, so the question of swearing him to the Privy Council as LOTO didn't arise.

[snip for length]

With regard to Macdonald, and I think also Bonar Law, the key point is that 'party leaders' were also regarded as more or less unofficial titles until the 1920s, unless the party was (a) in government, in which case the PM was acknowledged leader or (b) there was an ex-Prime Minister at the top of the party. For example, Hartington was the official leader of the Liberal party in the 1870s, or at least co-leader with Granville, but Gladstone was appointed PM in 1880 despite technically being a backbench MP. Campbell-Bannerman was regarded as a caretaker for Asquith when elected leader, although he slightly spoiled things by refusing to let Asquith replace him when the Liberals entered government. Fox, of course, was considered leader of the opposition for around 25 years in the late eighteenth century, without ever being a party leader or even a candidate for Prime Minister. So the 'leader of the opposition' was a bit of a difficult one to define.
(continued)

That's right. Until the 1920s, it wasn't necessarily clear who the overall leader of a party in opposition was as there'd be a leader in both Lords and Commons. The 1911 Parliament Act went a long way to changing that by clearly formalising the convention that the Commons was the senior but it was Baldwin seeing off Curzon in 1923 which really established it in practice.

At about the same time, Labour introduced a formal party leader into their structure: previously they had been led by a general committee with their leading MP merely heading their parliamentary party (Labour being structured differently from the Tories and Liberals, who started as parliamentary organisations and worked out, whereas Labour started as a popular movement and worked in).

Finally, in the early 1920s, it wasn't clear who the main opposition to the Tories was. Labour had overtaken the Liberals but whether that was a permanent state of affairs or the temporary result of the LG/Asquith split was an open question (and really remained so until 1931: in 1929, despite a poor return in seats, the Liberals still polled 24%).

HYUFD

JEO said:

If Trump opposes marriage based on the Biblical definition, presumably he supports polygamy? The one man, one woman thing was largely a Roman custom.

Given his multiple wives that would not surprise me

Barnesian

I suspect Corbyn's problem is not with the role of Privy Councillor but the wording of the oath itself (just like Sinn Fein).

If you were a republican would you really want to swear the following oath?

"You do swear by Almighty God to be a true and faithful Servant unto The Queen's Majesty as one of Her Majesty's Privy Council. You will not know or understand of any manner of thing to be attempted, done or spoken against Her Majesty's Person, Honour, Crown or Dignity Royal, but you will lett and withstand the same to the uttermost of your power, and either cause it to be revealed to Her Majesty Herself, or to such of Her Privy Council as shall advertise Her Majesty of the same. You will in all things to be moved, treated and debated in Council, faithfully and truly declare your Mind and Opinion, according to your Heart and Conscience; and will keep secret all matters committed and revealed unto you, or that shall be treated of secretly in Council. And if any of the said Treaties or Counsels shall touch any of the Counsellors you will not reveal it unto him but will keep the same until such time as, by the consent of Her Majesty or of the Council, Publication shall be made thereof. You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance to the Queen's Majesty; and will assist and defend all civil and temporal Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates. And generally in all things you will do as a faithful and true Servant ought to do to Her Majesty so help you God"

You would be a hypocrite if you did.

If he becomes PM with a majority, there is a simple solution. Amend the The Promissory Oaths Act 1868 so that the oath is to promise loyalty to Parliament rather than the Queen.

This is unfinished business.

RobD

Barnesian said:

I suspect Corbyn's problem is not with the role of Privy Councillor but the wording of the oath itself (just like Sinn Fein).

If you were a republican would you really want to swear the following oath?

"You do swear by Almighty God to be a true and faithful Servant unto The Queen's Majesty as one of Her Majesty's Privy Council. You will not know or understand of any manner of thing to be attempted, done or spoken against Her Majesty's Person, Honour, Crown or Dignity Royal, but you will lett and withstand the same to the uttermost of your power, and either cause it to be revealed to Her Majesty Herself, or to such of Her Privy Council as shall advertise Her Majesty of the same. You will in all things to be moved, treated and debated in Council, faithfully and truly declare your Mind and Opinion, according to your Heart and Conscience; and will keep secret all matters committed and revealed unto you, or that shall be treated of secretly in Council. And if any of the said Treaties or Counsels shall touch any of the Counsellors you will not reveal it unto him but will keep the same until such time as, by the consent of Her Majesty or of the Council, Publication shall be made thereof. You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance to the Queen's Majesty; and will assist and defend all civil and temporal Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates. And generally in all things you will do as a faithful and true Servant ought to do to Her Majesty so help you God"

You would be a hypocrite if you did.

If he becomes PM with a majority, there is a simple solution. Amend the The Promissory Oaths Act 1868 so that the oath is to promise loyalty to Parliament rather than the Queen.

This is unfinished business.

That's a rather large if!

Barnesian

RobD said:

Barnesian said:

I suspect Corbyn's problem is not with the role of Privy Councillor but the wording of the oath itself (just like Sinn Fein).

If you were a republican would you really want to swear the following oath?

"You do swear by Almighty God to be a true and faithful Servant unto The Queen's Majesty as one of Her Majesty's Privy Council. You will not know or understand of any manner of thing to be attempted, done or spoken against Her Majesty's Person, Honour, Crown or Dignity Royal, but you will lett and withstand the same to the uttermost of your power, and either cause it to be revealed to Her Majesty Herself, or to such of Her Privy Council as shall advertise Her Majesty of the same. You will in all things to be moved, treated and debated in Council, faithfully and truly declare your Mind and Opinion, according to your Heart and Conscience; and will keep secret all matters committed and revealed unto you, or that shall be treated of secretly in Council. And if any of the said Treaties or Counsels shall touch any of the Counsellors you will not reveal it unto him but will keep the same until such time as, by the consent of Her Majesty or of the Council, Publication shall be made thereof. You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance to the Queen's Majesty; and will assist and defend all civil and temporal Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates. And generally in all things you will do as a faithful and true Servant ought to do to Her Majesty so help you God"

You would be a hypocrite if you did.

If he becomes PM with a majority, there is a simple solution. Amend the The Promissory Oaths Act 1868 so that the oath is to promise loyalty to Parliament rather than the Queen.

This is unfinished business.

That's a rather large if!

Agreed. I was picking up David's "if" namely "Let’s assume the alternative though. The Promissory Oaths Act 1868 requires the prime minister (and other cabinet ministers) to be Privy Councillors. If Corbyn is serious about wanting to be PM, he’d have to take the Oath then, so why not take it now? "

RobD

Barnesian said:

RobD said:

Barnesian said:

I suspect Corbyn's problem is not with the role of Privy Councillor but the wording of the oath itself (just like Sinn Fein).

If you were a republican would you really want to swear the following oath?

"You do swear by Almighty God to be a true and faithful Servant unto The Queen's Majesty as one of Her Majesty's Privy Council. You will not know or understand of any manner of thing to be attempted, done or spoken against Her Majesty's Person, Honour, Crown or Dignity Royal, but you will lett and withstand the same to the uttermost of your power, and either cause it to be revealed to Her Majesty Herself, or to such of Her Privy Council as shall advertise Her Majesty of the same. You will in all things to be moved, treated and debated in Council, faithfully and truly declare your Mind and Opinion, according to your Heart and Conscience; and will keep secret all matters committed and revealed unto you, or that shall be treated of secretly in Council. And if any of the said Treaties or Counsels shall touch any of the Counsellors you will not reveal it unto him but will keep the same until such time as, by the consent of Her Majesty or of the Council, Publication shall be made thereof. You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance to the Queen's Majesty; and will assist and defend all civil and temporal Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates. And generally in all things you will do as a faithful and true Servant ought to do to Her Majesty so help you God"

You would be a hypocrite if you did.

If he becomes PM with a majority, there is a simple solution. Amend the The Promissory Oaths Act 1868 so that the oath is to promise loyalty to Parliament rather than the Queen.

This is unfinished business.

That's a rather large if!

Agreed. I was picking up David's "if" namely Let’s assume the alternative though. The Promissory Oaths Act 1868 requires the prime minister (and other cabinet ministers) to be Privy Councillors. If Corbyn is serious about wanting to be PM, he’d have to take the Oath then, so why not take it now?

I doubt he'd get it through the Lords so easy. Although he could just abolish that too while he's at it.

maaarsh

SouthamObserver said:

Corbyn cannot be briefed on matters of national security as he cannot be trusted. The other thing about an unwritten constitution is that it can be adapted to suit the circumstances. And when JC becomes Labour leader the circumstance will be that a man who has consistently shown himself to be comfortable consorting with the UK's enemies and all types of anti-US entities will be the leader of the opposition. All Labour party members and £3ers voting for Corbyn just have to accept this one and understand that in the real world that's how it works. It is, of course, one of the very many reasons why Corbyn is unfit to be Labour leader and why, in choosing him, Labour is showing that it is totally unfit to be a party of government.

Yes, and no doubt due to excessive concerns about being polite and unbiased, he will be given the usual treatment. A bit concerning that a couple of hundred thousand of the most unrepresentative fruit loops in the population get to pick a nutter to have that sort of access.

Scrapheap_as_was

New experience - New Order remix channel and Election night combined.

10m Crystal Digweed & Muir Bedrock mix with guest vocals from Harriet & Paddy... "you shocked me to the core" banging on in the background.

Morris_Dancer

Miss Plato, enjoyed this later thread on the electoral morning after the night before:
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/05/08/many-congratulations-to-those-who-called-it-right/

Worth thinking how very different Labour's leadership election might have been had Balls not been defeated.

On-topic: maybe Corbyn thinks he'll not be invited and, like a splitting couple where both parties want to claim it was *their* decision, wants to ensure he's seen to be making a choice rather than being considered untrustworthy.

Scrapheap_as_was

Plato said:

And to accompany your viewing pleasure http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/05/07/the-exit-poll-is-great-news-for-the-tories/

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Bong...

Splendid - might print those and the day before out for a scrap-book one day....

did you see what I did there...

Philip_Thompson

Barnesian said:

I suspect Corbyn's problem is not with the role of Privy Councillor but the wording of the oath itself (just like Sinn Fein).

If you were a republican would you really want to swear the following oath?

"You do swear by Almighty God to be a true and faithful Servant unto The Queen's Majesty as one of Her Majesty's Privy Council. You will not know or understand of any manner of thing to be attempted, done or spoken against Her Majesty's Person, Honour, Crown or Dignity Royal, but you will lett and withstand the same to the uttermost of your power, and either cause it to be revealed to Her Majesty Herself, or to such of Her Privy Council as shall advertise Her Majesty of the same. You will in all things to be moved, treated and debated in Council, faithfully and truly declare your Mind and Opinion, according to your Heart and Conscience; and will keep secret all matters committed and revealed unto you, or that shall be treated of secretly in Council. And if any of the said Treaties or Counsels shall touch any of the Counsellors you will not reveal it unto him but will keep the same until such time as, by the consent of Her Majesty or of the Council, Publication shall be made thereof. You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance to the Queen's Majesty; and will assist and defend all civil and temporal Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates. And generally in all things you will do as a faithful and true Servant ought to do to Her Majesty so help you God"

You would be a hypocrite if you did.

If he becomes PM with a majority, there is a simple solution. Amend the The Promissory Oaths Act 1868 so that the oath is to promise loyalty to Parliament rather than the Queen.

This is unfinished business.

Except that's similar to the MP's oath he's made for decades. I'm a republican and if I was a politician I'd swear that oath - and I'd seek to make the country a republic and I would do so with such intent openly revealed to Her Majesty.

MattW

kle4 said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

Corbyn has many of the qualities of an eighteenth century gent, he's an abstemious Charles James Fox. I'm confident a gentleman's agreement can be achieved on this matter.

Possibly, it's not unsolvable and perhaps a new convention arises. I wonder if his bandwagon, which is barely connected to him, will let him.

I think Charles Bradlaugh MP is an interesting comparison for Corbyn, including perhaps on the oaths thing.

Scrapheap_as_was

True dub - " I thought the day would never come"

Tory maj...

isam

Is it a controversial idea for parties to pick their leaders undemocratically and let people decide whether to join them or vote for them based on what they offer? Like a football club

Yorkcity

My guess is David you do not have a clue what his thoughts are.

As for a dangerous game, hardly if he has no chance.

RobD

Scrapheap_as_was said:

New experience - New Order remix channel and Election night combined.

10m Crystal Digweed & Muir Bedrock mix with guest vocals from Harriet & Paddy... "you shocked me to the core" banging on in the background.

Just rejoice at that sound

CarlottaVance

Barnesian said:

You would be a hypocrite if you did.

But not to say this?

I...do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors according to law".

Which he must have done, many times.....

AlastairMeeks

If Labour wishes not to provide loyal opposition, I can't see that it is obliged to. That may well be a shame but we can't confect a consensus where none exists.

Will Jeremy Corbyn be given confidential briefings by the present government as Leader of the Opposition on Israel, northern Ireland or Ukraine? It's hard to imagine. So he may well be looking to make a virtue out of necessity.

david_herdson

Yorkcity said:

My guess is David you do not have a clue what his thoughts are.

As for a dangerous game, hardly if he has no chance.

I don't know what his thoughts are - I've not had the opportunity to discuss it with him - but the reports earlier this week were a pretty good signal, as was his response which as far as I'm aware has been not to dispute those reports.

Likewise, for the reasons I've laid out in the leader, I don't think it's a sustainable position for someone who wants to be PM. Even if he would abolish the Privy Council, amend the oath and all sorts of other things, he'd need to be PM first, which means taking the oath and accepting membership beforehand (he could, theoretically, be party leader and let someone else form a government with him trying to pull strings but the two leaderships wouldn't knit together and would be likely to fall apart).

Consequently, my assumption - and you're right that it's an assumption (though it's NickP's as well) - is that he's not thought it through.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Antifrank, that was a thought I had, but it's possible this becomes symbolic of Corbyn's unsuitability (and creates an issue, potentially, for his successor - do they say the same?).

It could also help UKIP. Farage, for all his quirks, would be seen as more reliable than Corbyn.

EPG

antifrank said:

If Labour wishes not to provide loyal opposition, I can't see that it is obliged to. That may well be a shame but we can't confect a consensus where none exists.

Will Jeremy Corbyn be given confidential briefings by the present government as Leader of the Opposition on Israel, northern Ireland or Ukraine? It's hard to imagine. So he may well be looking to make a virtue out of necessity.

If true, which it may well be, this would say more about the present government, not Corbyn, for refusing to give such confidential briefings. Whatever about other matters, pro-Israel and pro-Ukrainian nationalism are not part of Britain's unwritten constitution; as for Northern Ireland, Corbyn's pals are now taking the queen's shilling as HM's Government in the region.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. EPG, if there's genuine fear the Leader of the Opposition is untrustworthy, you cannot expect him to be given briefings on security matters.

Philip_Thompson

isam said:

"David Cameron: net immigration will be capped at tens of thousands



“We would like to see net immigration in the tens of thousands rather than the hundreds of thousands. I don’t think that’s unrealistic.
“That’s the sort of figure it was in the 1990s and I think we should see that again.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/6961675/David-Cameron-net-immigration-will-be-capped-at-tens-of-thousands.html

Because nothing has changed in the intervening years?

As frustrating as migration may be for Europeans, ISIS is infinitely worse for Syrians. If I was a Syrian fleeing ISIS would I do whatever I could to reach safety in Europe? 100% absolutely I would do everything I could as I'm sure everyone else here would want to too.

Until we deal with ISIS this migration epidemic is not going away.

maaarsh

EPG said:

antifrank said:

If Labour wishes not to provide loyal opposition, I can't see that it is obliged to. That may well be a shame but we can't confect a consensus where none exists.

Will Jeremy Corbyn be given confidential briefings by the present government as Leader of the Opposition on Israel, northern Ireland or Ukraine? It's hard to imagine. So he may well be looking to make a virtue out of necessity.

If true, which it may well be, this would say more about the present government, not Corbyn, for refusing to give such confidential briefings. Whatever about other matters, pro-Israel and pro-Ukrainian nationalism are not part of Britain's unwritten constitution; as for Northern Ireland, Corbyn's pals are now taking the queen's shilling as HM's Government in the region.

What mandate would he have to access this information? There's been a takeover of the opposition by an extremist fringe without any evidence of broad popular support in the population, so convention is the only argument he would have for privileged access to sensitive information.

Barnesian

CarlottaVance said:

Barnesian said:

You would be a hypocrite if you did.

But not to say this?

I...do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors according to law".

Which he must have done, many times.....

with fingers crossed?

MattW

ydoethur said:

MattW said:

From the last thread.

The Christian Socialist Movement was where many of the Blairites and I think Brownites gathered in the 1990s.

I think there was a time when they had most of the Cabinet as members.

No idea how much of it was "to be near to Tony".

At some stage the CSM will have deliberately moved on, but given that Cat is a UNITE / McCluskey supported type, I can see why she would emphasize the difference as a matter of politics.

Thanks, Matt, I didn't know that. But that in itself gives even more of the lie to her disparagement of it. She was dismissing it as 'not important', when it was, at one time. Even if it still isn't, to forget just how important it was is to be wilfully blind to the actual antecedents of Labour, and what made it a genuinely mass movement in a way that pure Marxism, or even 'developed socialism', never could have done and almost certainly never will do.

It's all of a piece with Corbyn's iconoclasm for this thread - a lot of arrogant talk, with little thought for the practical realities of their disregard for what they regard as arcane features.

Checking, I'm not sure about the half of the Cabinet claim, so I withdraw that.

Certainly John Smith was keen, as was Blair, and I think Blunkett. Also Chris Bryant and Stephen Timms. Not sure about Brown.

More here:
http://www.christiansontheleft.org.uk/history_of_our_movement

It was refocused when Blair started the military adventures.

EPG

Recidivist said:

Well maybe the problem isn't so much Corbyn as the arcane system that centuries of never being invaded and not having revolutions has left us with? So a key part of the way the country is run is a body with no written constitution that nobody who isn't a participating gentleman knows the rules of? Is that any way to manage a country in the modern world? I wouldn't call an opponent of that way of doing things disloyal. In fact, it sounds like quite a patriotic position to me.

No, it is apparently disloyal to even countenance change to reform of rules written by gentlemen for gentlemen.

I guarantee you, though, that if someone in 1688 had decreed a codified constitution, British values would all be about following the rules to generate fair play, rather than the vague conventions common in immature democracies. It's just conservatism, accepting the way things are as good because it seems to suit our betters.

malcolmg

DavidL said:

There really should be some positive vetting of Privy Councillors, especially if they are to be given privileged access to sensitive information. I really don't see how this muppet could pass such a procedure.

He is no worse than the clowns who have supposedly passed it already

Yorkcity

If we are guessing on his thoughts.
I would say he originally just wanted to change the overton window.
Events have changed the debate, from a sterile austerity light, to a wider range of possible policies.

As a republican and a gradual social reformist , we know many people who obtain power and then become sychophants to the existing system, without ever challenging the current orthodoxy.

Born to rule is an anathama to me , as many in the SNP and Labour but they go along with it, as it is deemed necessary to obtain power.
So any gentlemans agreement needs to change to a written constitution.
Hopefully with a woman leader signing it.

malcolmg

JackW said:

DavidL said:

There really should be some positive vetting of Privy Councillors, especially if they are to be given privileged access to sensitive information. I really don't see how this muppet could pass such a procedure.

This is hardly practical.

Most vetting officers wouldn't have cleared Harold Wilson and a raft of other cabinet ministers.

......................................................................................

FPT - HoL reform - Demurring from the JackW proposals is a valid as an unwise Mrs JackW shoe purchase - utterly inexplicable !!

Most previous traitors have been of the Tory persuasion, it is all that fun at Eton that does it

RodCrosby

An interesting article that takes itself a bit too seriously.

Who needs a Privy Council? Other countries get by without one.

Corbyn would clearly like to get rid of it. He might even find unlikely allies...

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/dec/14/monarchy.comment

malcolmg

isam said:

"David Cameron: net immigration will be capped at tens of thousands

Immigration levels would be capped every year and be limited to “tens of thousands” more than the numbers departing to live abroad, under a Conservative government, David Cameron has said.

An annual cap on new arrivals would be announced, with a figure based on the number of people who left Britain to move overseas.
Overall, net immigration would be kept in the “tens of thousands,” rather than the current rate of “hundreds of thousands”.
Saying he opposed a rise in immigration which would take the population above 70 million, Mr Cameron said that limits needed to be imposed to ensure public services did not become overwhelmed.

He said: “In a country like Britain you’re going to have large numbers of people going and living abroad every year and working abroad, and also large numbers of people coming in. It seems to me what matters … is the net figure.
“In the last decade, net immigration in some years has been sort of 200,000, so implying a 2 million increase over a decade, which I think is too much.

“We would like to see net immigration in the tens of thousands rather than the hundreds of thousands. I don’t think that’s unrealistic.
“That’s the sort of figure it was in the 1990s and I think we should see that again.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/6961675/David-Cameron-net-immigration-will-be-capped-at-tens-of-thousands.html

Big Baw face keeping repeating that does not seem to be working.

EPG

maaarsh said:

EPG said:

antifrank said:

If Labour wishes not to provide loyal opposition, I can't see that it is obliged to. That may well be a shame but we can't confect a consensus where none exists.

Will Jeremy Corbyn be given confidential briefings by the present government as Leader of the Opposition on Israel, northern Ireland or Ukraine? It's hard to imagine. So he may well be looking to make a virtue out of necessity.

If true, which it may well be, this would say more about the present government, not Corbyn, for refusing to give such confidential briefings. Whatever about other matters, pro-Israel and pro-Ukrainian nationalism are not part of Britain's unwritten constitution; as for Northern Ireland, Corbyn's pals are now taking the queen's shilling as HM's Government in the region.

What mandate would he have to access this information? There's been a takeover of the opposition by an extremist fringe without any evidence of broad popular support in the population, so convention is the only argument he would have for privileged access to sensitive information.

Why, he has a mandate under the unwritten constitution, of course.

This is an unwritten constitutions isn't worth the paper it's not written on - if it can't bind the government, it's as David Herdson states a set of conventions rather than rules, and the government can reinterpret the conventions as it sees fit. This could include, for instance, deciding that strong support for Israel is a necessary precondition of a Leader of the Opposition's being briefed on Middle East affairs. No constitution in the world, written or unwritten, can or does mandate this briefing procedure, which means it is an option for the government, for which they bear responsibility about action and inaction in that regard.

CarlottaVance

Barnesian said:

CarlottaVance said:

Barnesian said:

You would be a hypocrite if you did.

But not to say this?

I...do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors according to law".

Which he must have done, many times.....

with fingers crossed?

Would work for the Privy Council too then......but I'm sure abolishing the monarchy will be a great vote winner for Labour......

david_herdson

maaarsh said:

EPG said:

antifrank said:

If Labour wishes not to provide loyal opposition, I can't see that it is obliged to. That may well be a shame but we can't confect a consensus where none exists.

Will Jeremy Corbyn be given confidential briefings by the present government as Leader of the Opposition on Israel, northern Ireland or Ukraine? It's hard to imagine. So he may well be looking to make a virtue out of necessity.

If true, which it may well be, this would say more about the present government, not Corbyn, for refusing to give such confidential briefings. Whatever about other matters, pro-Israel and pro-Ukrainian nationalism are not part of Britain's unwritten constitution; as for Northern Ireland, Corbyn's pals are now taking the queen's shilling as HM's Government in the region.

What mandate would he have to access this information? There's been a takeover of the opposition by an extremist fringe without any evidence of broad popular support in the population, so convention is the only argument he would have for privileged access to sensitive information.

It's not simply a question of mandate; it's a question of practicalities. There are some things better briefed in private than answered in the House. Indeed, there are some things that cannot be answered in the House because of their sensitivities but which the opposition party still has a right to know about, not least because its senior members could be the ones picking up the pieces after the next election.

john_zims

@CD13


'Why not give Jezza the benefit of the doubt?'

As one of the Newsnight panel of former Labour voters said last night when asked what the new Labour leader should do ';just get on your knees and start praying'

Is Cat Smith incapable of answering simple questions or just thick ?

david_herdson

RodCrosby said:

An interesting article that takes itself a bit too seriously.

Who needs a Privy Council? Other countries get by without one.

Corbyn would clearly like to get rid of it. He might even find unlikely allies...

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/dec/14/monarchy.comment

They may not have the formal body but I'd be reasonably confident they have some sort of equivalent arrangement because it's necessary in a parliamentary democracy. The problem with abolishing the body is that you also abolish the mechanism under which current briefings are given. No doubt some other arrangement could be put in place but why reinvent the wheel?

david_herdson

EPG said:

Recidivist said:

Well maybe the problem isn't so much Corbyn as the arcane system that centuries of never being invaded and not having revolutions has left us with? So a key part of the way the country is run is a body with no written constitution that nobody who isn't a participating gentleman knows the rules of? Is that any way to manage a country in the modern world? I wouldn't call an opponent of that way of doing things disloyal. In fact, it sounds like quite a patriotic position to me.

No, it is apparently disloyal to even countenance change to reform of rules written by gentlemen for gentlemen.

I guarantee you, though, that if someone in 1688 had decreed a codified constitution, British values would all be about following the rules to generate fair play, rather than the vague conventions common in immature democracies. It's just conservatism, accepting the way things are as good because it seems to suit our betters.

You're missing the point. As soon as a leader of the opposition declares that the usual rules don't apply to him (or her), then the usual rules don't apply to the government in their dealings with the opposition either.

MrsB

flightpath01 said:

maaarsh said:

Toms said:

Gentlemen "understand the limits of what’s acceptable without needing to write it down."

By no means intending an aspersion on the messenger can I just say---
"how sad is that?"

I'm not sure your point is as self evident as you believe. So much so that I haven't a clue why you think so.

The world is a much better place when shared values and common decency are applied rather than a set of imperfect rules.

Yes - As I said previously in another context, the best defence for a woman from a cad a bounder and a rake is a gentleman.

Why the sexism? A can of mace would do just as well.

Yorkcity

david_herdson said:

RodCrosby said:

An interesting article that takes itself a bit too seriously.

Who needs a Privy Council? Other countries get by without one.

Corbyn would clearly like to get rid of it. He might even find unlikely allies...

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/dec/14/monarchy.comment

They may not have the formal body but I'd be reasonably confident they have some sort of equivalent arrangement because it's necessary in a parliamentary democracy. The problem with abolishing the body is that you also abolish the mechanism under which current briefings are given. No doubt some other arrangement could be put in place but why reinvent the wheel?

Because the wheel is a joke , look at the House Of Lords.
The House of Lords has more members than any legislature except the Chinese People's Congress.

Morris_Dancer

MrsB, or go old school: use an actual mace.

My great aunt had a couple of decorative maces on the walls [unfortunately they went to another family when she passed away].

RobD

EPG said:

maaarsh said:

EPG said:

antifrank said:

If Labour wishes not to provide loyal opposition, I can't see that it is obliged to. That may well be a shame but we can't confect a consensus where none exists.

Will Jeremy Corbyn be given confidential briefings by the present government as Leader of the Opposition on Israel, northern Ireland or Ukraine? It's hard to imagine. So he may well be looking to make a virtue out of necessity.

If true, which it may well be, this would say more about the present government, not Corbyn, for refusing to give such confidential briefings. Whatever about other matters, pro-Israel and pro-Ukrainian nationalism are not part of Britain's unwritten constitution; as for Northern Ireland, Corbyn's pals are now taking the queen's shilling as HM's Government in the region.

What mandate would he have to access this information? There's been a takeover of the opposition by an extremist fringe without any evidence of broad popular support in the population, so convention is the only argument he would have for privileged access to sensitive information.

Why, he has a mandate under the unwritten constitution, of course.

This is an unwritten constitutions isn't worth the paper it's not written on - if it can't bind the government, it's as David Herdson states a set of conventions rather than rules, and the government can reinterpret the conventions as it sees fit. This could include, for instance, deciding that strong support for Israel is a necessary precondition of a Leader of the Opposition's being briefed on Middle East affairs. No constitution in the world, written or unwritten, can or does mandate this briefing procedure, which means it is an option for the government, for which they bear responsibility about action and inaction in that regard.

I don't think him not being a "strong support[er]" of Israel is the problem.

SimonStClare

a couple of decorative maces on the walls


Any relation of 007s Rosa Klebb?

Recidivist

I think Corbyn has certainly provoked debate. This has to be a good thing.

MrsB

Morris_Dancer said:

MrsB, or go old school: use an actual mace.

My great aunt had a couple of decorative maces on the walls [unfortunately they went to another family when she passed away].

what about enormo-haddocks?

Morris_Dancer

MrsB, the enormo-haddock need no weapons. They are the weapons!

Mr. StClare, she was rather delightful, actually. Whenever we went over she'd make a 'spread', which would be a ridiculously enormous quantity of food. Every time we ended up taking some of the excess (full packets of chocolate biscuits etc) with us.

And she had a proper coal fire.

Plato

I want to know if octo-lemurs have eight tails or eight legs. Eight tails would be so cute. Like a cuddly version of the Spiderman baddie.

MrsB said:

Morris_Dancer said:

MrsB, or go old school: use an actual mace.

My great aunt had a couple of decorative maces on the walls [unfortunately they went to another family when she passed away].

what about enormo-haddocks?

Luckyguy1983

Rather a silly piece.

Morris_Dancer

Miss Plato, the octo-lemur research is highly classified [which is why Corbyn hasn't been briefed on it].

There are multiple possibilities. Six legs, two tails; four legs, four tails; no legs, eight tails, and so on.