Inside the Senate GOP lunch with Vice President Vance
Vance was bombarded with questions about the Argentinian beef issue, per multiple attendees. GOP senators told him it was an “insult” to farmers/ranchers
Vance at one point joked, “does anyone have questions NOT about beef?”
Interesting coverage from itv of the murder and stabbings yesterday in Uxbridge; interviewed locals who said they were worried about the influx of strangers, and the local who said it was Asian.
(The interesting bit was that an Asian man said what would have been labelled bigoted had he been WWC, not to do with representation of minorities on tv)
An Afghan, who looked completely crazy, murdered one man and stabbed two others yesterday in a residential street. Police have ruled out terrorism, and he wasn't a small boatee
at least we've been saved the 'what ethnicity was he' hysteria this time round. Or maybe I just not noticed because Leon is awol
Am I alone in not caring less whether the cabinet are in the commons or not? Personally I’d rather a bigger distinction between the Executive and Legislature. And I also think parliamentary constituents can be short changed when their MP is distracted by issues at Cabinet. And of course, being an MP is a total sh1thouse job and attracts distinctly mid talent. We should aspire for our government to be drawn from a better quality pool than the den of thieves that is the Commons.
51% of respondents backed the 3 unitary proposal, just 19% the one the government are going with.
That’s (a) going to be unpopular and (b) makes you wonder why they bothered with consultation at all if they’re just going to say, ‘fuck you all, we know better.’
As Surrey is the only county in England with not a single Labour MP or council so the Labour government couldn't really care less what the voters in Surrey think
I wondered about Herefordshire when you said that but I find they do have just one Labour councillor.
However, on the substantive point, it is never smart to piss off lots of wealthy, well-connected and well-motivated voters even if they do not vote for you. They have too many ingenious ways of hitting back.
Am I alone in not caring less whether the cabinet are in the commons or not? Personally I’d rather a bigger distinction between the Executive and Legislature. And I also think parliamentary constituents can be short changed when their MP is distracted by issues at Cabinet. And of course, being an MP is a total sh1thouse job and attracts distinctly mid talent. We should aspire for our government to be drawn from a better quality pool than the den of thieves that is the Commons.
US Cabinet Members tend to be neither serving Senators nor Representatives but from business and finance, academia, the military, top law firms or have served as prosecutors etc and just testify to Congressional committees when required
Inside the Senate GOP lunch with Vice President Vance
Vance was bombarded with questions about the Argentinian beef issue, per multiple attendees. GOP senators told him it was an “insult” to farmers/ranchers
Vance at one point joked, “does anyone have questions NOT about beef?”
I could ask him what his beef is with the American constitution, given how he's trampling on it, or the American people, given the damage he's doing to them.
We are being right royally ripped off. We have just sent a card to congratulate family in Germany.. the card cost THREE POUNDS FIFTY PENCE to post. That's more than the fffing card.
Sell off Royal Mail and then let them rip us off
Its an effing disgrace.
They need the money to urgently pay compensation to the Postmasters ….. oh wait!
The Post Office is NOT Royal Mail but a completely separate organisation and has been since privatisation of RM, for starters the Post Office is still nationalised
" 'Consignia' and 'Scope': why do they have to change the name and ruin it?
This does show how Reform needs to improve its vetting process. Many of the Reform candidates who won in May were paper candidates who did not expect to win until the Reform landslide in the local elections
What happens when they find they don’t have 650 sensible people in the party, let alone the thousands they will need to contest local elections?
Am I alone in not caring less whether the cabinet are in the commons or not? Personally I’d rather a bigger distinction between the Executive and Legislature. And I also think parliamentary constituents can be short changed when their MP is distracted by issues at Cabinet. And of course, being an MP is a total sh1thouse job and attracts distinctly mid talent. We should aspire for our government to be drawn from a better quality pool than the den of thieves that is the Commons.
US Cabinet Members tend to be neither Senators nor Representatives but from business and finance, academia, the military, top law firms etc and just testify to Congressional committees when required
Just consider the uninterrupted run of quite exceptionally poor chancellors we’ve suffered so far this century. It’s too important a job to give to a greasy pole climbing politician.
Am I alone in not caring less whether the cabinet are in the commons or not? Personally I’d rather a bigger distinction between the Executive and Legislature. And I also think parliamentary constituents can be short changed when their MP is distracted by issues at Cabinet. And of course, being an MP is a total sh1thouse job and attracts distinctly mid talent. We should aspire for our government to be drawn from a better quality pool than the den of thieves that is the Commons.
US Cabinet Members tend to be neither Senators nor Representatives but from business and finance, academia, the military, top law firms etc and just testify to Congressional committees when required
Er - tend to be? It's a *constitutional requirement* that they *not* be Senators or Representatives. Separation of Powers, innit?
That's why Rubio and Vance had to resign as Senators (although a case could be made that Vance is still technically a member of the Senate).
Am I alone in not caring less whether the cabinet are in the commons or not? Personally I’d rather a bigger distinction between the Executive and Legislature. And I also think parliamentary constituents can be short changed when their MP is distracted by issues at Cabinet. And of course, being an MP is a total sh1thouse job and attracts distinctly mid talent. We should aspire for our government to be drawn from a better quality pool than the den of thieves that is the Commons.
US Cabinet Members tend to be neither Senators nor Representatives but from business and finance, academia, the military, top law firms etc and just testify to Congressional committees when required
Er - tend to be? It's a *constitutional requirement* that they *not* be Senators or Representatives. Separation of Powers, innit?
That's why Rubio and Vance had to resign as Senators (although a case could be made that Vance is still technically a member of the Senate).
Am I alone in not caring less whether the cabinet are in the commons or not? Personally I’d rather a bigger distinction between the Executive and Legislature. And I also think parliamentary constituents can be short changed when their MP is distracted by issues at Cabinet. And of course, being an MP is a total sh1thouse job and attracts distinctly mid talent. We should aspire for our government to be drawn from a better quality pool than the den of thieves that is the Commons.
There is a big benefit IMo if a Minister isn’t an MP and so does not have any of the distraction of an MP such as constituents or parliamentary time and can focus purely on their ministry - that said, any non MP minister should not be allowed to be doing any other jobs for the duration of the role otherwise the benefits are wasted and leaves open too many chances for various levels of corruption/bias or accusations of.
The benefits of widening the pool of talent is the best part of it of course.
51% of respondents backed the 3 unitary proposal, just 19% the one the government are going with.
That’s (a) going to be unpopular and (b) makes you wonder why they bothered with consultation at all if they’re just going to say, ‘fuck you all, we know better.’
As Surrey is the only county in England with not a single Labour MP or council so the Labour government couldn't really care less what the voters in Surrey think
You're making me want to move to Surrey.
Although I think two Labour councillors cling on by their fingernails.
51% of respondents backed the 3 unitary proposal, just 19% the one the government are going with.
That’s (a) going to be unpopular and (b) makes you wonder why they bothered with consultation at all if they’re just going to say, ‘fuck you all, we know better.’
As Surrey is the only county in England with not a single Labour MP or council so the Labour government couldn't really care less what the voters in Surrey think
I wondered about Herefordshire when you said that but I find they do have just one Labour councillor.
However, on the substantive point, it is never smart to piss off lots of wealthy, well-connected and well-motivated voters even if they do not vote for you. They have too many ingenious ways of hitting back.
And if Labour lose their majority they will need the support of LD MPs to govern and there are now lots of LD MPs in Surrey
We are being right royally ripped off. We have just sent a card to congratulate family in Germany.. the card cost THREE POUNDS FIFTY PENCE to post. That's more than the fffing card.
Sell off Royal Mail and then let them rip us off
Its an effing disgrace.
They need the money to urgently pay compensation to the Postmasters ….. oh wait!
The Post Office is NOT Royal Mail but a completely separate organisation and has been since privatisation of RM, for starters the Post Office is still nationalised
Yes, I know that, but I then thought of the journalists adage, never let the truth get in the way of a good story!
The massacre of English counties continues and is being undertaken for the most short term cost reasons. It is a policy that is going to be unpopular and will ultimately fail. Local government is now yet another point of the list for major constitutional reform. which now includes the second chamber, powers of the House of Commons, the national parliaments, the voting system, the powers of the crown prerogative and indeed the monarchy itself. Its going to take more than a few guys meeting in Philadelphia for three weeks to sort this mess out.
Am I alone in not caring less whether the cabinet are in the commons or not? Personally I’d rather a bigger distinction between the Executive and Legislature. And I also think parliamentary constituents can be short changed when their MP is distracted by issues at Cabinet. And of course, being an MP is a total sh1thouse job and attracts distinctly mid talent. We should aspire for our government to be drawn from a better quality pool than the den of thieves that is the Commons.
There is a big benefit IMo if a Minister isn’t an MP and so does not have any of the distraction of an MP such as constituents or parliamentary time and can focus purely on their ministry - that said, any non MP minister should not be allowed to be doing any other jobs for the duration of the role otherwise the benefits are wasted and leaves open too many chances for various levels of corruption/bias or accusations of.
The benefits of widening the pool of talent is the best part of it of course.
It would weaken the pool of PMs though to lower ranked ministers and backbench MPs, unless we also said the PM does not need to be in Parliament either which would complicate PMQs a bit!
Many US Presidents were state governors and never served a single day in Congress
Am I alone in not caring less whether the cabinet are in the commons or not? Personally I’d rather a bigger distinction between the Executive and Legislature. And I also think parliamentary constituents can be short changed when their MP is distracted by issues at Cabinet. And of course, being an MP is a total sh1thouse job and attracts distinctly mid talent. We should aspire for our government to be drawn from a better quality pool than the den of thieves that is the Commons.
US Cabinet Members tend to be neither Senators nor Representatives but from business and finance, academia, the military, top law firms etc and just testify to Congressional committees when required
Just consider the uninterrupted run of quite exceptionally poor chancellors we’ve suffered so far this century. It’s too important a job to give to a greasy pole climbing politician.
Otoh, look at the menagerie of President Trump's cabinet to see where the 'appoint anyone' approach can lead.
The massacre of English counties continues and is being undertaken for the most short term cost reasons. It is a policy that is going to be unpopular and will ultimately fail. Local government is now yet another point of the list for major constitutional reform. which now includes the second chamber, powers of the House of Commons, the national parliaments, the voting system, the powers of the crown prerogative and indeed the monarchy itself. Its going to take more than a few guys meeting in Philadelphia for three weeks to sort this mess out.
Many in Reform are now pushing for an English Parliament with the same powers as the Senedd, Holyrood and Senedd have and a fully elected upper house to replace the Lords. Reform want to keep county councils and oppose Labour's move to unitaries. Farage has also backed PR in the past
The massacre of English counties continues and is being undertaken for the most short term cost reasons. It is a policy that is going to be unpopular and will ultimately fail. Local government is now yet another point of the list for major constitutional reform. which now includes the second chamber, powers of the House of Commons, the national parliaments, the voting system, the powers of the crown prerogative and indeed the monarchy itself. Its going to take more than a few guys meeting in Philadelphia for three weeks to sort this mess out.
That sounds an excellent idea, meeting in Sunderland instead of London.
Am I alone in not caring less whether the cabinet are in the commons or not? Personally I’d rather a bigger distinction between the Executive and Legislature. And I also think parliamentary constituents can be short changed when their MP is distracted by issues at Cabinet. And of course, being an MP is a total sh1thouse job and attracts distinctly mid talent. We should aspire for our government to be drawn from a better quality pool than the den of thieves that is the Commons.
There is a big benefit IMo if a Minister isn’t an MP and so does not have any of the distraction of an MP such as constituents or parliamentary time and can focus purely on their ministry - that said, any non MP minister should not be allowed to be doing any other jobs for the duration of the role otherwise the benefits are wasted and leaves open too many chances for various levels of corruption/bias or accusations of.
The benefits of widening the pool of talent is the best part of it of course.
It would weaken the pool of PMs though to lower ranked ministers and backbench MPs, unless we also said the PM does not need to be in Parliament either which would complicate PMQs a bit!
Many US Presidents were state governors and never served a single day in Congress
I would think it would result in either weak and insecure PMs choosing not to bring in quality from the outside which would leave us where we are, or PMs who show a glimmer of strength by being confident or self aware enough to surround themselves by a strong team of outsiders.
I would prefer a generally untalented PM backed by a brilliant cabinet than an untalented PM who is more talented than the rest of his cabinet because they didn’t even have the talent to beat him/her to being PM.
Am I alone in not caring less whether the cabinet are in the commons or not? Personally I’d rather a bigger distinction between the Executive and Legislature. And I also think parliamentary constituents can be short changed when their MP is distracted by issues at Cabinet. And of course, being an MP is a total sh1thouse job and attracts distinctly mid talent. We should aspire for our government to be drawn from a better quality pool than the den of thieves that is the Commons.
US Cabinet Members tend to be neither Senators nor Representatives but from business and finance, academia, the military, top law firms etc and just testify to Congressional committees when required
Just consider the uninterrupted run of quite exceptionally poor chancellors we’ve suffered so far this century. It’s too important a job to give to a greasy pole climbing politician.
Otoh, look at the menagerie of President Trump's cabinet to see where the 'appoint anyone' approach can lead.
In any event, our constitution has evolved differently. There might be a case for change, but the idea that it be remade at the whim of Farage is both ridiculous, and disturbing.
Am I alone in not caring less whether the cabinet are in the commons or not? Personally I’d rather a bigger distinction between the Executive and Legislature. And I also think parliamentary constituents can be short changed when their MP is distracted by issues at Cabinet. And of course, being an MP is a total sh1thouse job and attracts distinctly mid talent. We should aspire for our government to be drawn from a better quality pool than the den of thieves that is the Commons.
There is a big benefit IMo if a Minister isn’t an MP and so does not have any of the distraction of an MP such as constituents or parliamentary time and can focus purely on their ministry - that said, any non MP minister should not be allowed to be doing any other jobs for the duration of the role otherwise the benefits are wasted and leaves open too many chances for various levels of corruption/bias or accusations of.
The benefits of widening the pool of talent is the best part of it of course.
It would weaken the pool of PMs though to lower ranked ministers and backbench MPs, unless we also said the PM does not need to be in Parliament either which would complicate PMQs a bit!
Many US Presidents were state governors and never served a single day in Congress
I would think it would result in either weak and insecure PMs choosing not to bring in quality from the outside which would leave us where we are, or PMs who show a glimmer of strength by being confident or self aware enough to surround themselves by a strong team of outsiders.
I would prefer a generally untalented PM backed by a brilliant cabinet than an untalented PM who is more talented than the rest of his cabinet because they didn’t even have the talent to beat him/her to being PM.
I think a piecemeal approach would work, some outsiders in the Cabinet but plenty still from the legislature including often the PM, much like France has
Am I alone in not caring less whether the cabinet are in the commons or not? Personally I’d rather a bigger distinction between the Executive and Legislature. And I also think parliamentary constituents can be short changed when their MP is distracted by issues at Cabinet. And of course, being an MP is a total sh1thouse job and attracts distinctly mid talent. We should aspire for our government to be drawn from a better quality pool than the den of thieves that is the Commons.
There is a big benefit IMo if a Minister isn’t an MP and so does not have any of the distraction of an MP such as constituents or parliamentary time and can focus purely on their ministry - that said, any non MP minister should not be allowed to be doing any other jobs for the duration of the role otherwise the benefits are wasted and leaves open too many chances for various levels of corruption/bias or accusations of.
The benefits of widening the pool of talent is the best part of it of course.
It would weaken the pool of PMs though to lower ranked ministers and backbench MPs, unless we also said the PM does not need to be in Parliament either which would complicate PMQs a bit!
Many US Presidents were state governors and never served a single day in Congress
There was quite the run of state governors at one point - Bush Jr, Clinton, Reagan, Carter. Interrupted by Bush Sr who was a former Representative and Cabinet appointee. Before that there was a lull - Roosevelt, of course, but then we have to go back to the run of Wilson, and before him Theodore Roosevelt, McKinley, Cleveland, and Hayes all were governors before being president although many served in Congress as well.
Am I alone in not caring less whether the cabinet are in the commons or not? Personally I’d rather a bigger distinction between the Executive and Legislature. And I also think parliamentary constituents can be short changed when their MP is distracted by issues at Cabinet. And of course, being an MP is a total sh1thouse job and attracts distinctly mid talent. We should aspire for our government to be drawn from a better quality pool than the den of thieves that is the Commons.
There is a big benefit IMo if a Minister isn’t an MP and so does not have any of the distraction of an MP such as constituents or parliamentary time and can focus purely on their ministry - that said, any non MP minister should not be allowed to be doing any other jobs for the duration of the role otherwise the benefits are wasted and leaves open too many chances for various levels of corruption/bias or accusations of.
The benefits of widening the pool of talent is the best part of it of course.
I agree, an executive (other than the PM) appointed from beyond Parliament - with sensible safeguards you mention - would be a good thing.
There's lots of people with executive experience within businesses, charities or other public bodies who would be better suited to running a department than most MPs.
The quid quo pro is the government could have a smaller and less motivated payroll vote. So MPs can focus on scrutinising the executive, and have the power to replace the PM and executive as needed without a new general election.
According to the official readout of today’s cabinet meeting, the chief secretary to the prime minister told ministers this: “We have to build a new state and shut down the legacy state, with digital ID making people's experience of that new state fundamentally much better.” Blimey
Am I alone in not caring less whether the cabinet are in the commons or not? Personally I’d rather a bigger distinction between the Executive and Legislature. And I also think parliamentary constituents can be short changed when their MP is distracted by issues at Cabinet. And of course, being an MP is a total sh1thouse job and attracts distinctly mid talent. We should aspire for our government to be drawn from a better quality pool than the den of thieves that is the Commons.
There is a big benefit IMo if a Minister isn’t an MP and so does not have any of the distraction of an MP such as constituents or parliamentary time and can focus purely on their ministry - that said, any non MP minister should not be allowed to be doing any other jobs for the duration of the role otherwise the benefits are wasted and leaves open too many chances for various levels of corruption/bias or accusations of.
The benefits of widening the pool of talent is the best part of it of course.
It would weaken the pool of PMs though to lower ranked ministers and backbench MPs, unless we also said the PM does not need to be in Parliament either which would complicate PMQs a bit!
Many US Presidents were state governors and never served a single day in Congress
I would think it would result in either weak and insecure PMs choosing not to bring in quality from the outside which would leave us where we are, or PMs who show a glimmer of strength by being confident or self aware enough to surround themselves by a strong team of outsiders.
I would prefer a generally untalented PM backed by a brilliant cabinet than an untalented PM who is more talented than the rest of his cabinet because they didn’t even have the talent to beat him/her to being PM.
Am I alone in not caring less whether the cabinet are in the commons or not? Personally I’d rather a bigger distinction between the Executive and Legislature. And I also think parliamentary constituents can be short changed when their MP is distracted by issues at Cabinet. And of course, being an MP is a total sh1thouse job and attracts distinctly mid talent. We should aspire for our government to be drawn from a better quality pool than the den of thieves that is the Commons.
There is a big benefit IMo if a Minister isn’t an MP and so does not have any of the distraction of an MP such as constituents or parliamentary time and can focus purely on their ministry - that said, any non MP minister should not be allowed to be doing any other jobs for the duration of the role otherwise the benefits are wasted and leaves open too many chances for various levels of corruption/bias or accusations of.
The benefits of widening the pool of talent is the best part of it of course.
It would weaken the pool of PMs though to lower ranked ministers and backbench MPs, unless we also said the PM does not need to be in Parliament either which would complicate PMQs a bit!
Many US Presidents were state governors and never served a single day in Congress
I would think it would result in either weak and insecure PMs choosing not to bring in quality from the outside which would leave us where we are, or PMs who show a glimmer of strength by being confident or self aware enough to surround themselves by a strong team of outsiders.
I would prefer a generally untalented PM backed by a brilliant cabinet than an untalented PM who is more talented than the rest of his cabinet because they didn’t even have the talent to beat him/her to being PM.
I think a piecemeal approach would work, some outsiders in the Cabinet but plenty still from the legislature including often the PM, much like France has
Yes, I don’t think anyone would go full non-MP cabinet. It also helps to have politicians in there to guide the non politicians as there are quirks and rules and a culture which don’t exist in the worlds of business or military etc where the candidates might come in from so healthy to have the balance so that both routes have the best chance to thrive.
Am I alone in not caring less whether the cabinet are in the commons or not? Personally I’d rather a bigger distinction between the Executive and Legislature. And I also think parliamentary constituents can be short changed when their MP is distracted by issues at Cabinet. And of course, being an MP is a total sh1thouse job and attracts distinctly mid talent. We should aspire for our government to be drawn from a better quality pool than the den of thieves that is the Commons.
US Cabinet Members tend to be neither Senators nor Representatives but from business and finance, academia, the military, top law firms etc and just testify to Congressional committees when required
Just consider the uninterrupted run of quite exceptionally poor chancellors we’ve suffered so far this century. It’s too important a job to give to a greasy pole climbing politician.
Otoh, look at the menagerie of President Trump's cabinet to see where the 'appoint anyone' approach can lead.
In any event, our constitution has evolved differently. There might be a case for change, but the idea that it be remade at the whim of Farage is both ridiculous, and disturbing.
Twas ever thus. Was the Lords reformed because Blair disliked inherited privilege? Or the Lord Chancellor's role carved up at whim because he believed passionately in an independent judiciary?
Did Wilson give teenagers the vote on principle? Or Lloyd George take steps to enfranchise women because he wanted to do something for them (other than have sex with them, obviously).
No! They were all for political advantage. The fact many of them backfired spectacularly is amusing but not ultimately relevant to the point.
Am I alone in not caring less whether the cabinet are in the commons or not? Personally I’d rather a bigger distinction between the Executive and Legislature. And I also think parliamentary constituents can be short changed when their MP is distracted by issues at Cabinet. And of course, being an MP is a total sh1thouse job and attracts distinctly mid talent. We should aspire for our government to be drawn from a better quality pool than the den of thieves that is the Commons.
US Cabinet Members tend to be neither Senators nor Representatives but from business and finance, academia, the military, top law firms etc and just testify to Congressional committees when required
Just consider the uninterrupted run of quite exceptionally poor chancellors we’ve suffered so far this century. It’s too important a job to give to a greasy pole climbing politician.
Otoh, look at the menagerie of President Trump's cabinet to see where the 'appoint anyone' approach can lead.
In any event, our constitution has evolved differently. There might be a case for change, but the idea that it be remade at the whim of Farage is both ridiculous, and disturbing.
Yes. Not that I'm massively comforted by the thought of a RUK cabinet comprising RUK MPs. Sarah Pochin a shoo-in for Culture, I imagine, with responsibility for the general Britification programme.
According to the official readout of today’s cabinet meeting, the chief secretary to the prime minister told ministers this: “We have to build a new state and shut down the legacy state, with digital ID making people's experience of that new state fundamentally much better.” Blimey
It should be a requirement to demonstrate the ability to govern competently before anyone gets to think about "building a new state".
And it takes a sadly all too common arrogance for someone who got a mere third of the vote to talk that way.
According to the official readout of today’s cabinet meeting, the chief secretary to the prime minister told ministers this: “We have to build a new state and shut down the legacy state, with digital ID making people's experience of that new state fundamentally much better.” Blimey
So long as they don't decommission the old state before trying the new one:
According to the official readout of today’s cabinet meeting, the chief secretary to the prime minister told ministers this: “We have to build a new state and shut down the legacy state, with digital ID making people's experience of that new state fundamentally much better.” Blimey
NEW: Judge Currie asks for complete grand-jury transcripts in the James Comey case so she can assess Lindsey Halligan's level of involvement (and thus the extent to which the prosecution might be tainted).
According to the official readout of today’s cabinet meeting, the chief secretary to the prime minister told ministers this: “We have to build a new state and shut down the legacy state, with digital ID making people's experience of that new state fundamentally much better.” Blimey
ID cards the solution to every problem...have they tried switching it off and on again first?
@jimsciutto Breaking: Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu ordered the Israeli military to carry out "immediate, powerful" strikes in Gaza following security consultations, the PM’s office said in a statement. Earlier Netanyahu’s office said Hamas is in “clear violation” of the Gaza ceasefire agreement after returning remains that did not belong to any of the 13 hostages still unaccounted for.
I can understand that the Israelis have access to close relatives and good DNA labs to verify. Does Hamas have the same? If not then it’s pretty hard for them to be sure they have the right remains!
According to the official readout of today’s cabinet meeting, the chief secretary to the prime minister told ministers this: “We have to build a new state and shut down the legacy state, with digital ID making people's experience of that new state fundamentally much better.” Blimey
Am I alone in not caring less whether the cabinet are in the commons or not? Personally I’d rather a bigger distinction between the Executive and Legislature. And I also think parliamentary constituents can be short changed when their MP is distracted by issues at Cabinet. And of course, being an MP is a total sh1thouse job and attracts distinctly mid talent. We should aspire for our government to be drawn from a better quality pool than the den of thieves that is the Commons.
US Cabinet Members tend to be neither Senators nor Representatives but from business and finance, academia, the military, top law firms etc and just testify to Congressional committees when required
Just consider the uninterrupted run of quite exceptionally poor chancellors we’ve suffered so far this century. It’s too important a job to give to a greasy pole climbing politician.
Otoh, look at the menagerie of President Trump's cabinet to see where the 'appoint anyone' approach can lead.
In any event, our constitution has evolved differently. There might be a case for change, but the idea that it be remade at the whim of Farage is both ridiculous, and disturbing.
Yes. Not that I'm massively comforted by the thought of a RUK cabinet comprising RUK MPs. Sarah Pochin a shoo-in for Culture, I imagine, with responsibility for the general Britification programme.
Be comforted by the thought that this is only the first wave of populism. Complete incompetents flooding the offices of state.
(It's quite interesting to look at quiet revolutions historically. Unfortunately the dynamism of the ideas generally rescued them from this sort of abyss. We've not had a bright minister in ages.)
Am I alone in not caring less whether the cabinet are in the commons or not? Personally I’d rather a bigger distinction between the Executive and Legislature. And I also think parliamentary constituents can be short changed when their MP is distracted by issues at Cabinet. And of course, being an MP is a total sh1thouse job and attracts distinctly mid talent. We should aspire for our government to be drawn from a better quality pool than the den of thieves that is the Commons.
So, there is one rather significant issue that comes from having the Executive appointed by the Prime Minister, rather than as Members of Parliament:
Candidates for the role of Prime Minister would not have significant executive experience to draw upon when running for the role. MPs would not be able to tell which of their colleagues had actual decent organizational ability, because it would never be tested.
The same would be true of voters: all they would know would be which MP was best at asking silly gotcha questions whenever appointed ministers were summoned to testify before Parliament.
So, on balance, I think it would be a negative rather than a positive, because it would limit the ability of both ordinary voters and MPs to judge officials based on performance.
Am I alone in not caring less whether the cabinet are in the commons or not? Personally I’d rather a bigger distinction between the Executive and Legislature. And I also think parliamentary constituents can be short changed when their MP is distracted by issues at Cabinet. And of course, being an MP is a total sh1thouse job and attracts distinctly mid talent. We should aspire for our government to be drawn from a better quality pool than the den of thieves that is the Commons.
US Cabinet Members tend to be neither Senators nor Representatives but from business and finance, academia, the military, top law firms etc and just testify to Congressional committees when required
Just consider the uninterrupted run of quite exceptionally poor chancellors we’ve suffered so far this century. It’s too important a job to give to a greasy pole climbing politician.
Otoh, look at the menagerie of President Trump's cabinet to see where the 'appoint anyone' approach can lead.
In any event, our constitution has evolved differently. There might be a case for change, but the idea that it be remade at the whim of Farage is both ridiculous, and disturbing.
Yes. Not that I'm massively comforted by the thought of a RUK cabinet comprising RUK MPs. Sarah Pochin a shoo-in for Culture, I imagine, with responsibility for the general Britification programme.
Be comforted by the thought that this is only the first wave of populism. Complete incompetents flooding the offices of state.
(It's quite interesting to look at quiet revolutions historically. Unfortunately the dynamism of the ideas generally rescued them from this sort of abyss. We've not had a bright minister in ages.)
According to the official readout of today’s cabinet meeting, the chief secretary to the prime minister told ministers this: “We have to build a new state and shut down the legacy state, with digital ID making people's experience of that new state fundamentally much better.” Blimey
Sounds very dystopian.
It sounds like something that if you are going to do you need years and years of careful planning and the whole organisation on board with such a radical change....all the evidence points to...erhhh....
According to the official readout of today’s cabinet meeting, the chief secretary to the prime minister told ministers this: “We have to build a new state and shut down the legacy state, with digital ID making people's experience of that new state fundamentally much better.” Blimey
Sounds very dystopian.
It sounds like something that if you are going to do you need years and years of careful planning and the whole organisation on board with such a radical change....all the evidence points to...erhhh....
According to the official readout of today’s cabinet meeting, the chief secretary to the prime minister told ministers this: “We have to build a new state and shut down the legacy state, with digital ID making people's experience of that new state fundamentally much better.” Blimey
Ye Gods “We have to build a new state and shut down the legacy state,.." Starmer's going to bring down the temple so we all get id cards Someone stop him!
Ye Gods “We have to build a new state and shut down the legacy state,.." Starmer's going to bring down the temple so we all get id cards Someone stop him!
On topic, I salute the relative discipline of RefUK councillors that only 5% of their number have so far resigned or been fired since May. The equivalent statistic for RefUK MPs elected in 2024 is 40%.
NEW: Judge Currie asks for complete grand-jury transcripts in the James Comey case so she can assess Lindsey Halligan's level of involvement (and thus the extent to which the prosecution might be tainted).
Am I alone in not caring less whether the cabinet are in the commons or not? Personally I’d rather a bigger distinction between the Executive and Legislature. And I also think parliamentary constituents can be short changed when their MP is distracted by issues at Cabinet. And of course, being an MP is a total sh1thouse job and attracts distinctly mid talent. We should aspire for our government to be drawn from a better quality pool than the den of thieves that is the Commons.
US Cabinet Members tend to be neither Senators nor Representatives but from business and finance, academia, the military, top law firms etc and just testify to Congressional committees when required
Just consider the uninterrupted run of quite exceptionally poor chancellors we’ve suffered so far this century. It’s too important a job to give to a greasy pole climbing politician.
Otoh, look at the menagerie of President Trump's cabinet to see where the 'appoint anyone' approach can lead.
In any event, our constitution has evolved differently. There might be a case for change, but the idea that it be remade at the whim of Farage is both ridiculous, and disturbing.
Yes. Not that I'm massively comforted by the thought of a RUK cabinet comprising RUK MPs. Sarah Pochin a shoo-in for Culture, I imagine, with responsibility for the general Britification programme.
Be comforted by the thought that this is only the first wave of populism. Complete incompetents flooding the offices of state.
(It's quite interesting to look at quiet revolutions historically. Unfortunately the dynamism of the ideas generally rescued them from this sort of abyss. We've not had a bright minister in ages.)
First and last is my (possibly forlorn) hope.
Oh we'll probably be ok. Small people keep growing up and they're not as daft as we are.
The odd dystopia of Ayn Rand does rather loom in my thoughts though.
Ye Gods “We have to build a new state and shut down the legacy state,.." Starmer's going to bring down the temple so we all get id cards Someone stop him!
‘We had to destroy the village to save the village’…
The massacre of English counties continues and is being undertaken for the most short term cost reasons. It is a policy that is going to be unpopular and will ultimately fail. Local government is now yet another point of the list for major constitutional reform. which now includes the second chamber, powers of the House of Commons, the national parliaments, the voting system, the powers of the crown prerogative and indeed the monarchy itself. Its going to take more than a few guys meeting in Philadelphia for three weeks to sort this mess out.
Today's announcement is a huge victory for Surrey County Council's Conservative leader, Tim Oliver, though whether he'll reap any political benefit remains to be seen.
I know people in Oliver's Borough, Elmbridge, who desperately didn't want to be part of what they saw as a financial disaster in the making with the creation of North Surrey and preferred being run from Reigate rather than Woking.
The Surrey councils in total, however, have debts approaching £5 billion so today's announcements leave a number of questions unanswered.
The Afghan man who allegedly killed a dog walker, stabbed a child and another person in Uxbridge arrived in the back of a lorry and was granted asylum. More @GBNEWS 9-11pm.
NEW: Judge Currie asks for complete grand-jury transcripts in the James Comey case so she can assess Lindsey Halligan's level of involvement (and thus the extent to which the prosecution might be tainted).
The Afghan man who allegedly killed a dog walker, stabbed a child and another person in Uxbridge arrived in the back of a lorry and was granted asylum. More @GBNEWS 9-11pm.
Am I alone in not caring less whether the cabinet are in the commons or not? Personally I’d rather a bigger distinction between the Executive and Legislature. And I also think parliamentary constituents can be short changed when their MP is distracted by issues at Cabinet. And of course, being an MP is a total sh1thouse job and attracts distinctly mid talent. We should aspire for our government to be drawn from a better quality pool than the den of thieves that is the Commons.
US Cabinet Members tend to be neither Senators nor Representatives but from business and finance, academia, the military, top law firms etc and just testify to Congressional committees when required
Just consider the uninterrupted run of quite exceptionally poor chancellors we’ve suffered so far this century. It’s too important a job to give to a greasy pole climbing politician.
Otoh, look at the menagerie of President Trump's cabinet to see where the 'appoint anyone' approach can lead.
In any event, our constitution has evolved differently. There might be a case for change, but the idea that it be remade at the whim of Farage is both ridiculous, and disturbing.
Yes. Not that I'm massively comforted by the thought of a RUK cabinet comprising RUK MPs. Sarah Pochin a shoo-in for Culture, I imagine, with responsibility for the general Britification programme.
Be comforted by the thought that this is only the first wave of populism. Complete incompetents flooding the offices of state.
(It's quite interesting to look at quiet revolutions historically. Unfortunately the dynamism of the ideas generally rescued them from this sort of abyss. We've not had a bright minister in ages.)
First and last is my (possibly forlorn) hope.
Oh we'll probably be ok. Small people keep growing up and they're not as daft as we are.
The odd dystopia of Ayn Rand does rather loom in my thoughts though.
Indeed. Battle of the Dystopias. I know which one I'd opt for but there's a big risk it will be a different one that prevails.
Am I alone in not caring less whether the cabinet are in the commons or not? Personally I’d rather a bigger distinction between the Executive and Legislature. And I also think parliamentary constituents can be short changed when their MP is distracted by issues at Cabinet. And of course, being an MP is a total sh1thouse job and attracts distinctly mid talent. We should aspire for our government to be drawn from a better quality pool than the den of thieves that is the Commons.
So, there is one rather significant issue that comes from having the Executive appointed by the Prime Minister, rather than as Members of Parliament:
Candidates for the role of Prime Minister would not have significant executive experience to draw upon when running for the role. MPs would not be able to tell which of their colleagues had actual decent organizational ability, because it would never be tested.
The same would be true of voters: all they would know would be which MP was best at asking silly gotcha questions whenever appointed ministers were summoned to testify before Parliament.
So, on balance, I think it would be a negative rather than a positive, because it would limit the ability of both ordinary voters and MPs to judge officials based on performance.
NEW: Judge Currie asks for complete grand-jury transcripts in the James Comey case so she can assess Lindsey Halligan's level of involvement (and thus the extent to which the prosecution might be tainted).
Is that essentially arguing that it is a political prosecution?
I think part of it is that Halligan arguably isn't validly serving in her role as interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, as Trump could only appoint an interim for 120 days before requiring confirmation by the Senate and she's also not been a Justice Department employee for 90 days.
If that argument is correct, she's got no authority and is just some herbert who the President personally sent to interfere in the process. The question then becomes whether the indictment getting through the Grand Jury stage is in fact due to someone who had no legal right to be there doing things she had no legal right to do. The judge asking for transcripts of the Grand Jury suggests she's kind of convinced Halligan wasn't entitled to be there, and the issue is then whether that in fact made the difference.
The massacre of English counties continues and is being undertaken for the most short term cost reasons. It is a policy that is going to be unpopular and will ultimately fail. Local government is now yet another point of the list for major constitutional reform. which now includes the second chamber, powers of the House of Commons, the national parliaments, the voting system, the powers of the crown prerogative and indeed the monarchy itself. Its going to take more than a few guys meeting in Philadelphia for three weeks to sort this mess out.
Today's announcement is a huge victory for Surrey County Council's Conservative leader, Tim Oliver, though whether he'll reap any political benefit remains to be seen.
I know people in Oliver's Borough, Elmbridge, who desperately didn't want to be part of what they saw as a financial disaster in the making with the creation of North Surrey and preferred being run from Reigate rather than Woking.
The Surrey councils in total, however, have debts approaching £5 billion so today's announcements leave a number of questions unanswered.
The government have agreed to gift Woking £500 million to haul it out of the financial mire.
No word on the debts of the other councils AFAICS.
Am I alone in not caring less whether the cabinet are in the commons or not? Personally I’d rather a bigger distinction between the Executive and Legislature. And I also think parliamentary constituents can be short changed when their MP is distracted by issues at Cabinet. And of course, being an MP is a total sh1thouse job and attracts distinctly mid talent. We should aspire for our government to be drawn from a better quality pool than the den of thieves that is the Commons.
There is a big benefit IMo if a Minister isn’t an MP and so does not have any of the distraction of an MP such as constituents or parliamentary time and can focus purely on their ministry - that said, any non MP minister should not be allowed to be doing any other jobs for the duration of the role otherwise the benefits are wasted and leaves open too many chances for various levels of corruption/bias or accusations of.
The benefits of widening the pool of talent is the best part of it of course.
It would weaken the pool of PMs though to lower ranked ministers and backbench MPs, unless we also said the PM does not need to be in Parliament either which would complicate PMQs a bit!
Many US Presidents were state governors and never served a single day in Congress
I would think it would result in either weak and insecure PMs choosing not to bring in quality from the outside which would leave us where we are, or PMs who show a glimmer of strength by being confident or self aware enough to surround themselves by a strong team of outsiders.
I would prefer a generally untalented PM backed by a brilliant cabinet than an untalented PM who is more talented than the rest of his cabinet because they didn’t even have the talent to beat him/her to being PM.
I think a piecemeal approach would work, some outsiders in the Cabinet but plenty still from the legislature including often the PM, much like France has
Yes, I don’t think anyone would go full non-MP cabinet. It also helps to have politicians in there to guide the non politicians as there are quirks and rules and a culture which don’t exist in the worlds of business or military etc where the candidates might come in from so healthy to have the balance so that both routes have the best chance to thrive.
Plenty of examples of non-politicians being parachuted into top jobs. With the exception of Wellington, hard to think of many who have thrived. And Wellington's musings after his first Cabinet ("An extraordinary affair. I gave them their orders and they wanted to stay and discuss them.") hint at why.
Looking at it another way. Yes, there are occasional technocrats who know their ambition is to get policy in their field just right. Peter Hendy is probably an example- appointed to TfL by Ken, stayed to work for Boris. Or James Timpson's work as Prisons Minister. But mostly- it you are any good, why are you going to agree to work under someone inferior?
Same as any organisation- the person at the top needn't be the cleverest in the room, but if they aren't (in some sense) seen as the most capable (if only at managing cleverer people), the organisation won't be stable.
Is there any evidence at all that Our Nigel can do that?
According to the official readout of today’s cabinet meeting, the chief secretary to the prime minister told ministers this: “We have to build a new state and shut down the legacy state, with digital ID making people's experience of that new state fundamentally much better.” Blimey
Sounds very dystopian.
It sounds like something that if you are going to do you need years and years of careful planning and the whole organisation on board with such a radical change....all the evidence points to...erhhh....
The Afghan man who allegedly killed a dog walker, stabbed a child and another person in Uxbridge arrived in the back of a lorry and was granted asylum. More @GBNEWS 9-11pm.
The Afghan man who allegedly killed a dog walker, stabbed a child and another person in Uxbridge arrived in the back of a lorry and was granted asylum. More @GBNEWS 9-11pm.
NEW: Judge Currie asks for complete grand-jury transcripts in the James Comey case so she can assess Lindsey Halligan's level of involvement (and thus the extent to which the prosecution might be tainted).
Is that essentially arguing that it is a political prosecution?
Well, we know it's a politically motivated because Donald Trump tried to send a private message to Pam Bondi on Truth Social, but instead broadcast it to his 9 million followers.
If I were Comey (or James) I would quite welcome it going to trial, because they are both pretty obvious NGs.
NEW: Judge Currie asks for complete grand-jury transcripts in the James Comey case so she can assess Lindsey Halligan's level of involvement (and thus the extent to which the prosecution might be tainted).
Is that essentially arguing that it is a political prosecution?
I think part of it is that Halligan arguably isn't validly serving in her role as interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, as Trump could only appoint an interim for 120 days before requiring confirmation by the Senate and she's also not been a Justice Department employee for 90 days.
If that argument is correct, she's got no authority and is just some herbert who the President personally sent to interfere in the process. The question then becomes whether the indictment getting through the Grand Jury stage is in fact due to someone who had no legal right to be there doing things she had no legal right to do. The judge asking for transcripts of the Grand Jury suggests she's kind of convinced Halligan wasn't entitled to be there, and the issue is then whether that in fact made the difference.
There will likely be a separate motion regarding selective prosecution - which is notoriously hard to prove. Though in this case, the evidence for that is unusually strong.
The Afghan man who allegedly killed a dog walker, stabbed a child and another person in Uxbridge arrived in the back of a lorry and was granted asylum. More @GBNEWS 9-11pm.
It feels like the narrative in this country has fundamentally shifted, and Labour (previously Tories) can’t face up to the new reality.
My sister is as woke as they come. And it was striking when I last saw her how far she’s shifted. A year or two ago she would attend lectures by Syrians off the back of a lorry. And she’s now scared to walk the street where she lives.
Am I alone in not caring less whether the cabinet are in the commons or not? Personally I’d rather a bigger distinction between the Executive and Legislature. And I also think parliamentary constituents can be short changed when their MP is distracted by issues at Cabinet. And of course, being an MP is a total sh1thouse job and attracts distinctly mid talent. We should aspire for our government to be drawn from a better quality pool than the den of thieves that is the Commons.
So, there is one rather significant issue that comes from having the Executive appointed by the Prime Minister, rather than as Members of Parliament:
Candidates for the role of Prime Minister would not have significant executive experience to draw upon when running for the role. MPs would not be able to tell which of their colleagues had actual decent organizational ability, because it would never be tested.
The same would be true of voters: all they would know would be which MP was best at asking silly gotcha questions whenever appointed ministers were summoned to testify before Parliament.
So, on balance, I think it would be a negative rather than a positive, because it would limit the ability of both ordinary voters and MPs to judge officials based on performance.
Who says the PM needs to be an MP?
Well, then you're proposing we move to a Presidential system, which is rather a more radical reform. Or do the MPs choose the PM, who then chooses the Executive? If so, how do people know who they're voting for to be PM?
The massacre of English counties continues and is being undertaken for the most short term cost reasons. It is a policy that is going to be unpopular and will ultimately fail. Local government is now yet another point of the list for major constitutional reform. which now includes the second chamber, powers of the House of Commons, the national parliaments, the voting system, the powers of the crown prerogative and indeed the monarchy itself. Its going to take more than a few guys meeting in Philadelphia for three weeks to sort this mess out.
The ghost of Lord Redcliffe-Maud waves hello.
(See, he even looked like a ghost at the time.)
The basic principle- work the large towns and small cities that people actually look towards, and plan unitary councils on the basis of those plus their hinterlands- was sorted before I was born.
My solution to all this would have been to lock all England's council leaders in a room at 11am with no food, and tell them that lunch would be served once they had agreed a map. It would have been sorted by lunchtime, and the map would have been similar to Lord R-M's.
The Afghan man who allegedly killed a dog walker, stabbed a child and another person in Uxbridge arrived in the back of a lorry and was granted asylum. More @GBNEWS 9-11pm.
According to the official readout of today’s cabinet meeting, the chief secretary to the prime minister told ministers this: “We have to build a new state and shut down the legacy state, with digital ID making people's experience of that new state fundamentally much better.” Blimey
Sounds very dystopian.
It sounds like something that if you are going to do you need years and years of careful planning and the whole organisation on board with such a radical change....all the evidence points to...erhhh....
"Western airlines have finally given up their race to the bottom Major carriers are starting to compete on service again – and that will be better for everyone
According to the official readout of today’s cabinet meeting, the chief secretary to the prime minister told ministers this: “We have to build a new state and shut down the legacy state, with digital ID making people's experience of that new state fundamentally much better.” Blimey
Sounds very dystopian.
It sounds like something that if you are going to do you need years and years of careful planning and the whole organisation on board with such a radical change....all the evidence points to...erhhh....
It could all have been done around the year 2000 because the zeitgeist was in favour of it at that time.
Am I alone in not caring less whether the cabinet are in the commons or not? Personally I’d rather a bigger distinction between the Executive and Legislature. And I also think parliamentary constituents can be short changed when their MP is distracted by issues at Cabinet. And of course, being an MP is a total sh1thouse job and attracts distinctly mid talent. We should aspire for our government to be drawn from a better quality pool than the den of thieves that is the Commons.
There is a big benefit IMo if a Minister isn’t an MP and so does not have any of the distraction of an MP such as constituents or parliamentary time and can focus purely on their ministry - that said, any non MP minister should not be allowed to be doing any other jobs for the duration of the role otherwise the benefits are wasted and leaves open too many chances for various levels of corruption/bias or accusations of.
The benefits of widening the pool of talent is the best part of it of course.
It would weaken the pool of PMs though to lower ranked ministers and backbench MPs, unless we also said the PM does not need to be in Parliament either which would complicate PMQs a bit!
Many US Presidents were state governors and never served a single day in Congress
I would think it would result in either weak and insecure PMs choosing not to bring in quality from the outside which would leave us where we are, or PMs who show a glimmer of strength by being confident or self aware enough to surround themselves by a strong team of outsiders.
I would prefer a generally untalented PM backed by a brilliant cabinet than an untalented PM who is more talented than the rest of his cabinet because they didn’t even have the talent to beat him/her to being PM.
I think a piecemeal approach would work, some outsiders in the Cabinet but plenty still from the legislature including often the PM, much like France has
Yes, I don’t think anyone would go full non-MP cabinet. It also helps to have politicians in there to guide the non politicians as there are quirks and rules and a culture which don’t exist in the worlds of business or military etc where the candidates might come in from so healthy to have the balance so that both routes have the best chance to thrive.
Plenty of examples of non-politicians being parachuted into top jobs. With the exception of Wellington, hard to think of many who have thrived. And Wellington's musings after his first Cabinet ("An extraordinary affair. I gave them their orders and they wanted to stay and discuss them.") hint at why.
Looking at it another way. Yes, there are occasional technocrats who know their ambition is to get policy in their field just right. Peter Hendy is probably an example- appointed to TfL by Ken, stayed to work for Boris. Or James Timpson's work as Prisons Minister. But mostly- it you are any good, why are you going to agree to work under someone inferior?
Same as any organisation- the person at the top needn't be the cleverest in the room, but if they aren't (in some sense) seen as the most capable (if only at managing cleverer people), the organisation won't be stable.
Is there any evidence at all that Our Nigel can do that?
Not sure why you are asking me that - I was thinking in general terms for all parties and as I’m not a huge fan of Farage I wouldn’t be able to give a fair answer anyway.
But on the main point, I’m not sure there are plenty of examples of non-politicians being given cabinet roles in the UK and there has probably been resistance to it out of precedent or MPs being against it to keep their career paths clear. If it became a normal situation then we might find that we get as many if not more successes than we have done from our politician Ministers.
"Why can't we be more like Sweden?" was a popular chorus in the 2000s. Replaced I think by "Why can't we be more like Germany?". That one went well too. I don't think there's a current version, but perhaps I'm wrong.
The massacre of English counties continues and is being undertaken for the most short term cost reasons. It is a policy that is going to be unpopular and will ultimately fail. Local government is now yet another point of the list for major constitutional reform. which now includes the second chamber, powers of the House of Commons, the national parliaments, the voting system, the powers of the crown prerogative and indeed the monarchy itself. Its going to take more than a few guys meeting in Philadelphia for three weeks to sort this mess out.
The ghost of Lord Redcliffe-Maud waves hello.
(See, he even looked like a ghost at the time.)
The basic principle- work the large towns and small cities that people actually look towards, and plan unitary councils on the basis of those plus their hinterlands- was sorted before I was born.
My solution to all this would have been to lock all England's council leaders in a room at 11am with no food, and tell them that lunch would be served once they had agreed a map. It would have been sorted by lunchtime, and the map would have been similar to Lord R-M's.
It was done for Scotland. Single tier authorities, albeit with two tiers for a while. Because the Scots then had to do what they were told. Decades ago.
Compare the chaotic mess south of the Border, which has if anything got worse.
A week after I got out of hospital, I feel ready to share my story of NHS trauma
I last reported from the hospital, not long after I'd been moved into a ward and was starting to feel better from the morphine and the antibiotics. I hadn't slept for thirty seven hours, thirty three of which had been at the hospital. This was due to not being given a bed for the first twenty and a half hours, then being moved several times over the next six hours
They'd put me in a four bed ward early in the afternoon and I tried to doze off. I may have dozed off very briefly once or twice but was instantly reawakened by the ten to fifteen guests visiting the other patients. If the patients weren't deaf, the visitors were having a shouting match
It got to dinner time and I managed to get about half of whatever horror they gave me down, and then got about ten minutes sleep before I was woken again for my drugs. I felt so awful when they woke me (heart pounding and hyper-ventilating a bit in my tiny remaining lung capacity), that I decided to keep myself awake until my final drug round at 10pm. I read PB for a couple of hours
I went for a wee just before ten, when I came out of the bathroom there were nine or ten doctors and nurse crowded around the bed next to me, and quite a bit of commotion. I waited for the pills; they eventually came at 10:45. By then my neighbour seemed to have recovered sufficiently to be screeching abuse at the staff. I think I got to asleep about eleven, nearly forty hours since my arrival at the hospital, and forty four hours awake
The next thing I knew, a bright light was being shone in my face, my things were being piled on top of me, and four foreign nurses were bellowing over me, shaking the bed because they couldn't disengage the wheel lock. When I first woke, I didn't remember where I was or why; I think my body would have reacted the same way if I were being kidnapped. It was essentially a massive adrenaline overdose - after, it turned out, a whole two hours sleep
A week after I got out of hospital, I feel ready to share my story of NHS trauma
I last reported from the hospital, not long after I'd been moved into a ward and was starting to feel better from the morphine and the antibiotics. I hadn't slept for thirty seven hours, thirty three of which had been at the hospital. This was due to not being given a bed for the first twenty and a half hours, then being moved several times over the next six hours
They'd put me in a four bed ward early in the afternoon and I tried to doze off. I may have dozed off very briefly once or twice but was instantly reawakened by the ten to fifteen guests visiting the other patients. If the patients weren't deaf, the visitors were having a shouting match
It got to dinner time and I managed to get about half of whatever horror they gave me down, and then got about ten minutes sleep before I was woken again for my drugs. I felt so awful when they woke me (heart pounding and hyper-ventilating a bit in my tiny remaining lung capacity), that I decided to keep myself awake until my final drug round at 10pm. I read PB for a couple of hours
I went for a wee just before ten, when I came out of the bathroom there were nine or ten doctors and nurse crowded around the bed next to me, and quite a bit of commotion. I waited for the pills; they eventually came at 10:45. By then my neighbour seemed to have recovered sufficiently to be screeching abuse at the staff. I think I got to asleep about eleven, nearly forty hours since my arrival at the hospital, and forty four hours awake
The next thing I knew, a bright light was being shone in my face, my things were being piled on top of me, and four foreign nurses were bellowing over me, shaking the bed because they couldn't disengage the wheel lock. When I first woke, I didn't remember where I was or why; I think my body would have reacted the same way if I were being kidnapped. It was essentially a massive adrenaline overdose - after, it turned out, a whole two hours sleep
tbc
They moved me as an extra bed into a different four bed ward, three foot from the bed of some Jabba the Hut looking figure, facing me and having explosive coughing fits every ten or so minutes, and another of the beds had a patient setting off beeping alarms almost as frequently. I dragged myself out of bed and down the corridor, looking for a member of staff who might help me out - I wanted some kind of sleeping pill. I gave up after the first six of them; they were all arrogant, rude, surly and utterly unhelpful. One response I got was "You're in a fucking hospital, what do you expect? Get back in your bed"
I tried to march indignantly off the ward, but shuffled, wheezed and coughed my way. I went outside and got some fresh air, took the deepest breaths I could, and tried to calm down. After half an hour I couldn't calm down, my heart was still pounding furiously, but I got control of my breathing and headed back to ward. The door was locked, so I had to ring the bell. The guy that came to the door angrily interrogated me "Wha' room you in", I asked how the fuck am I supposed to know, he said "You no come in, I ge' someone." He came back ten minutes later with a nurse, who refused to believe I'd been dumped on their ward. She disappeared and came back after ten more minutes with someone who bothered to fucking listen
She seemed nice, so I told why I wasn't going to be able to sleep and why I needed to. I asked if she could please find a doctor who'd prescribe me a strong sleeping pill. She promised to, and I squatted in the corridor opposite the ward. A few people came along in the hour and a half wait, ordering me to get back in my bed. I was past breaking point by then, and told each one to fuck off. I was so wired, I just squatted and stared at the wall. I think I only blinked about twenty times, and had to force myself to
The nurse eventually arrived, I took the pill and did my very best to sleep. I think I got about another two hours before they woke me up again. Once I'd again worked out where I was and why, and why I felt so fucking awful while also furious and delirious from the sleep deprivation, I decided I needed to see the Consultant to demand discharge. I told him all I wanted was the drugs I'd need, and to get the hell out of there. The arrogant prick laughed in my face
Took the useless fuckers four and a half hours to get the drugs to me, then I had to wait another hour to get picked up
Am I alone in not caring less whether the cabinet are in the commons or not? Personally I’d rather a bigger distinction between the Executive and Legislature. And I also think parliamentary constituents can be short changed when their MP is distracted by issues at Cabinet. And of course, being an MP is a total sh1thouse job and attracts distinctly mid talent. We should aspire for our government to be drawn from a better quality pool than the den of thieves that is the Commons.
So, there is one rather significant issue that comes from having the Executive appointed by the Prime Minister, rather than as Members of Parliament:
Candidates for the role of Prime Minister would not have significant executive experience to draw upon when running for the role. MPs would not be able to tell which of their colleagues had actual decent organizational ability, because it would never be tested.
The same would be true of voters: all they would know would be which MP was best at asking silly gotcha questions whenever appointed ministers were summoned to testify before Parliament.
So, on balance, I think it would be a negative rather than a positive, because it would limit the ability of both ordinary voters and MPs to judge officials based on performance.
Who says the PM needs to be an MP?
Well, then you're proposing we move to a Presidential system, which is rather a more radical reform. Or do the MPs choose the PM, who then chooses the Executive? If so, how do people know who they're voting for to be PM?
I partially jest obviously. But only partially. We shouldn’t be allergic to the idea of appointed talent in key roles that cba with constituency matters.
Am I alone in not caring less whether the cabinet are in the commons or not? Personally I’d rather a bigger distinction between the Executive and Legislature. And I also think parliamentary constituents can be short changed when their MP is distracted by issues at Cabinet. And of course, being an MP is a total sh1thouse job and attracts distinctly mid talent. We should aspire for our government to be drawn from a better quality pool than the den of thieves that is the Commons.
It does matter and I'll tell you why. Parliament is supreme, not the executive/government. The ministers have to be accountable to it. In the past, when non-Parliamentary people were appointed to Cabinet they were either ennobled to put them in the House of Lords, or they were made to attend and answer to a Parliamentary Committee. Parliament is not just a legislature.
A week after I got out of hospital, I feel ready to share my story of NHS trauma
I last reported from the hospital, not long after I'd been moved into a ward and was starting to feel better from the morphine and the antibiotics. I hadn't slept for thirty seven hours, thirty three of which had been at the hospital. This was due to not being given a bed for the first twenty and a half hours, then being moved several times over the next six hours
They'd put me in a four bed ward early in the afternoon and I tried to doze off. I may have dozed off very briefly once or twice but was instantly reawakened by the ten to fifteen guests visiting the other patients. If the patients weren't deaf, the visitors were having a shouting match
It got to dinner time and I managed to get about half of whatever horror they gave me down, and then got about ten minutes sleep before I was woken again for my drugs. I felt so awful when they woke me (heart pounding and hyper-ventilating a bit in my tiny remaining lung capacity), that I decided to keep myself awake until my final drug round at 10pm. I read PB for a couple of hours
I went for a wee just before ten, when I came out of the bathroom there were nine or ten doctors and nurse crowded around the bed next to me, and quite a bit of commotion. I waited for the pills; they eventually came at 10:45. By then my neighbour seemed to have recovered sufficiently to be screeching abuse at the staff. I think I got to asleep about eleven, nearly forty hours since my arrival at the hospital, and forty four hours awake
The next thing I knew, a bright light was being shone in my face, my things were being piled on top of me, and four foreign nurses were bellowing over me, shaking the bed because they couldn't disengage the wheel lock. When I first woke, I didn't remember where I was or why; I think my body would have reacted the same way if I were being kidnapped. It was essentially a massive adrenaline overdose - after, it turned out, a whole two hours sleep
tbc
They moved me as an extra bed into a different four bed ward, three foot from the bed of some Jabba the Hut looking figure, facing me and having explosive coughing fits every ten or so minutes, and another of the beds had a patient setting off beeping alarms almost as frequently. I dragged myself out of bed and down the corridor, looking for a member of staff who might help me out - I wanted some kind of sleeping pill. I gave up after the first six of them; they were all arrogant, rude, surly and utterly unhelpful. One response I got was "You're in a fucking hospital, what do you expect? Get back in your bed"
I tried to march indignantly off the ward, but shuffled, wheezed and coughed my way. I went outside and got some fresh air, took the deepest breaths I could, and tried to calm down. After half an hour I couldn't calm down, my heart was still pounding furiously, but I got control of my breathing and headed back to ward. The door was locked, so I had to ring the bell. The guy that came to the door angrily interrogated me "Wha' room you in", I asked how the fuck am I supposed to know, he said "You no come in, I ge' someone." He came back ten minutes later with a nurse, who refused to believe I'd been dumped on their ward. She disappeared and came back after ten more minutes with someone who bothered to fucking listen
She seemed nice, so I told why I wasn't going to be able to sleep and why I needed to. I asked if she could please find a doctor who'd prescribe me a strong sleeping pill. She promised to, and I squatted in the corridor opposite the ward. A few people came along in the hour and a half wait, ordering me to get back in my bed. I was past breaking point by then, and told each one to fuck off. I was so wired, I just squatted and stared at the wall. I think I only blinked about twenty times, and had to force myself to
The nurse eventually arrived, I took the pill and did my very best to sleep. I think I got about another two hours before they woke me up again. Once I'd again worked out where I was and why, and why I felt so fucking awful while also furious and delirious from the sleep deprivation, I decided I needed to see the Consultant to demand discharge. I told him all I wanted was the drugs I'd need, and to get the hell out of there. The arrogant prick laughed in my face
Took the useless fuckers four and a half hours to get the drugs to me, then I had to wait another hour to get picked up
A week after I got out of hospital, I feel ready to share my story of NHS trauma
I last reported from the hospital, not long after I'd been moved into a ward and was starting to feel better from the morphine and the antibiotics. I hadn't slept for thirty seven hours, thirty three of which had been at the hospital. This was due to not being given a bed for the first twenty and a half hours, then being moved several times over the next six hours
They'd put me in a four bed ward early in the afternoon and I tried to doze off. I may have dozed off very briefly once or twice but was instantly reawakened by the ten to fifteen guests visiting the other patients. If the patients weren't deaf, the visitors were having a shouting match
It got to dinner time and I managed to get about half of whatever horror they gave me down, and then got about ten minutes sleep before I was woken again for my drugs. I felt so awful when they woke me (heart pounding and hyper-ventilating a bit in my tiny remaining lung capacity), that I decided to keep myself awake until my final drug round at 10pm. I read PB for a couple of hours
I went for a wee just before ten, when I came out of the bathroom there were nine or ten doctors and nurse crowded around the bed next to me, and quite a bit of commotion. I waited for the pills; they eventually came at 10:45. By then my neighbour seemed to have recovered sufficiently to be screeching abuse at the staff. I think I got to asleep about eleven, nearly forty hours since my arrival at the hospital, and forty four hours awake
The next thing I knew, a bright light was being shone in my face, my things were being piled on top of me, and four foreign nurses were bellowing over me, shaking the bed because they couldn't disengage the wheel lock. When I first woke, I didn't remember where I was or why; I think my body would have reacted the same way if I were being kidnapped. It was essentially a massive adrenaline overdose - after, it turned out, a whole two hours sleep
tbc
They moved me as an extra bed into a different four bed ward, three foot from the bed of some Jabba the Hut looking figure, facing me and having explosive coughing fits every ten or so minutes, and another of the beds had a patient setting off beeping alarms almost as frequently. I dragged myself out of bed and down the corridor, looking for a member of staff who might help me out - I wanted some kind of sleeping pill. I gave up after the first six of them; they were all arrogant, rude, surly and utterly unhelpful. One response I got was "You're in a fucking hospital, what do you expect? Get back in your bed"
I tried to march indignantly off the ward, but shuffled, wheezed and coughed my way. I went outside and got some fresh air, took the deepest breaths I could, and tried to calm down. After half an hour I couldn't calm down, my heart was still pounding furiously, but I got control of my breathing and headed back to ward. The door was locked, so I had to ring the bell. The guy that came to the door angrily interrogated me "Wha' room you in", I asked how the fuck am I supposed to know, he said "You no come in, I ge' someone." He came back ten minutes later with a nurse, who refused to believe I'd been dumped on their ward. She disappeared and came back after ten more minutes with someone who bothered to fucking listen
She seemed nice, so I told why I wasn't going to be able to sleep and why I needed to. I asked if she could please find a doctor who'd prescribe me a strong sleeping pill. She promised to, and I squatted in the corridor opposite the ward. A few people came along in the hour and a half wait, ordering me to get back in my bed. I was past breaking point by then, and told each one to fuck off. I was so wired, I just squatted and stared at the wall. I think I only blinked about twenty times, and had to force myself to
The nurse eventually arrived, I took the pill and did my very best to sleep. I think I got about another two hours before they woke me up again. Once I'd again worked out where I was and why, and why I felt so fucking awful while also furious and delirious from the sleep deprivation, I decided I needed to see the Consultant to demand discharge. I told him all I wanted was the drugs I'd need, and to get the hell out of there. The arrogant prick laughed in my face
Took the useless fuckers four and a half hours to get the drugs to me, then I had to wait another hour to get picked up
Am I alone in not caring less whether the cabinet are in the commons or not? Personally I’d rather a bigger distinction between the Executive and Legislature. And I also think parliamentary constituents can be short changed when their MP is distracted by issues at Cabinet. And of course, being an MP is a total sh1thouse job and attracts distinctly mid talent. We should aspire for our government to be drawn from a better quality pool than the den of thieves that is the Commons.
It does matter and I'll tell you why. Parliament is supreme, not the executive/government. The ministers have to be accountable to it. In the past, when non-Parliamentary people were appointed to Cabinet they were either ennobled to put them in the House of Lords, or they were made to attend and answer to a Parliamentary Committee. Parliament is not just a legislature.
No reason why the commons cannot compel a cabinet minister to answer in person for their crimes. They do so to all sorts of people all the time, it’s a mere procedural adjustment to get Lord Ministers to face scrutiny whenever they want to
Comments
Inside the Senate GOP lunch with Vice President Vance
Vance was bombarded with questions about the Argentinian beef issue, per multiple attendees. GOP senators told him it was an “insult” to farmers/ranchers
Vance at one point joked, “does anyone have questions NOT about beef?”
https://x.com/AndrewDesiderio/status/1983237839333490733
However, on the substantive point, it is never smart to piss off lots of wealthy, well-connected and well-motivated voters even if they do not vote for you. They have too many ingenious ways of hitting back.
It's The Post Office, and The Spastics Society!"
That's why Rubio and Vance had to resign as Senators (although a case could be made that Vance is still technically a member of the Senate).
The benefits of widening the pool of talent is the best part of it of course.
Although I think two Labour councillors cling on by their fingernails.
Many US Presidents were state governors and never served a single day in Congress
I would prefer a generally untalented PM backed by a brilliant cabinet than an untalented PM who is more talented than the rest of his cabinet because they didn’t even have the talent to beat him/her to being PM.
There might be a case for change, but the idea that it be remade at the whim of Farage is both ridiculous, and disturbing.
https://x.com/MatthewCappucci/status/1983244747520250041
I’m sure you’re rejoicing at the newly confirmed Dr Who,Xmas special for 2026 written by the great man himself. He’s been persuaded to stay.
https://x.com/BillMelugin_/status/1982959806173581456
There's lots of people with executive experience within businesses, charities or other public bodies who would be better suited to running a department than most MPs.
The quid quo pro is the government could have a smaller and less motivated payroll vote. So MPs can focus on scrutinising the executive, and have the power to replace the PM and executive as needed without a new general election.
https://x.com/Peston/status/1983231551623016824
According to the official readout of today’s cabinet meeting, the chief secretary to the prime minister told ministers this: “We have to build a new state and shut down the legacy state, with digital ID making people's experience of that new state fundamentally much better.” Blimey
As we're seeing with Biden as against Trump.
Did Wilson give teenagers the vote on principle? Or Lloyd George take steps to enfranchise women because he wanted to do something for them (other than have sex with them, obviously).
No! They were all for political advantage. The fact many of them backfired spectacularly is amusing but not ultimately relevant to the point.
And it takes a sadly all too common arrogance for someone who got a mere third of the vote to talk that way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LASCAD
NEW: Judge Currie asks for complete grand-jury transcripts in the James Comey case so she can assess Lindsey Halligan's level of involvement (and thus the extent to which the prosecution might be tainted).
https://bsky.app/profile/joshuajfriedman.com/post/3m4bnp5rnps2t
(It's quite interesting to look at quiet revolutions historically. Unfortunately the dynamism of the ideas generally rescued them from this sort of abyss. We've not had a bright minister in ages.)
Candidates for the role of Prime Minister would not have significant executive experience to draw upon when running for the role. MPs would not be able to tell which of their colleagues had actual decent organizational ability, because it would never be tested.
The same would be true of voters: all they would know would be which MP was best at asking silly gotcha questions whenever appointed ministers were summoned to testify before Parliament.
So, on balance, I think it would be a negative rather than a positive, because it would limit the ability of both ordinary voters and MPs to judge officials based on performance.
Starmer's going to bring down the temple so we all get id cards
Someone stop him!
The odd dystopia of Ayn Rand does rather loom in my thoughts though.
I know people in Oliver's Borough, Elmbridge, who desperately didn't want to be part of what they saw as a financial disaster in the making with the creation of North Surrey and preferred being run from Reigate rather than Woking.
The Surrey councils in total, however, have debts approaching £5 billion so today's announcements leave a number of questions unanswered.
https://x.com/patrickchristys/status/1983240102210863442?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
If that argument is correct, she's got no authority and is just some herbert who the President personally sent to interfere in the process. The question then becomes whether the indictment getting through the Grand Jury stage is in fact due to someone who had no legal right to be there doing things she had no legal right to do. The judge asking for transcripts of the Grand Jury suggests she's kind of convinced Halligan wasn't entitled to be there, and the issue is then whether that in fact made the difference.
No word on the debts of the other councils AFAICS.
Looking at it another way. Yes, there are occasional technocrats who know their ambition is to get policy in their field just right. Peter Hendy is probably an example- appointed to TfL by Ken, stayed to work for Boris. Or James Timpson's work as Prisons Minister. But mostly- it you are any good, why are you going to agree to work under someone inferior?
Same as any organisation- the person at the top needn't be the cleverest in the room, but if they aren't (in some sense) seen as the most capable (if only at managing cleverer people), the organisation won't be stable.
Is there any evidence at all that Our Nigel can do that?
Apparently they can be quite dangerous.
No. Shit. Sherlocks.
If I were Comey (or James) I would quite welcome it going to trial, because they are both pretty obvious NGs.
(See, he even looked like a ghost at the time.)
The basic principle- work the large towns and small cities that people actually look towards, and plan unitary councils on the basis of those plus their hinterlands- was sorted before I was born.
My solution to all this would have been to lock all England's council leaders in a room at 11am with no food, and tell them that lunch would be served once they had agreed a map. It would have been sorted by lunchtime, and the map would have been similar to Lord R-M's.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1d0xpzx7q0o
Major carriers are starting to compete on service again – and that will be better for everyone
Matthew Lynn" (£)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/10/26/western-airlines-have-finally-given-up-their-race-to-the-bo/?recomm_id=b66471fb-f914-4845-8352-a6d65d3888cb
But on the main point, I’m not sure there are plenty of examples of non-politicians being given cabinet roles in the UK and there has probably been resistance to it out of precedent or MPs being against it to keep their career paths clear. If it became a normal situation then we might find that we get as many if not more successes than we have done from our politician Ministers.
https://www.euractiv.com/news/sweden-to-lower-age-of-criminal-responsibility-to-13-amid-gang-violence-crisis/
"Why can't we be more like Sweden?" was a popular chorus in the 2000s. Replaced I think by "Why can't we be more like Germany?". That one went well too. I don't think there's a current version, but perhaps I'm wrong.
Compare the chaotic mess south of the Border, which has if anything got worse.
Edit: Wales got done too.
https://bsky.app/profile/tyleraking.com/post/3m4bpyaudfk2j
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/live/c70951e80r9t
Scotland are not playing 11 v 10 though...
“Lam for Leader” site registered this weekend. Katie Lam’s team denies involvement.
https://x.com/thepygge/status/1983148885791985815?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
I last reported from the hospital, not long after I'd been moved into a ward and was starting to feel better from the morphine and the antibiotics. I hadn't slept for thirty seven hours, thirty three of which had been at the hospital. This was due to not being given a bed for the first twenty and a half hours, then being moved several times over the next six hours
They'd put me in a four bed ward early in the afternoon and I tried to doze off. I may have dozed off very briefly once or twice but was instantly reawakened by the ten to fifteen guests visiting the other patients. If the patients weren't deaf, the visitors were having a shouting match
It got to dinner time and I managed to get about half of whatever horror they gave me down, and then got about ten minutes sleep before I was woken again for my drugs. I felt so awful when they woke me (heart pounding and hyper-ventilating a bit in my tiny remaining lung capacity), that I decided to keep myself awake until my final drug round at 10pm. I read PB for a couple of hours
I went for a wee just before ten, when I came out of the bathroom there were nine or ten doctors and nurse crowded around the bed next to me, and quite a bit of commotion. I waited for the pills; they eventually came at 10:45. By then my neighbour seemed to have recovered sufficiently to be screeching abuse at the staff. I think I got to asleep about eleven, nearly forty hours since my arrival at the hospital, and forty four hours awake
The next thing I knew, a bright light was being shone in my face, my things were being piled on top of me, and four foreign nurses were bellowing over me, shaking the bed because they couldn't disengage the wheel lock. When I first woke, I didn't remember where I was or why; I think my body would have reacted the same way if I were being kidnapped. It was essentially a massive adrenaline overdose - after, it turned out, a whole two hours sleep
tbc
I tried to march indignantly off the ward, but shuffled, wheezed and coughed my way. I went outside and got some fresh air, took the deepest breaths I could, and tried to calm down. After half an hour I couldn't calm down, my heart was still pounding furiously, but I got control of my breathing and headed back to ward. The door was locked, so I had to ring the bell. The guy that came to the door angrily interrogated me "Wha' room you in", I asked how the fuck am I supposed to know, he said "You no come in, I ge' someone." He came back ten minutes later with a nurse, who refused to believe I'd been dumped on their ward. She disappeared and came back after ten more minutes with someone who bothered to fucking listen
She seemed nice, so I told why I wasn't going to be able to sleep and why I needed to. I asked if she could please find a doctor who'd prescribe me a strong sleeping pill. She promised to, and I squatted in the corridor opposite the ward. A few people came along in the hour and a half wait, ordering me to get back in my bed. I was past breaking point by then, and told each one to fuck off. I was so wired, I just squatted and stared at the wall. I think I only blinked about twenty times, and had to force myself to
The nurse eventually arrived, I took the pill and did my very best to sleep. I think I got about another two hours before they woke me up again. Once I'd again worked out where I was and why, and why I felt so fucking awful while also furious and delirious from the sleep deprivation, I decided I needed to see the Consultant to demand discharge. I told him all I wanted was the drugs I'd need, and to get the hell out of there. The arrogant prick laughed in my face
Took the useless fuckers four and a half hours to get the drugs to me, then I had to wait another hour to get picked up
Hope you've recovered at home