Lords of the Cabinet: We The People
Last week, Gordon Brown invited Peter Mandelson back from the EU and into his Cabinet. But - hang on! - don’t you have to be a member of Parliament to be a Cabinet minister? Yes, you do. So Mandy is being given a peerage.
Yet why do they need to be in parliament? So that they are answerable to parliament and us. However, when they are sitting in the Lords they’re not directly accountable. We can’t vote them out.
The tendency to appoint Lords to Cabinet positions other than the necessary ones is new. And a reversal of the previous convention that only elected parliamentary representatives - ie. MPs - should take important roles. This appeared to start in 2003 when Baroness Amos was appointed Secretary of State for International Development, followed by Lord Falconer who held the position of Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and then Justice.
And now it is to be taken even further. Both Falconer and Amos had their titles prior to being given a Cabinet position - but Peter Mandelson, just appointed Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, doesn’t. Yet he is going to get given one because he has been given ministerial role.
Of course, the government aren’t the only people to take part in this. For example in the Conservative Shadow Cabinet, Sayeeda Warsi was made Baroness so that she could become Shadow Minister for Community Cohesion and Social Action.
The only other people who have been appointed into the Cabinet without already being a member of either House of Parliament were Frank Cousins and Patrick Gordon Walker in Harold Wilson’s 1964 Cabinet - and they soon held by-elections to get them seats. But not for Mandelson, and certainly not now, when Labour can’t even hold on to a seat they had more than a 10,000 majority in.
What is happening is that our political system is turning more and more to the American model. Whilst there certainly can be benefits to bringing in people from outside parliament, it’s not exactly democratic. Our politicial system bases itself on parliament, and specifically the Commons, and this shouldn’t be thrown away for political expediency.
I object to people being given peerages for the sole reason that they can serve in the Cabinet - or indeed the Shadow version. If these people are wanted so much, an MP in a safe seat who is willing to resign in their favour should be found and a by-electon held. Otherwise, they should be no more than an advisor. It goes against our political system and, frankly, parliamentarty democracy itself.
Categories: All WW, Politics, We The People
Prior to Jim Murphy and Gordon Brown stealing their thunder, the Tories announced that they would reinstate the office of Secretary of State for Scotland.
I believe that one of the reasons that they did this was to ensure that there would be a cabinet place for at least one Scot in the future Conservative government.
But if Scotland elected no Scots - which could happen if the Tories get squeezed by a Lab-SNP battle - then they would have to put in a Scottish Tory Lord or a Scottish exile like Rifkind. It would probably be wise for Tories to not make too much of a fuss about this, just in case.
Toque´s last blog post..BP Cashiers
This is a political history nerd’s dream post. I await the information about Lord Shufflebotham of Undertwist who did a similar thing 200 years before Life Peers by gaining a title through an arranged marriage in 1763 in order to join the Government in 1764.
Matt Wardman´s last blog post..Lords of the Cabinet: We The People
Seriously, I think that some flexibility is useful - and we will need some ability to include “wildcards” if the Lords ever go to an elected system.
There are all sorts of useful people who have been in Cabinets who would never have been Elected.
But on the Mandy point - the Lords appointment being something of an abuse of process to get him there: yes it is, but there are advantages in having the loophole.
Matt Wardman´s last blog post..Lords of the Cabinet: We The People
But why? If these people want to be in the Cabinet, they should stand for election. Yes, some very good people might not get in because they haven’t been elected, but it does take away from the accountability to the people.
ThunderDragon´s last blog post..Lords of the Cabinet: We The People
That’s the way cabinet government and our parliamentary system works.
Gordon Brown has no electoral mandate on English domestic matters. His own constituents elect an MSP to represent them on health, education, etc. So he is unelected by anyone, be they English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish on devolved matters.
But his mandate comes from the Parliamentary Labour Party, who win the largest number of seats (without the plurality of the vote in England) and make him leader to allow him to form a cabinet.
If you’re going to complain about Mandleson (and I agree with you), you might as well complain about Brown lack of electoral mandate and the system that gives him such power.
Toque´s last blog post..BP Cashiers
[...] that I am not the only one to have problems with Lords taking up Cabinet roles - as I wrote in my We The People column this week - that should go to elected representatives. Mark Oaten (remember him?) has tabled an [...]