babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » Gordon Brown cabinet

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Gordon Brown cabinet
Adam T
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4631

posted 28 June 2007 05:27 AM      Profile for Adam T     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The British Cabinet has three different components with ministers of state and undersecretarys of state working underneath the cabinet secretary (cabinet minister). The top line of ministers was announced today. The cabinet is dominated by lawyers and economists.

8 ministers are out (excluding Blair and the Lords Leader) and there are seven new ministers. The biggest surprise to me is that there are only 4 women M.Ps in the new senior cabinet.

Dropped
1.Lord Falconer
2.Tessa Jowell
3.Hilary Armstrong
4.Margaret Beckett
5.Patricia Hewitt
6.John Reid
7.Stephen Timms
8.John Prescott

New (or returned)
1.Harriet Harman
2.James Purnell
3.Ed Miliband
4.Shaun Woodward
5.Ed Balls
6.Andy Burnham
7.Geoff Hoon

1.Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alistair Darling, 53, lawyer, M.P 1987-

2.Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Andy Burnham, 37, Cabinet Minister Special Advisor, M.A- English, M.P 2001-

3.Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, John Hutton, 52, Senior Law Lecturer, M.P 1992-

4.Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Hilary Benn (male), 53, Union Head of Policy and Communications, M.P 1999-

5.Transport, Ruth Kelly, 39, Bank of England Inflation Report Division Deputy Head, M.SC- Economics, M.P 1997-

6.Schools and Children, Ed Balls, 40, Chief Economic Advisor to the Treasury, M.P 2005-

7.Work and Pensions/Wales, Peter Hain, 57, Communications Workers Union Head of Research, B.A- Economics and Political Science, M.A- Philosophy, M.P 1991-

8.Health, Alan Johnson, 57, Communication Workers Union General Secretary/former Postal Worker, M.P 1997-

9.Culture, Media and Sport, James Purnell, 37, Tony Blair Special Advisor, M.P 2001-

10.Communities and Local Government, Hazel Blears, 51, Lawyer, M.P 1997-

11.Northern Ireland, Shaun Woodward, 48, B.B.C Broadcaster, M.P 1997- (Conservative M.P 1997-1999)

12.Defence/Scotland, Des Browne, 55, Lawyer, M.P 1997-

13.International Development, Douglas Alexander, 39, Lawyer, M.P 1997-

14.Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, David Miliband, Tony Blair Chief Policy Advisor, M.A- Political Science, M.P 2001-

15.Cabinet Office/Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Ed Miliband, Chair Councillor of Economic Advisors, M.Sc- Economics, M.P 2005-

16.Home Office, Jacqui Smith, 45, High School Economics Teacher and department head, M.P 1997-

17.Justice, Jack Straw, 61, T.V Current Affairs Program Researcher and lawyer, M.P 1979-

18.Chief Whip/Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, Geoff Hoon, 53, Lawyer M.P 1992-

19.Government House Leader/Minister for Women, Harriet Harman, 56, Lawyer and National Council for Civil Liberties Legal Officer, M.P 1982-

20.Lords Leader, Baroness Ashton

21.Attorney General, Baroness Scotland

[ 28 June 2007: Message edited by: Adam T ]


From: Richmond B.C | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 28 June 2007 06:21 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Notice this bit of news?

quote:
After stepping down as prime minister, Mr Blair also quit as MP for Sedgefield to become a Middle East peace envoy on behalf of the EU, US, UN and Russia.

This will prompt a by-election, expected to take place in mid-July.


In the UK, a surprise vacancy occurs and it is a matter of course that the byelection is called that very day with a date set for a few weeks later. Why is it that here in Canada (where apparently we still live in the Stone Age) governments let months or even years go by leaving seats vacant?

I think the NDP ought to make it a policy that anytime a vacancy occurs, the byelection must be called within 24 hours and the date set for no more than 35 days later. Period!!


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 28 June 2007 06:23 AM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In Canada,

We know all about finance ministers being heir apparent and coming in with a lot of promise and energy. They made all the goody announcements for years so of course hey're the most popular. And bthey always folow through with dominant leadership.

Paul Martin
Bernard Landry
Ernie Eves


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 28 June 2007 09:03 AM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
Why is it that here in Canada (where apparently we still live in the Stone Age) governments let months or even years go by leaving seats vacant?

Actually Federally and in Ontario a by-election must be called within 6 months of the resignation. The only exception is if a general election is called up to an including the final day of the 6 month period.


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Will S
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13367

posted 28 June 2007 09:45 AM      Profile for Will S        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It must be called within six months, but can't they set the election date whenever they want? When Mac Harb was appointed to the Senate Ottawa Centre seemed to be without an MP for months upon months.
From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Krago
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3064

posted 28 June 2007 09:50 AM      Profile for Krago     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Tony Blair did not quit as an MP; British MPs are not permitted to resign. He was disqualified from sitting in the House of Commons after accepting an appointment to an office of profit under the Crown, namely the Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty's Three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham in the county of Buckingham.

Resignation from the British House of Commons


From: The Royal City | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 28 June 2007 10:22 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Actually Federally and in Ontario a by-election must be called within 6 months of the resignation.

Six months is way, way, way too long. Why should people be left without representation for any longer than is absolutely necessary.

What would be so bad about legally obliging the PM to call a byelection within 48 hours of a vacancy occurring and with the date to be set no more than six weeks after that?? That's what they do in the UK. In the US it is similar, when a congressperson dies or resigns and special election takes place very quickly.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
FraserValleyMan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13970

posted 28 June 2007 11:22 AM      Profile for FraserValleyMan        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
In the UK, a surprise vacancy occurs and it is a matter of course that the byelection is called that very day with a date set for a few weeks later. Why is it that here in Canada (where apparently we still live in the Stone Age) governments let months or even years go by leaving seats vacant?

I think the NDP ought to make it a policy that anytime a vacancy occurs, the byelection must be called within 24 hours and the date set for no more than 35 days later. Period!!


I agree there needs to be far less discretion around setting byelection dates, but I think there should be some to avoid exceedingly low turnout byelections in the Holiday Season, or in mid-summer. Perhaps the legislation could read x days after the resignation is received, unless that would mean a date falling in the period July 1 to Sept 15th, or in the period December 1 to January 30th, in which case just after the end of those periods. If there is a need for any discretion, it should rest with the Speaker, not the Prime Minister. Alternatively, there could be a statutory requirement for the Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader to agree to a date within wider time frames, say within six months.

I am also firmly of the belief that all federal and provincial elections, general and byelections, should be held on Saturdays in order to maximize turnout. In BC we have our local elections on Saturdays, and there are no complaints about that. However, we continue to have provincial elections on Wednesdays, for some unknown reason. Why are federal elections on Mondays? What's supposed to be so great about Mondays?


From: Port Coquitlam, BC | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Jooge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10480

posted 28 June 2007 11:49 AM      Profile for Jooge     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
In the UK, a surprise vacancy occurs and it is a matter of course that the byelection is called that very day with a date set for a few weeks later. Why is it that here in Canada (where apparently we still live in the Stone Age) governments let months or even years go by leaving seats vacant?

This isn't true. In fact no date has yet been set for this byelection....just an assumption that it will occur sometime in July. The UK sets no maximum time that a by-election must be held by after the date the seat has become vacant. It is not uncommon for byelections to be grouped together and a period of months can and often does pass before a by-election is called. This is supported both by the link below and the 30 old years I lived in the UK.

UK Parliament Protocol


From: The Land of Opportunity | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 28 June 2007 12:56 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I am also firmly of the belief that all federal and provincial elections, general and byelections, should be held on Saturdays in order to maximize turnout.

Why not on SUNDAYS when even more people have the day off. Elections are held on Sundays in the following countries (to name a few):

Germany
France
Belgium
Austria
Spain
Portugal
Italy
Hungary
virtually every country in Latin America...

As for byelection, why not make it the job of the chief electoral officer to schedule byelections with the understanding that it be based on the principle that people should not go without representation for any longer than is absolutely necessary.

Another idea would to let the political party of the resigned or dead MP appoint a substitute for the period between the vacancy occurring and the date of the byelection - that way no one is without representation for more than a few days?


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jooge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10480

posted 28 June 2007 01:59 PM      Profile for Jooge     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
Another idea would to let the political party of the resigned or dead MP appoint a substitute for the period between the vacancy occurring and the date of the byelection - that way no one is without representation for more than a few days?

You couldn't do this with the present FPTP system because you elect the person not the party. A PR system may be different.


From: The Land of Opportunity | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 28 June 2007 02:44 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So what? In the US people vote for Senators as individuals, but if a senator dies or resigns, the state governor appoints a temporary replacement until a special election can take place.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 28 June 2007 02:52 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think election days should be holidays. That way people can be assured the time off work not only to vote, but also to get involved on election day.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jooge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10480

posted 28 June 2007 03:10 PM      Profile for Jooge     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
So what? In the US people vote for Senators as individuals, but if a senator dies or resigns, the state governor appoints a temporary replacement until a special election can take place.

Well hey, we might as well become the 51st state with that mentality!


From: The Land of Opportunity | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 28 June 2007 03:11 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree. Election day should be a holiday - but the next best thing is to have elections on a day that is already a holiday - SUNDAY!
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Geneva
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3808

posted 29 June 2007 03:11 AM      Profile for Geneva     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
anyways, back to politics:
Q.: does Gordon Brown = Paul Martin?

the parallels as many have pointed out are uncanny, esp. with his long long wait as No.2 man

but,
- will he bungle it all away in 2-3 years?
- is a snap election a risk, exposing his lack of appeal ?


From: um, well | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168

posted 29 June 2007 07:41 AM      Profile for Malcolm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Geneva:

Q.: does Gordon Brown = Paul Martin?


A couple of variances between the two.

1) While Chretien and Martin were rivals from the start - and representing rival wings of the party - both Blair and Brown began as acolytes to the previous Labour leader, John Smith. And at Smith's untimely demise, they agreed among themselves that Blair should seek the leadership first and that they should plan for Brown to succeed.

2) While Brown and Brown's people were anxious for Blair to clear the way, Brown never attempted a coup de party type breakdown the way Martin (or at least Martin's people did prior to the 2000 election.

3) While Martin inherited a party that seemed destined to go on winning forever, Brown inherits a party that, in some polls, has already begun to be overtaken by the principle opposition party.

And the most important difference?

4) Brown seems to have a clue about what he wants to do. He has laid out a plan for the next steps of "the project." And although that plan departs in some significant ways from his predecessor's, it is not a complete repudiation of Blairism. By contrast, it swiftly became obvious that, although Martin had dreamed of becoming Prime Minister for nearly 20 years, he had never really pondered what he was going to do once he got there. Thus, his "top priority of the minute" approach to issues and his general dithering.


From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca