On Sat, 27 Aug 2022 14:26:15 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> He has no government experience at all, so wasn't a serious contender. But
>>
>> To be fair neither did Blair or Cameron. Sometimes you need someone fresh
>> to shake things up a bit.
>>
>>
>
>They had both been leaders of the opposition for several years before
>becoming PM. That taught them a lot about government. But when a new leader

I doubt it taught them more about governing that serving in Iraq and
Afghanistan as a commanding officer as Tugenhat did. Not to mention the other
stuff he's done which is in wikipedia if you're interested.

Its about time we had people in government who've done real jobs , not just
some useless PPE degree then straight into westminster as an advisor. I suppose
at least truss worked for Shell for a while though as an accountant.

>takes over and immediately becomes PM, it's essential that they've had
>senior cabinet experience. And Truss is in fact the most experienced

Neither Blair not Cameron has senior cabinet experience and I disagree that
being leader of the opposition is any qualification. All it means is they
know how to get to the parliament canteen quickly and get to make some noise
and potshots once a week in the commons. They don't actually do anything
productive outside their constituencies like any other MP.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Aug 2022 14:26:15 -0000 (UTC)
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> He has no government experience at all, so wasn't a serious contender. But
>>>
>>> To be fair neither did Blair or Cameron. Sometimes you need someone fresh
>>> to shake things up a bit.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> They had both been leaders of the opposition for several years before
>> becoming PM. That taught them a lot about government. But when a new leader
>
> I doubt it taught them more about governing that serving in Iraq and
> Afghanistan as a commanding officer as Tugenhat did. Not to mention the other
> stuff he's done which is in wikipedia if you're interested.
>
> Its about time we had people in government who've done real jobs , not just
> some useless PPE degree then straight into westminster as an advisor. I suppose
> at least truss worked for Shell for a while though as an accountant.
>
>> takes over and immediately becomes PM, it's essential that they've had
>> senior cabinet experience. And Truss is in fact the most experienced
>
> Neither Blair not Cameron has senior cabinet experience and I disagree that
> being leader of the opposition is any qualification. All it means is they
> know how to get to the parliament canteen quickly and get to make some noise
> and potshots once a week in the commons. They don't actually do anything
> productive outside their constituencies like any other MP.

Your views are not widely shared. In fact, it's the norm for new party
leaders who take over while the party holds office to have held one of the
three great offices of state. That's true of both Truss and Sunak, as well
as all the new PMs appointed by governing parties for over a century
(Johnson, May, Brown, Major, Callaghan, Douglas-Home, Macmillan, Eden,
Churchill, Chamberlain, Baldwin, Law, George and Asquith).

On 27/08/2022 14:57, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Aug 2022 12:42:35 +0100
> Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
>> They will hang on until the last possible moment, so the next general
>> election will be in November or December 2024. In the absence of another
>
> More than likely.
>
>> Falklands War, Truss's Thatcher-like policies will have proved so
>> disastrous and unpopular that they will not dare risk an early election.
>
> Hopefully she may move away from the full Thatcher. Unfortunately some
> politicians don't seem to realise policies were of their time. Thatcherism
> was the right thing at the right time in the early 80s but wasn't right for
> the 90s - despite Major keeping it on life support and privatising the
> railways - and certainly isn't in the 2020s.

Thatcher shifted Britain back from the far left, then failed to stop.

>> She may even be dumped by the "Boris was Great" lobby.
>
> I've heard on a couple of radio stations that the Tory unwashed are not
> happy Boris was kicked out so you never know.
>
>> Unfortunately, Labour will fail to win that election, and Starmer will
>> also be dumped -- hopefully not to be replaced by some Corbyn-like loser.
>
> Rayner seems fairly clued up if a bit left for me. Not sure if I could put
> up with hearing that voice very often though.
>

In message <tedbbh$p5u$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:56:49 on Sat, 27 Aug
2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:

>Neither Blair not Cameron has senior cabinet experience and I disagree that
>being leader of the opposition is any qualification. All it means is they
>know how to get to the parliament canteen quickly and get to make some noise
>and potshots once a week in the commons. They don't actually do anything
>productive outside their constituencies like any other MP.

Oh dear. You really have no idea what happens in Westminster, do you?
--
Roland Perry

On Sat, 27 Aug 2022 15:41:50 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> Neither Blair not Cameron has senior cabinet experience and I disagree that
>> being leader of the opposition is any qualification. All it means is they
>> know how to get to the parliament canteen quickly and get to make some noise
>> and potshots once a week in the commons. They don't actually do anything
>> productive outside their constituencies like any other MP.
>
>Your views are not widely shared. In fact, it's the norm for new party

Yes I know and its probably why we've had such lousy leaders for decades.
Its ditto in the business world where a revolving door of CEOs move from
one company to another generally achieving little other than increasing the
size of their own back accounts.

>leaders who take over while the party holds office to have held one of the
>three great offices of state. That's true of both Truss and Sunak, as well
>as all the new PMs appointed by governing parties for over a century
>(Johnson, May, Brown, Major, Callaghan, Douglas-Home, Macmillan, Eden,
>Churchill, Chamberlain, Baldwin, Law, George and Asquith).

Time for a change then.

On 27/08/2022 16:41, Recliner wrote:
> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Aug 2022 14:26:15 -0000 (UTC)
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> He has no government experience at all, so wasn't a serious contender. But
>>>>
>>>> To be fair neither did Blair or Cameron. Sometimes you need someone fresh
>>>> to shake things up a bit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> They had both been leaders of the opposition for several years before
>>> becoming PM. That taught them a lot about government. But when a new leader
>>
>> I doubt it taught them more about governing that serving in Iraq and
>> Afghanistan as a commanding officer as Tugenhat did. Not to mention the other
>> stuff he's done which is in wikipedia if you're interested.
>>
>> Its about time we had people in government who've done real jobs , not just
>> some useless PPE degree then straight into westminster as an advisor. I suppose
>> at least truss worked for Shell for a while though as an accountant.
>>
>>> takes over and immediately becomes PM, it's essential that they've had
>>> senior cabinet experience. And Truss is in fact the most experienced
>>
>> Neither Blair not Cameron has senior cabinet experience and I disagree that
>> being leader of the opposition is any qualification. All it means is they
>> know how to get to the parliament canteen quickly and get to make some noise
>> and potshots once a week in the commons. They don't actually do anything
>> productive outside their constituencies like any other MP.
>
> Your views are not widely shared. In fact, it's the norm for new party
> leaders who take over while the party holds office to have held one of the
> three great offices of state. That's true of both Truss and Sunak, as well
> as all the new PMs appointed by governing parties for over a century
> (Johnson, May, Brown, Major, Callaghan, Douglas-Home, Macmillan, Eden,
> Churchill, Chamberlain, Baldwin, Law, George and Asquith).
>

But it can be difficult to find leaders with cabinet experience if you
party has been out of power for 15 years or more.

Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 27/08/2022 16:41, Recliner wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 27 Aug 2022 14:26:15 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>> He has no government experience at all, so wasn't a serious contender. But
>>>>>
>>>>> To be fair neither did Blair or Cameron. Sometimes you need someone fresh
>>>>> to shake things up a bit.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They had both been leaders of the opposition for several years before
>>>> becoming PM. That taught them a lot about government. But when a new leader
>>>
>>> I doubt it taught them more about governing that serving in Iraq and
>>> Afghanistan as a commanding officer as Tugenhat did. Not to mention the other
>>> stuff he's done which is in wikipedia if you're interested.
>>>
>>> Its about time we had people in government who've done real jobs , not just
>>> some useless PPE degree then straight into westminster as an advisor. I suppose
>>> at least truss worked for Shell for a while though as an accountant.
>>>
>>>> takes over and immediately becomes PM, it's essential that they've had
>>>> senior cabinet experience. And Truss is in fact the most experienced
>>>
>>> Neither Blair not Cameron has senior cabinet experience and I disagree that
>>> being leader of the opposition is any qualification. All it means is they
>>> know how to get to the parliament canteen quickly and get to make some noise
>>> and potshots once a week in the commons. They don't actually do anything
>>> productive outside their constituencies like any other MP.
>>
>> Your views are not widely shared. In fact, it's the norm for new party
>> leaders who take over while the party holds office to have held one of the
>> three great offices of state. That's true of both Truss and Sunak, as well
>> as all the new PMs appointed by governing parties for over a century
>> (Johnson, May, Brown, Major, Callaghan, Douglas-Home, Macmillan, Eden,
>> Churchill, Chamberlain, Baldwin, Law, George and Asquith).
>>
>
> But it can be difficult to find leaders with cabinet experience if you
> party has been out of power for 15 years or more.

We are not talking about picking the leader of a party out of power. This
discussion is about a ruling party changing its leader, with the new leader
immediately becoming PM.

If a party is in opposition, it can afford to take risks with untested
newcomers, and take its time to select a new leader, using complex,
multi-round voting systems if so desired. It doesn't matter if the party is
without a permanent leader for a month or two. That's how Thatcher, Blair
and Cameron were chosen. They all went on to win at least two general
elections. It didn't matter what cabinet experience they had then, as they
would have several years as leader of the opposition, running a shadow
government and very closely observing the government.

It's quite different if the new leader immediately becomes PM and has to
run the government, as well as lead the party. They do need senior cabinet
experience in that case. And that's why there's long been a convention that
such new leaders need to have held at least one of the three great offices
of state. Truss not only passes this test, but is the most experienced
cabinet minister in parliament, and has served seved in three PMs'
cabinets.

Also, the parties need a different, much quicker, procedure for choosing a
new PM if the current leader dies or resigns for any reason than they do
when choosing new opposition leaders. I think it should just be a vote of
the MPs, who, after all, know them best.

On 27/08/2022 21:17, Recliner wrote:
> Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 27/08/2022 16:41, Recliner wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 27 Aug 2022 14:26:15 -0000 (UTC)
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> He has no government experience at all, so wasn't a serious contender. But
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To be fair neither did Blair or Cameron. Sometimes you need someone fresh
>>>>>> to shake things up a bit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> They had both been leaders of the opposition for several years before
>>>>> becoming PM. That taught them a lot about government. But when a new leader
>>>>
>>>> I doubt it taught them more about governing that serving in Iraq and
>>>> Afghanistan as a commanding officer as Tugenhat did. Not to mention the other
>>>> stuff he's done which is in wikipedia if you're interested.
>>>>
>>>> Its about time we had people in government who've done real jobs , not just
>>>> some useless PPE degree then straight into westminster as an advisor. I suppose
>>>> at least truss worked for Shell for a while though as an accountant.
>>>>
>>>>> takes over and immediately becomes PM, it's essential that they've had
>>>>> senior cabinet experience. And Truss is in fact the most experienced
>>>>
>>>> Neither Blair not Cameron has senior cabinet experience and I disagree that
>>>> being leader of the opposition is any qualification. All it means is they
>>>> know how to get to the parliament canteen quickly and get to make some noise
>>>> and potshots once a week in the commons. They don't actually do anything
>>>> productive outside their constituencies like any other MP.
>>>
>>> Your views are not widely shared. In fact, it's the norm for new party
>>> leaders who take over while the party holds office to have held one of the
>>> three great offices of state. That's true of both Truss and Sunak, as well
>>> as all the new PMs appointed by governing parties for over a century
>>> (Johnson, May, Brown, Major, Callaghan, Douglas-Home, Macmillan, Eden,
>>> Churchill, Chamberlain, Baldwin, Law, George and Asquith).
>>>
>>
>> But it can be difficult to find leaders with cabinet experience if you
>> party has been out of power for 15 years or more.
>
> We are not talking about picking the leader of a party out of power. This
> discussion is about a ruling party changing its leader, with the new leader
> immediately becoming PM.
>
> If a party is in opposition, it can afford to take risks with untested
> newcomers, and take its time to select a new leader, using complex,
> multi-round voting systems if so desired. It doesn't matter if the party is
> without a permanent leader for a month or two. That's how Thatcher, Blair
> and Cameron were chosen. They all went on to win at least two general
> elections. It didn't matter what cabinet experience they had then, as they
> would have several years as leader of the opposition, running a shadow
> government and very closely observing the government.
>
> It's quite different if the new leader immediately becomes PM and has to
> run the government, as well as lead the party. They do need senior cabinet
> experience in that case. And that's why there's long been a convention that
> such new leaders need to have held at least one of the three great offices
> of state. Truss not only passes this test, but is the most experienced
> cabinet minister in parliament, and has served seved in three PMs'
> cabinets.
>
> Also, the parties need a different, much quicker, procedure for choosing a
> new PM if the current leader dies or resigns for any reason than they do
> when choosing new opposition leaders. I think it should just be a vote of
> the MPs, who, after all, know them best.

Which is what used to happen, the rules changed in 1998, under Hague,

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 27/08/2022 21:17, Recliner wrote:
>> Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 27/08/2022 16:41, Recliner wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 27 Aug 2022 14:26:15 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> He has no government experience at all, so wasn't a serious contender. But
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To be fair neither did Blair or Cameron. Sometimes you need someone fresh
>>>>>>> to shake things up a bit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They had both been leaders of the opposition for several years before
>>>>>> becoming PM. That taught them a lot about government. But when a new leader
>>>>>
>>>>> I doubt it taught them more about governing that serving in Iraq and
>>>>> Afghanistan as a commanding officer as Tugenhat did. Not to mention the other
>>>>> stuff he's done which is in wikipedia if you're interested.
>>>>>
>>>>> Its about time we had people in government who've done real jobs , not just
>>>>> some useless PPE degree then straight into westminster as an advisor. I suppose
>>>>> at least truss worked for Shell for a while though as an accountant.
>>>>>
>>>>>> takes over and immediately becomes PM, it's essential that they've had
>>>>>> senior cabinet experience. And Truss is in fact the most experienced
>>>>>
>>>>> Neither Blair not Cameron has senior cabinet experience and I disagree that
>>>>> being leader of the opposition is any qualification. All it means is they
>>>>> know how to get to the parliament canteen quickly and get to make some noise
>>>>> and potshots once a week in the commons. They don't actually do anything
>>>>> productive outside their constituencies like any other MP.
>>>>
>>>> Your views are not widely shared. In fact, it's the norm for new party
>>>> leaders who take over while the party holds office to have held one of the
>>>> three great offices of state. That's true of both Truss and Sunak, as well
>>>> as all the new PMs appointed by governing parties for over a century
>>>> (Johnson, May, Brown, Major, Callaghan, Douglas-Home, Macmillan, Eden,
>>>> Churchill, Chamberlain, Baldwin, Law, George and Asquith).
>>>>
>>>
>>> But it can be difficult to find leaders with cabinet experience if you
>>> party has been out of power for 15 years or more.
>>
>> We are not talking about picking the leader of a party out of power. This
>> discussion is about a ruling party changing its leader, with the new leader
>> immediately becoming PM.
>>
>> If a party is in opposition, it can afford to take risks with untested
>> newcomers, and take its time to select a new leader, using complex,
>> multi-round voting systems if so desired. It doesn't matter if the party is
>> without a permanent leader for a month or two. That's how Thatcher, Blair
>> and Cameron were chosen. They all went on to win at least two general
>> elections. It didn't matter what cabinet experience they had then, as they
>> would have several years as leader of the opposition, running a shadow
>> government and very closely observing the government.
>>
>> It's quite different if the new leader immediately becomes PM and has to
>> run the government, as well as lead the party. They do need senior cabinet
>> experience in that case. And that's why there's long been a convention that
>> such new leaders need to have held at least one of the three great offices
>> of state. Truss not only passes this test, but is the most experienced
>> cabinet minister in parliament, and has served seved in three PMs'
>> cabinets.
>>
>> Also, the parties need a different, much quicker, procedure for choosing a
>> new PM if the current leader dies or resigns for any reason than they do
>> when choosing new opposition leaders. I think it should just be a vote of
>> the MPs, who, after all, know them best.
>
> Which is what used to happen, the rules changed in 1998, under Hague,
>

And it was a perfectly good way of choosing leaders when out of power,
though it did lead to the choice of the unelectable IDS (and Corbyn for
Labour). But they need to learn from this summer's debacle, and change the
rules for choosing a replacement PM. Labour should, too, though that may be
academic for a long time.

On 27/08/2022 15:56, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Aug 2022 14:26:15 -0000 (UTC)
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> He has no government experience at all, so wasn't a serious contender. But
>>>
>>> To be fair neither did Blair or Cameron. Sometimes you need someone fresh
>>> to shake things up a bit.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> They had both been leaders of the opposition for several years before
>> becoming PM. That taught them a lot about government. But when a new leader
>
> I doubt it taught them more about governing that serving in Iraq and
> Afghanistan as a commanding officer as Tugenhat did.

Wellington was pretty much top of the pile for military experience, but
seems to have been rather less popular as PM.

--
Arthur Figgis

On 28/08/2022 09:42, Arthur Figgis wrote:
> On 27/08/2022 15:56, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Aug 2022 14:26:15 -0000 (UTC)
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> He has no government experience at all, so wasn't a serious
>>>>> contender. But
>>>>
>>>> To be fair neither did Blair or Cameron. Sometimes you need someone
>>>> fresh
>>>> to shake things up a bit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> They had both been leaders of the opposition for several years before
>>> becoming PM. That taught them a lot about government. But when a new
>>> leader
>>
>> I doubt it taught them more about governing that serving in Iraq and
>> Afghanistan as a commanding officer as Tugenhat did.
>
> Wellington was pretty much top of the pile for military experience, but
> seems to have been rather less popular as PM.
>

After his first cabinet meeting he complained "I gave them their
instructions and then they wanted to discuss them!"

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid> wrote:
> On 27/08/2022 15:56, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Aug 2022 14:26:15 -0000 (UTC)
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> He has no government experience at all, so wasn't a serious contender. But
>>>>
>>>> To be fair neither did Blair or Cameron. Sometimes you need someone fresh
>>>> to shake things up a bit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> They had both been leaders of the opposition for several years before
>>> becoming PM. That taught them a lot about government. But when a new leader
>>
>> I doubt it taught them more about governing that serving in Iraq and
>> Afghanistan as a commanding officer as Tugenhat did.
>
> Wellington was pretty much top of the pile for military experience, but
> seems to have been rather less popular as PM.
>

The last ex-military officer elected as Tory party leader was IDS. He
proved to be dismally bad at the job.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Aug 2022 15:41:50 -0000 (UTC)
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> Neither Blair not Cameron has senior cabinet experience and I disagree that
>>> being leader of the opposition is any qualification. All it means is they
>>> know how to get to the parliament canteen quickly and get to make some noise
>>> and potshots once a week in the commons. They don't actually do anything
>>> productive outside their constituencies like any other MP.
>>
>> Your views are not widely shared. In fact, it's the norm for new party
>
> Yes I know and its probably why we've had such lousy leaders for decades.
> Its ditto in the business world where a revolving door of CEOs move from
> one company to another generally achieving little other than increasing the
> size of their own back accounts.
>
>> leaders who take over while the party holds office to have held one of the
>> three great offices of state. That's true of both Truss and Sunak, as well
>> as all the new PMs appointed by governing parties for over a century
>> (Johnson, May, Brown, Major, Callaghan, Douglas-Home, Macmillan, Eden,
>> Churchill, Chamberlain, Baldwin, Law, George and Asquith).
>
> Time for a change then.

Presumably you'd also agree that a fresh graduate would make a good
replacement for you, then? After all, your years of experience is of
little relevance compared to the fresh thinking of a newcomer?

On Sat, 27 Aug 2022 16:59:52 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>In message <tedbbh$p5u$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:56:49 on Sat, 27 Aug
>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>
>>Neither Blair not Cameron has senior cabinet experience and I disagree that
>>being leader of the opposition is any qualification. All it means is they
>>know how to get to the parliament canteen quickly and get to make some noise
>>and potshots once a week in the commons. They don't actually do anything
>>productive outside their constituencies like any other MP.
>
>Oh dear. You really have no idea what happens in Westminster, do you?

What happens in westminster now ISN'T WORKING.

On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 09:07:59 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Aug 2022 15:41:50 -0000 (UTC)
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> Neither Blair not Cameron has senior cabinet experience and I disagree that
>
>>>> being leader of the opposition is any qualification. All it means is they
>>>> know how to get to the parliament canteen quickly and get to make some
>noise
>>>> and potshots once a week in the commons. They don't actually do anything
>>>> productive outside their constituencies like any other MP.
>>>
>>> Your views are not widely shared. In fact, it's the norm for new party
>>
>> Yes I know and its probably why we've had such lousy leaders for decades.
>> Its ditto in the business world where a revolving door of CEOs move from
>> one company to another generally achieving little other than increasing the
>> size of their own back accounts.
>>
>>> leaders who take over while the party holds office to have held one of the
>>> three great offices of state. That's true of both Truss and Sunak, as well
>>> as all the new PMs appointed by governing parties for over a century
>>> (Johnson, May, Brown, Major, Callaghan, Douglas-Home, Macmillan, Eden,
>>> Churchill, Chamberlain, Baldwin, Law, George and Asquith).
>>
>> Time for a change then.
>
>Presumably you'd also agree that a fresh graduate would make a good
>replacement for you, then? After all, your years of experience is of
>little relevance compared to the fresh thinking of a newcomer?

Why do you think companies hire graduates at all? Just because they're cheap?

Fresh ideas are needed and frankly politics is nothing more than applying
whats learnt from the university of life, its not an academic disciple that
needs specific training.

On Sat, 27 Aug 2022 20:17:54 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>when choosing new opposition leaders. I think it should just be a vote of
>the MPs, who, after all, know them best.

Because a small group voting for a leader always leads to the best candidate
being selected. They never just vote for their mates or whoever promised them a
cushy position if they get in.

The whole procedure should have been put to the tory members, the MPs should
never have a look in in the first place.

On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 09:42:37 +0100
Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid> wrote:
>On 27/08/2022 15:56, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Aug 2022 14:26:15 -0000 (UTC)
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> He has no government experience at all, so wasn't a serious contender. But
>
>>>>
>>>> To be fair neither did Blair or Cameron. Sometimes you need someone fresh
>>>> to shake things up a bit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> They had both been leaders of the opposition for several years before
>>> becoming PM. That taught them a lot about government. But when a new leader
>>
>> I doubt it taught them more about governing that serving in Iraq and
>> Afghanistan as a commanding officer as Tugenhat did.
>
>Wellington was pretty much top of the pile for military experience, but
>seems to have been rather less popular as PM.

I'm not sure an example from 200 years ago counts for much especially given
you could have instead used Churchill, MacMillan, Callaghan or even Heath as
an example.

On 29/08/2022 08:51, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 09:42:37 +0100
> Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid> wrote:
>> On 27/08/2022 15:56, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Sat, 27 Aug 2022 14:26:15 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>> He has no government experience at all, so wasn't a serious contender. But
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To be fair neither did Blair or Cameron. Sometimes you need someone fresh
>>>>> to shake things up a bit.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They had both been leaders of the opposition for several years before
>>>> becoming PM. That taught them a lot about government. But when a new leader
>>>
>>> I doubt it taught them more about governing that serving in Iraq and
>>> Afghanistan as a commanding officer as Tugenhat did.
>>
>> Wellington was pretty much top of the pile for military experience, but
>> seems to have been rather less popular as PM.
>
> I'm not sure an example from 200 years ago counts for much especially given
> you could have instead used Churchill, MacMillan, Callaghan or even Heath as
> an example.
>

Churchill's military experience is vastly overblown. Callaghan was
confined to a desk job for much of the war on medical grounds.

MacMillan and Heath were the most experienced, MacMillan was in the
Grenadier Guards on the Western Front in WW1 and Heath was in the Royal
Artillery in WW2.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message <tehqe1$1imi$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 07:38:41 on Mon, 29 Aug
2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Sat, 27 Aug 2022 16:59:52 +0100
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>In message <tedbbh$p5u$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:56:49 on Sat, 27 Aug
>>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>
>>>Neither Blair not Cameron has senior cabinet experience and I disagree that
>>>being leader of the opposition is any qualification. All it means is they
>>>know how to get to the parliament canteen quickly and get to make some noise
>>>and potshots once a week in the commons. They don't actually do anything
>>>productive outside their constituencies like any other MP.
>>
>>Oh dear. You really have no idea what happens in Westminster, do you?
>
>What happens in westminster now ISN'T WORKING.

I agree that this particular government isn't working very well, nor was
the previous Labour Government who were fast running out of people who
were still in favour sufficiently to be appointed ministers.

But my comment really relates to the structure of the Opposition, the
Leader, shadow cabinet and ministers, which is a great deal more
hands-on than you were claiming.
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 09:19:15 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>In message <tehqe1$1imi$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 07:38:41 on Mon, 29 Aug
>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>On Sat, 27 Aug 2022 16:59:52 +0100
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>In message <tedbbh$p5u$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:56:49 on Sat, 27 Aug
>>>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>
>>>>Neither Blair not Cameron has senior cabinet experience and I disagree that
>>>>being leader of the opposition is any qualification. All it means is they
>>>>know how to get to the parliament canteen quickly and get to make some noise
>
>>>>and potshots once a week in the commons. They don't actually do anything
>>>>productive outside their constituencies like any other MP.
>>>
>>>Oh dear. You really have no idea what happens in Westminster, do you?
>>
>>What happens in westminster now ISN'T WORKING.
>
>I agree that this particular government isn't working very well, nor was
>the previous Labour Government who were fast running out of people who
>were still in favour sufficiently to be appointed ministers.
>
>But my comment really relates to the structure of the Opposition, the
>Leader, shadow cabinet and ministers, which is a great deal more
>hands-on than you were claiming.

How exactly are they hands on? Do they help the government with policy
decisions or execution? Do they carry out any governmental or dimplomatic
functions?

Or do they just sit around a table with a pretend cabinet and make pretend
decisions and hand waving policies they'll never carry out based on some
whispers they've heard from friendly civil servants?

On 29/08/2022 09:40, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 09:19:15 +0100
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tehqe1$1imi$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 07:38:41 on Mon, 29 Aug
>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>> On Sat, 27 Aug 2022 16:59:52 +0100
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <tedbbh$p5u$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:56:49 on Sat, 27 Aug
>>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>
>>>>> Neither Blair not Cameron has senior cabinet experience and I disagree that
>>>>> being leader of the opposition is any qualification. All it means is they
>>>>> know how to get to the parliament canteen quickly and get to make some noise
>>
>>>>> and potshots once a week in the commons. They don't actually do anything
>>>>> productive outside their constituencies like any other MP.
>>>>
>>>> Oh dear. You really have no idea what happens in Westminster, do you?
>>>
>>> What happens in westminster now ISN'T WORKING.
>>
>> I agree that this particular government isn't working very well, nor was
>> the previous Labour Government who were fast running out of people who
>> were still in favour sufficiently to be appointed ministers.
>>
>> But my comment really relates to the structure of the Opposition, the
>> Leader, shadow cabinet and ministers, which is a great deal more
>> hands-on than you were claiming.
>
> How exactly are they hands on? Do they help the government with policy
> decisions or execution? Do they carry out any governmental or dimplomatic
> functions?
>
> Or do they just sit around a table with a pretend cabinet and make pretend
> decisions and hand waving policies they'll never carry out based on some
> whispers they've heard from friendly civil servants?
>

It's not whispers, they get similar briefings to those that their
opposite numbers in government get.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 09:47:26 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 29/08/2022 09:40, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 09:19:15 +0100
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <tehqe1$1imi$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 07:38:41 on Mon, 29 Aug
>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>> On Sat, 27 Aug 2022 16:59:52 +0100
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <tedbbh$p5u$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:56:49 on Sat, 27 Aug
>>>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Neither Blair not Cameron has senior cabinet experience and I disagree
>that
>>>>>> being leader of the opposition is any qualification. All it means is they
>
>>>>>> know how to get to the parliament canteen quickly and get to make some
>noise
>>>
>>>>>> and potshots once a week in the commons. They don't actually do anything
>>>>>> productive outside their constituencies like any other MP.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh dear. You really have no idea what happens in Westminster, do you?
>>>>
>>>> What happens in westminster now ISN'T WORKING.
>>>
>>> I agree that this particular government isn't working very well, nor was
>>> the previous Labour Government who were fast running out of people who
>>> were still in favour sufficiently to be appointed ministers.
>>>
>>> But my comment really relates to the structure of the Opposition, the
>>> Leader, shadow cabinet and ministers, which is a great deal more
>>> hands-on than you were claiming.
>>
>> How exactly are they hands on? Do they help the government with policy
>> decisions or execution? Do they carry out any governmental or dimplomatic
>> functions?
>>
>> Or do they just sit around a table with a pretend cabinet and make pretend
>> decisions and hand waving policies they'll never carry out based on some
>> whispers they've heard from friendly civil servants?
>>
>
>It's not whispers, they get similar briefings to those that their
>opposite numbers in government get.

So they get copies of the confidential information that ministers receive? I
don't think so.

On 29/08/2022 09:57, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 09:47:26 +0100
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 29/08/2022 09:40, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 09:19:15 +0100
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <tehqe1$1imi$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 07:38:41 on Mon, 29 Aug
>>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>> On Sat, 27 Aug 2022 16:59:52 +0100
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <tedbbh$p5u$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:56:49 on Sat, 27 Aug
>>>>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Neither Blair not Cameron has senior cabinet experience and I disagree
>> that
>>>>>>> being leader of the opposition is any qualification. All it means is they
>>
>>>>>>> know how to get to the parliament canteen quickly and get to make some
>> noise
>>>>
>>>>>>> and potshots once a week in the commons. They don't actually do anything
>>>>>>> productive outside their constituencies like any other MP.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh dear. You really have no idea what happens in Westminster, do you?
>>>>>
>>>>> What happens in westminster now ISN'T WORKING.
>>>>
>>>> I agree that this particular government isn't working very well, nor was
>>>> the previous Labour Government who were fast running out of people who
>>>> were still in favour sufficiently to be appointed ministers.
>>>>
>>>> But my comment really relates to the structure of the Opposition, the
>>>> Leader, shadow cabinet and ministers, which is a great deal more
>>>> hands-on than you were claiming.
>>>
>>> How exactly are they hands on? Do they help the government with policy
>>> decisions or execution? Do they carry out any governmental or dimplomatic
>>> functions?
>>>
>>> Or do they just sit around a table with a pretend cabinet and make pretend
>>> decisions and hand waving policies they'll never carry out based on some
>>> whispers they've heard from friendly civil servants?
>>>
>>
>> It's not whispers, they get similar briefings to those that their
>> opposite numbers in government get.
>
> So they get copies of the confidential information that ministers receive? I
> don't think so.
>

I doubt they are interested in what you think. It was, allegedly, one of
the problems with Corbyn as leader of the labour party, he would get
security briefings which included classified information about our
nuclear deterrent. Given his known antipathy towards it, some people
professed to be worried he might leak the information to the
Sovie^^^^Russians.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 29/08/2022 09:57, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 09:47:26 +0100
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 29/08/2022 09:40, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 09:19:15 +0100
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <tehqe1$1imi$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 07:38:41 on Mon, 29 Aug
>>>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Aug 2022 16:59:52 +0100
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <tedbbh$p5u$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:56:49 on Sat, 27 Aug
>>>>>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Neither Blair not Cameron has senior cabinet experience and I disagree
>>> that
>>>>>>>> being leader of the opposition is any qualification. All it means is they
>>>
>>>>>>>> know how to get to the parliament canteen quickly and get to make some
>>> noise
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and potshots once a week in the commons. They don't actually do anything
>>>>>>>> productive outside their constituencies like any other MP.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh dear. You really have no idea what happens in Westminster, do you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What happens in westminster now ISN'T WORKING.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree that this particular government isn't working very well, nor was
>>>>> the previous Labour Government who were fast running out of people who
>>>>> were still in favour sufficiently to be appointed ministers.
>>>>>
>>>>> But my comment really relates to the structure of the Opposition, the
>>>>> Leader, shadow cabinet and ministers, which is a great deal more
>>>>> hands-on than you were claiming.
>>>>
>>>> How exactly are they hands on? Do they help the government with policy
>>>> decisions or execution? Do they carry out any governmental or dimplomatic
>>>> functions?
>>>>
>>>> Or do they just sit around a table with a pretend cabinet and make pretend
>>>> decisions and hand waving policies they'll never carry out based on some
>>>> whispers they've heard from friendly civil servants?
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's not whispers, they get similar briefings to those that their
>>> opposite numbers in government get.
>>
>> So they get copies of the confidential information that ministers receive? I
>> don't think so.
>>
>
> I doubt they are interested in what you think. It was, allegedly, one of
> the problems with Corbyn as leader of the labour party, he would get
> security briefings which included classified information about our
> nuclear deterrent. Given his known antipathy towards it, some people
> professed to be worried he might leak the information to the
> Sovie^^^^Russians.
>

One reason opposition front benchers become PCs is so that they can get
security briefings and other secret information. This is particularly so in
the period before a general election, when the shadow cabinet is treated as
the potential government in waiting. Most senior opposition politicians are
happy to respect these rules and traditions, but Corbyn would certainly
have been treated with suspicion.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 09:42:37 +0100
> Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid> wrote:
>> On 27/08/2022 15:56, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Sat, 27 Aug 2022 14:26:15 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>> He has no government experience at all, so wasn't a serious contender. But
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To be fair neither did Blair or Cameron. Sometimes you need someone fresh
>>>>> to shake things up a bit.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They had both been leaders of the opposition for several years before
>>>> becoming PM. That taught them a lot about government. But when a new leader
>>>
>>> I doubt it taught them more about governing that serving in Iraq and
>>> Afghanistan as a commanding officer as Tugenhat did.
>>
>> Wellington was pretty much top of the pile for military experience, but
>> seems to have been rather less popular as PM.
>
> I'm not sure an example from 200 years ago counts for much especially given
> you could have instead used Churchill, MacMillan, Callaghan or even Heath as
> an example.

Obviously, most middle aged men had served in the forces, and often on the
front lines, for the first three quarters of the 20th century. You and I
would, too, if from that era. But it's now very rare, and a short period as
an officer or reservist doesn't turn someone into a natural political
leader. For example, do you think Prince Harry would make a good PM? Was
Lt Col Heath a great PM? Was Anthony Eden MC?