So in other words, there's no guarantee that the shadow minister for agriculture will actually become the *real* Secretary of State for Agriculture (or whatever) if the parties flip? (I mean, if there is an election and the opposition becomes government).

No guarantee, but it's likely that she would. The point of the system is so that a new government can hit the ground running with somebody in place who has at least some understanding of their portfolio and who has been responsible for developing policy in that area.

Of course, Corbyn is not going to be elected, so in this case it's a moot point.

Understood. In that sense, an advantage over the American system, where there is a damn good reason there's several months from the election to the inauguration. Thousands of resumes have to be vetted, sent to the Senate, and the old & new pres's have to put together a "transition team" somehow (though I am not sure how exactly it works).

hacker

there is a damn good reason there's several months from the election to the inauguration

The main reason, at the time of the writing of the US constitution, was that the technologies of communications and travel meant the electoral process took much longer. Electors had to travel to Washington after the votes were all counted in each State.
A cabinet is not mandated by either the US Constitution or established law. I don't think it is in the UK either? I think the Privy Council is the seat of power?
While there are currently sixteen cabinet level positions, George Washington’s original cabinet consisted of only four members.

Sassenach wrote:Of course, Corbyn is not going to be elected, so in this case it's a moot point.

Never say never. back in May it seemed obvious that he was not going to do any better than last pace in the leadership election - if he even got the PLP nominations.

Whether or not Corbyn stays on to lead the party to victory in the next General Election, I think it is unlikely that she will remain in post.

Ideally I'd like to see the return of the regular shadow cabinet elections, in which MPs elected who would be in the cabinet and then the leader placed them in their portfolios. This was the system in place up to 2010 when it was abolished for 2011. I think out of a fear that MPs would vote for anti-EdMili candidates. The chances are much higher that anti-Corbyn candidates would be selected, but ironically I think being open to that would make a valuable point.

It would take something catastrophic to happen to the economy for Corbyn to stand any chance at the next election. That could well happen of course, but even then there's no guarantee that people would turn to socialism as a remedy. The Tories often do well in hard times because people trust them more with the economy.

Don't forget we'll have the boundary changes by the time of the next election, which removes Labour's inherent advantage and makes it tougher to win . 2020 would have been a big ask for any Labour leader, let alone one with such baggage. The only chance I can see is if Corbyn can somehow be persuaded to resign mid-term and a more popular figure with greater appeal in English marginals ends up replacing him (Jarvis perhaps). I can't see that happening, but I guess he is 66 and may get ill or something.

Corbyn won't bring back the shadow cabinet elections because if he does that then he'd lose McDonnell and Diane Abbott, his only heavyweight allies in the current shadow cabinet.

rickyp wrote:A cabinet is not mandated by either the US Constitution or established law. I don't think it is in the UK either? I think the Privy Council is the seat of power?

The seat of power is the Crown. All other institutions are given power or not) in the name of the Crown.

The Privy Council is established in law, but is only a group of advisors. So no, ricky, you are wrong, it is not a seat of power in law.

Parliament has, since the events and laws of the 17th Century, been officially delegated powers of the Crown, because it not only provides "advice", but "consent". That is officially delegated by the Crown, and is part of the "Crown-in-Parliament" concept that the UK and Canada both share.

"Cabinet" is not a legally established term, but the legal point is that the Crown appoints Ministers, based on the "advice and consent" of Parliament, those ministers under the Prime Minister, can form a Cabinet (and there are also many non-Cabinet ministers), and the Prime Minister themself only sustains that position on two conditions:

1) the assent of the Crown - which has been automatic
2) the confidence of Parliament.

Sassenach wrote:It would take something catastrophic to happen to the economy for Corbyn to stand any chance at the next election. That could well happen of course, but even then there's no guarantee that people would turn to socialism as a remedy. The Tories often do well in hard times because people trust them more with the economy.

Yes, but at the same time it is very rare for a government to gain support over a term regardless of economics etc. Yes, the Tories made a marginal gain in vote share in 2015, but the outgoing government was a coalition and the other partner got annihilated. The Conservatives will not have such a fig leaf to hid behind in 2020 (or earlier).

Also, don't assume that it will be socialism that Corbyn's party offers. A bit more social democracy would still be a radical change.

Don't forget we'll have the boundary changes by the time of the next election, which removes Labour's inherent advantage and makes it tougher to win .

Not all of the advantage - that based on differential turnout will remain.

2020 would have been a big ask for any Labour leader, let alone one with such baggage.

On the other hand he has absolutely no baggage in relation to "New Labour", "Blairism" or Iraq. And even from the Brown or Miliband period.

So we are talking about whether people will still be scared of the bogeymen of 25-30 years ago.

The only chance I can see is if Corbyn can somehow be persuaded to resign mid-term and a more popular figure with greater appeal in English marginals ends up replacing him (Jarvis perhaps). I can't see that happening, but I guess he is 66 and may get ill or something.

Corbyn won't bring back the shadow cabinet elections because if he does that then he'd lose McDonnell and Diane Abbott, his only heavyweight allies in the current shadow cabinet.

Certainly not now, but one option is to open it up to party members. Or alternatively to let those two both have time to establish and if they are doing well it would be a foolish PLP that evicted them (and conversely, if they are doing badly it is a mechanism to remove them without Corbyn having to sack them personally).

Opening it up to the members is a stupid idea, although I wouldn't put it past him. How many of the members know the first thing about any more than about a dozen of the people who could be candidates ? It would be a farce, and in all probability Len McCluskey would use it as an excuse to kick out all the moderates. It was the members who landed you in this mess in the first place...

Sassenach wrote:Opening it up to the members is a stupid idea, although I wouldn't put it past him. How many of the members know the first thing about any more than about a dozen of the people who could be candidates ? It would be a farce, and in all probability Len McCluskey would use it as an excuse to kick out all the moderates. It was the members who landed you in this mess in the first place...

Either we are a democratic party or we are not. Should we really show such contempt for the views of members?

The media is good at telling us we as a party are in a mess. I think it is because they are "frit". Afraid of the idea of a real bottom-up democratic process.

One thing that voters were telling us is that they could not see a difference between us and the Tories. The other was that politicians are out of touch with ordinary people. The PLP, and indeed all MPs and politicians across the spectrum, need to listen to that.

By the way, Len McCluskey is not as powerful as you may like to think. Interestingly, I am currently on a Unite training course and the trainer knows Len very well. He likes the guy, but one thing we know is that he can't force a single union member (let alone a party member) to vote in any way. Whatever the media may tell you, it does not actually work that way.

The Privy Council is established in law, but is only a group of advisors. So no, ricky, you are wrong, it is not a seat of power in law.

Isn't there a Canadian Privy Council of some sort, Ricky? I may be totally mistaken but I thought I remember hearing about it somewhere or seeing mention of it online (could be faulty memory?) Also, Danivon: I hear tell the UK's Privy Council is very large now, and only meets in emergencies or for certain ceremonial duties. I could be wrong on those 2 points, however.

The main reason, at the time of the writing of the US constitution, was that the technologies of communications and travel meant the electoral process took much longer. Electors had to travel to Washington after the votes were all counted in each State.
A cabinet is not mandated by either the US Constitution or established law. I don't think it is in the UK either? I think the Privy Council is the seat of power?
While there are currently sixteen cabinet level positions, George Washington’s original cabinet consisted of only four members.

Well, right on all points except (sorry for long explanation below) the electors do not travel to/assemble in the federal capital to cast their electoral votes. That's always been done in their state capitals, and a "certificate of electoral vote" signed by the electors is mailed to DC addressed to the President of the Senate. Yes, very astute about that: I forgot about the communications & travel time factor; it's easy to neglect that fact in a world of internet and telephone...

Right again: indeed GW's cabinet was four members. Originally just State (foreign affairs), War and Treasury; then, in 1790, the Judiciary Act included the creation of the Attorney-General, making four. Washington's critics/political opponents maintain his use of a "cabinet" was monarchical tendencies, but that is likely pure rubbish: he was simply continuing the martial tradition he maintained as CINC of the Continental Army, meeting with his top lieutenants as a group to solicit advice and coordinate plans. The Constitution actually implies there isn't going to be one, because the president is going to ask "the opinion, in writing..." of each of the executive department heads on matters relating to their duties; it never said they were to meet as an advisory group to the president.

To this day they are an unofficial body and with the plethora of other special advisers to the President, most of whom require Senate confirmation but aren't part of the official-unofficial "cabinet", this cabinet is really a publicity thing these days! The only time the "cabinet" is an official, legally-binding body is the situation described in the 25th Amendment, a temporary "disability" of the president to discharge his duties. The cabinet is also the official "line of succession". But those two specific cases are it for the "cabinet" per se in the United States.

Presidents before Lincoln would, actually seek more so the "consent" of their cabinets, and would rarely override their opinions. Not until Lincoln was president did the POTUS actually disregard unfavorable advice of the cabinet of executive department heads, however extra-constitutional.

Whew......

Either we are a democratic party or we are not. Should we really show such contempt for the views of members?

The members never meet more than a handful of MPs. They know nothing about them other than what they can catch in very small snippets on TV, and in most cases opposition MPs never make it onto TV in the first place. How are they supposed to be able to identify who the rising stars might be ? How are they to know whether somebody is competent or capable of working with his Parliamentary colleagues ? The members have just saddled you with Jeremy Corbyn, and they gave you Ed Miliband before that (I'll give a slight pass to them on that choice, since slightly more of the paid-up members actually supported his much more competent brother).

The media is good at telling us we as a party are in a mess. I think it is because they are "frit". Afraid of the idea of a real bottom-up democratic process.

This is wishful thinking. Most of the more strident criticism I've read in the press has come from people like John McTernan, Dan Hodges, Philip Collins, all Labour men who have a vested interest in wanting to see Labour elected again. The only thing they're afraid of is that Corbyn is going to crash and burn and leave Labour out of office for a generation.Hell, even Betty Boothroyd got in on the act, the piece she wrote in the Sunday Times was absolutely scathing about Corbyn and his friends.

One thing that voters were telling us is that they could not see a difference between us and the Tories. The other was that politicians are out of touch with ordinary people. The PLP, and indeed all MPs and politicians across the spectrum, need to listen to that.

Another thing they told you was that they didn't trust Labour on the economy or immigration. It's interesting to note how you're willing to listen to the voters when they tell you something you want to hear but not when they tell you unpalatable truths.

By the way, Len McCluskey is not as powerful as you may like to think. Interestingly, I am currently on a Unite training course and the trainer knows Len very well. He likes the guy, but one thing we know is that he can't force a single union member (let alone a party member) to vote in any way. Whatever the media may tell you, it does not actually work that way.

I know how it works. What I think would happen if there were direct elections to the shadow cabinet is that McCluskey and his fellow travellers in other major unions would throw all of their weight behind a particular slate of candidates and starve the others of any publicity or organisational help. It wouldn't guarantee victory for those candidates of course, but it would be a big advantage for them and in a race where many of them are going to be completely unknown to the voters it could make all the difference.

Re the Privy Council
According to the Canadian Constitution (can I assume the UK is similar/) the body which advises the Queen or her representative to act is the Privy Council.
Its just that the PM and his cabinet have largely assumed that role except for specific issues. And membership in the privy Council is now largely an honor.
Seat of Power was indeed the wrong expression.

The government of Canada, which is formally referred to as Her Majesty's Government,[3][4] is defined by the Canadian constitution as the sovereign acting on the advice of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada;[5][6] what is technically known as the Queen-in-Council,[7] or sometimes the Governor-in-Council,[8] referring to the Governor General of Canada as the Queen's stand-in. The group of people is described as "a Council to aid and advise in the Government of Canada, to be styled the Queen's Privy Council for Canada,"[9] though, by convention, the task of giving the sovereign and governor general advice (in the construct of constitutional monarchy and responsible government, this is typically binding[n 1]) on how to exercise the Royal Prerogative via Orders in Council rests with by the Cabinet—a committee of the Privy Council made up of other ministers of the Crown who are drawn from, and responsible to, the House of Commons in the parliament.[6] This body is distinct but also entwined within the QPC, as the President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada customarily serves as one of its members and cabinet ministers receive assistance in the performance of their duties from the Privy Council Office, headed by the Clerk of the Privy Council.

While the Cabinet specifically deals with the regular, day-to-day functions of the Crown-in-Council, occasions of wider national importance—such as the proclamation of a new Canadian sovereign following a demise of the Crown or conferring on royal marriages—will be attended to by more senior officials in the QPC, such as the prime minister, the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, and other senior statesmen; while all privy councillors are invited to such meetings in theory, in practice the composition of the gathering is determined by the prime minister of the day. The quorum for Privy Council meetings is four.[1

You can assume all you like Ricky, but I already explained the basic part.

The Privy Council only advises.

Parliament provided advice and consent.

Cabinet is essentially a committee established by Parliament to carry out the executive functions. No-one can be in the Cabinet unless they are a member of the Parliament - an elected MP or a member of the HoL.

Cabinet members (and opposition Shadow cabinet members, and some others) are also members of the Privy Council (and this means they are addressed as "Right Honourable" while a normal MP is just "Honourable".

While there is nothing in written law to explicitly say the Cabinet is the executive, it is because it is an extension of the Crown in Parliament.

Ricky, that sounds rather complicated. To an American, and as you know EVERY part of our government has to serve a concrete function (like congressmen ), it sounds almost superfluous. Then again, the American government is not evolved out of monarchy (not directly at any rate). The governments of the sixteen "commonwealth realms" mentioned in the CIA World Factbook likely each have their own constitution, but they're all evolved out of and based on the "mother of Parliaments". (or as large as it is, more like "the mother of all parliaments".)

So it is saying that, in Canada, the Cabinet is actually part of the Queen's Privy Council [Canadian Privy Council, whatever]?

If I remember my history correctly (I read through some of Lady Antonia Fraser's The Wives of Henry VIII) the Privy Council was the king's body of advisers, back when the King himself wielded actual executive power over the realm. But then again it was much smaller, I would imagine, and I do not have a clue who would have been on it...they didn't really have ministers of this and that back then, did they?

Isn't there still a "Lord President" and a "Lord Privy Seal" who are members of Cabinet? (what are they, like, ministers-without-portfolio, sort of ministers?) I remember in The Iron Lady, Thatcher, pissed off, says "Since the Lord President has decided to come to Cabinet UNPREPARED! I shall have to close the meeting....good morning, gentlemen!" (Wow, what a piece of work she must've been, not to veer off topic). Jim Hacker mentioned a Lord Privy Seal in an episode of Yes, Minister about a cabinet reshuffle. He was worried about being demoted and said to Mrs Hacker "There's no shortage of useless, non-jobs: lord president, lord privy seal....minister with special responsibility for droughts and floods....." So I was wondering what exactly those folks DO. (the LP, LPS, etc)

Also I do not think ricky was assuming, if I read that right he was reading from his own country's constitution, no?

So, what does the privy council advise the monarch about? Is there any typical subject matter that comes up? And if the PM and members of the Cabinet are members of the Council (in the UK not Canada), forgive me, but doesn't that make still having a privy council sort of...a little superfluous? Again, though, there's probably superfluous things in the American Government (congress, at times) as well. Then again, I've observed the British are very tradition-bound, perhaps that has more to do with it than anything?