Sunday, October 05, 2008

What the Mandelson appointnment says about Labour

I expressed my instant thoughts about MAndy's appointment here and they were quite cynical. I still maintain those and quite agree with another comment I heard - If Mandelson is the answer, WTF was the question?

But on reflection there is something else which seems to have been missed. Mandy isn't an MP and therefore has to be ennobled so he can take his place in the cabinet. Now I'm not necessarily against one of the Lordships taking on ministerial roles, but Secretary of State positions? These are the highest political positions we have and they wield great power and influence so you would think that any party in Government would want one of its elected members in these positions, wouldn't you?

Maybe there was a case some years ago for a hereditary peer to be given a position in Governement, but as Tony Benn showed there is a route to divesting themselves of that peerage and standing as an MP. Also, Labour has squealed long and hard against their Lordship's having undue influence so what does it say about their hypocrisy on this subject?

If I was a Labour Party member I would be livid about Mandy's appointment just on this point alone. (I've stopped reading LabourHome so I've no idea how they feel about it). If I was a Labour MP I would also be up in arms. Can't they fill the cabinet out of what, 350 MP's? Aren't there 23 MP's capable of filling all the cabinet positions*?

And what does it say to us, the electorate? "We don't care who you vote for, were going to appoint our own people anyway" is the message I get. So if I were a Labour voter I would also be miffed.

Still, if it hastens the downfall of Labour, so much the better.

*Having looked at the list of Cabinet positions we should only need about 10 anyway, but thats a different debate. (BERR is one of first that I would axe .)

No comments: