On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 23:27:24 +0100, Charles Ellson wrote
Stimpy wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 22:47:43 +0100, Charles Ellson wrote
Stimpy wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 17:28:36 +0100, Charles Ellson wrote
Stimpy wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 15:19:16 +0100, Tom Anderson wrote
There was, some years ago, a proposal for there to be a 'shadowing'
period
before an election during which each minister was shadowed by his -
errr -
shadow, in order that the incoming government had some idea in
advance
of
the
state of things. A suggested by-product of this was that it would
encourage
outgoing ministers to behave more responsibly in the dying months of
their
government.

This would, of course, require fixed election dates and fixed-term
governments.
It would also require you to know in advance who was going to win the
election.
Not at all... Either the incumbent party or the opposition will be
forming
the government, both of whom would be represented during the shadow
period.

Wrong. The next government is selected from the participants in the next
election, not from the current residents of Parliament. The former might
contain some or none of the latter.
As a practical example, it would be a useful exercise for Alistair
Darling
to
be shadowed by the then current Conservative shadow chancellor.

If the then current Conservative shadow chancellor lost his seat in the
election, the information he had gleaned would still be of use to his
successor.

You're assuming the (blue) Tories are the only alternative (there is
still time for both types of Tory to make massive blunders which stop
either winning the next election).

I'm not assuming anything - the Conservatives are (still) the official
opposition party.

But not with absolute certainty the only winners of the next election if
NuLab [TM] lose.

Not at all, but they are still the official opposition and hence were the
party to whom the privilege was to be extended.