|
Post by greenchristian on May 29, 2021 10:56:20 GMT
Nobody - literally nobody - saw Nazi Germany as left wing at the time. No, having "Socialist" in their descriptor fooled absolutely nobody. This is basically an invention of cranky 1970s "libertarians", and well overdue for the dustbin. Oh yes it was. It had all of the hallmarks of the left and it was in every was a socialistic and leftist state. It is just anathema to the left to have to admit it and their tame indoctinated left academe have been lying about it ever since the end of the war. Hitler's Germany was the archetypal perfect socialist state with command economy, state control of everything, attention to social housing, universal pensions, full employment and diection of industry and commerce. It reeked of socialism. It called itself socialist. It WAS socialist. Stop pretending. I bet you thought the DDR was a democracy.
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on May 29, 2021 11:57:29 GMT
Only carlton43 would really try to argue that the Third Reich was left wing. Perhaps it was by his standards.
|
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 39,269
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on May 29, 2021 12:37:49 GMT
I simply don't see right or left making any sense in the Russian context. It was a system predicated on state control and central direction with a great emphasis on leadership. No great difference from tsarism or Putin's approach, on a number of levels. Nationalism was very much part of Stalin's essential outlook. I still suspect we are saying the same thing but stuck with using different words to express it. The elephant in the room we both have avoided mentioning is V.I.Lenin. If you are saying there is no essential difference between the Tsars, Stalin and Putin, are you adding Lenin to that list? Important because much of the state apparatus now in the hands of Putin can be traced back to Lenin. Are you denying Lenin as a man of the left? No, because I don't think what eventually happened was inevitable and so did not have to go in that direction. Stalin reverted to the safety of love of Mother Russia.
|
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,274
|
Post by Georg Ebner on May 29, 2021 23:54:06 GMT
Nationalism as the dominant feature of politics is surely a characteristic of right politics, in this case enforced through a state apparatus created for the left. That's what I meant by right and left being indivisible, and saying concepts of left and right being inapplicable is saying more or less the same thing in a different way- the concepts may become inapplicable but the things they made happen are still very much there. Disdain for nationalism and associating it with the right is solely a meme of the effete and losing left in parts of the alt.woke infected, post industrial capitalist west. It was pivotal in Soviet Russia and the Third Reich which were both deeply socialistic left nations, and it is pivotal in many leftish nations all over the world. This absurd contention that any political meme that does not fit in with the weak and effete views of the contemporary left in USA and Britain is evidence of being right-wing is a commonly held absurdity and a cause of their decline and failure. Exactly - nationalism was in Mid&East-Europe during the XIXth typical for the liberal&democratic bourgeoisie (the left of that pre-Socialistic/Communistic era), while the right was loyal to supranational empires. Then the numberless national&socialistic dictators in the XXth. But of course: Every LeftWinger in power - dictator or not - has and will return from his u-topia to reality (or at least cynism) and become a RightWinger.
|
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,274
|
Post by Georg Ebner on May 30, 2021 0:05:46 GMT
Disdain for nationalism and associating it with the right is solely a meme of the effete and losing left in parts of the alt.woke infected, post industrial capitalist west. It was pivotal in Soviet Russia and the Third Reich which were both deeply socialistic left nations, and it is pivotal in many leftish nations all over the world. This absurd contention that any political meme that does not fit in with the weak and effete views of the contemporary left in USA and Britain is evidence of being right-wing is a commonly held absurdity and a cause of their decline and failure. Nobody - literally nobody - saw Nazi Germany as left wing at the time. No, having "Socialist" in their descriptor fooled absolutely nobody. This is basically an invention of cranky 1970s "libertarians", and well overdue for the dustbin. It was perceived at that time as a "national revolution", embedded in a very broad movement sometimes called "Conservative Revolution" (and of course no revolution is really conservative). Hitler had begun 1918/9 as an elected Soldier-representative for the SPD (cf. Thomas Weber at univ.Aberdeen) aso. "Socialism" is an euphemism for public/state capitalism and the Nazi-regime was clearly socialistic - but if You assume "Socialism" to be all kinds of vague wokeism...
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on May 30, 2021 5:47:39 GMT
The Left and the so-termed 'Progressives' just cannot live with the thought that their whole ethos and all their desires for improvement and for the social engineering of humanity into an utopia of goodness and rightness only ended up in the two most vicious and hated regimes in the history of the world, in the Third Reich and the Soviet Union. Both obvious classical forms of complete socialism with all the horror that it inevitably brings if it is allowed to really flourish and show itself in its true colours.
So for decades they have tried to pretend that neither were 'really' socialist rather than the awful admission that the two regimes show us the enormity and the horror of true naked socialism which is by nature a totally inhuman way of looking at everything. It is the antithesis of the organic and the human by being formalist, rigid and completely abstract in the imposition of norms upon the people. It is always reductionist and a leveller downwards to conformity of the devising of the leadership.
|
|
|
Post by nw12398 on May 30, 2021 8:54:37 GMT
The Left and the so-termed 'Progressives' just cannot live with the thought that their whole ethos and all their desires for improvement and for the social engineering of humanity into an utopia of goodness and rightness only ended up in the two most vicious and hated regimes in the history of the world, in the Third Reich and the Soviet Union. Both obvious classical forms of complete socialism with all the horror that it inevitably brings if it is allowed to really flourish and show itself in its true colours. So for decades they have tried to pretend that neither were 'really' socialist rather than the awful admission that the two regimes show us the enormity and the horror of true naked socialism which is by nature a totally inhuman way of looking at everything. It is the antithesis of the organic and the human by being formalist, rigid and completely abstract in the imposition of norms upon the people. It is always reductionist and a leveller downwards to conformity of the devising of the leadership. You seem to have concluded that because you don't like 'the Left', everything that is bad is part of it. If the Nazis were left-wing, then why was it a right-wing party that entered coalition with them when they first took power? Why was it that most of the political prisoners under Nazi rule were leftists? Is it just a coincidence that Hitler's allies in Italy were heavily focused on opposing socialism in their drive to take power, and was it Mussolini's left-wing ideals which led to the effective successors of his party to form part of Italy's right-wing in modern times? Did Nazi Germany support Franco in the Spanish Civil War because he thought he was more left-wing than the republicans? Did Tito and the partisans fight back because they wanted conservative sensibilities instead of fascism?
The dangers of extremism exist transcend left-right political divides, and extremist ideals prevail when people think that they're a problem of 'the other side' only.
|
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,274
|
Post by Georg Ebner on May 30, 2021 11:00:28 GMT
The Left and the so-termed 'Progressives' just cannot live with the thought that their whole ethos and all their desires for improvement and for the social engineering of humanity into an utopia of goodness and rightness only ended up in the two most vicious and hated regimes in the history of the world, in the Third Reich and the Soviet Union. Both obvious classical forms of complete socialism with all the horror that it inevitably brings if it is allowed to really flourish and show itself in its true colours. So for decades they have tried to pretend that neither were 'really' socialist rather than the awful admission that the two regimes show us the enormity and the horror of true naked socialism which is by nature a totally inhuman way of looking at everything. It is the antithesis of the organic and the human by being formalist, rigid and completely abstract in the imposition of norms upon the people. It is always reductionist and a leveller downwards to conformity of the devising of the leadership. You seem to have concluded that because you don't like 'the Left', everything that is bad is part of it. If the Nazis were left-wing, then why was it a right-wing party that entered coalition with them when they first took power? Why was it that most of the political prisoners under Nazi rule were leftists? Is it just a coincidence that Hitler's allies in Italy were heavily focused on opposing socialism in their drive to take power, and was it Mussolini's left-wing ideals which led to the effective successors of his party to form part of Italy's right-wing in modern times? Did Nazi Germany support Franco in the Spanish Civil War because he thought he was more left-wing than the republicans? Did Tito and the partisans fight back because they wanted conservative sensibilities instead of fascism?
The dangers of extremism exist transcend left-right political divides, and extremist ideals prevail when people think that they're a problem of 'the other side' only.
The Prussian conservatives had turned since v.BISMARCK partly ("FreeCons.") and since 1914 generally from an old-fashioned conservativism centred around supranational throne&altar into nationalists in order to appeal to the youth (cf. their new PartyName: "Deutsch-National PeoplesParty"). [By the way: Historians usually underestimate, to what extent NS was a youth-movement excited by sports&technics.] SPENGLER and other ForeRunners of NationalSocialism praised Prussia as WorldHistory's first socialistic state (what was realiter rather Sparta). Mussolini came from the PSI, was even ChiefEditor of their NewsPaper! Expelled solely for his nationalistic disobedience, not for "betraying socialism". Hitler and especially Goebbels were sceptical of Franco ("We supported the wrong side!"). Claimed to have cleaned socialism from "Jewish internationalism", LASALLE instead of MARX. The party's name was (NS)DAP - (Nat. Soc.) German Workers' Party -, its best clientele were non-physical RailWay-workers (conductors aso.) and others from the low MiddleClass. And leaving aside history: How would You define the economical policies of nearly all xenophobic parties these days, if they are not socialistic?
|
|
Toylyyev
Mebyon Kernow
CJ Fox avatar
Posts: 1,067
|
Post by Toylyyev on May 30, 2021 11:11:02 GMT
Only carlton43 would really try to argue that the Third Reich was left wing. Perhaps it was by his standards. Its rather the pitch that has a whiff of Marxist dialects. The counter argument looks easy enough. There was indeed attention devoted to the "left wing", but not of the supportive kind. Following the money also leaves an impression. de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Großindustrie_und_Aufstieg_der_NSDAPThere seem to have been social policy ideas that could be argued to as somewhat left wing in the early party, here's a descripton of what did happen to that, quoted from de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_HitlerEven cursory homework trounces the "disdain for nationalism" proposition.
|
|
|
Post by stb12 on Jun 1, 2021 15:57:35 GMT
I was making a joke about Sunak in another thread but I know from reading wiki that the PM and the Chancellor used to be the same person quite often but became less frequent over time and not happened now since 1912 or something.
Anyone got some historic reasons why this was a done thing at one point and why it stopped?
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jun 1, 2021 16:30:02 GMT
There's nothing to stop a Prime Minister giving themselves personal responsibility for one of the major departmental Ministries. They do so if it's fundamental to their role as PM. For instance all Prime Ministers in recent years have been Minister for the Civil Service. During the Second World War Churchill was also Minister of Defence.
In addition some Prime Ministers have not had enough confidence in their senior party colleagues and decided to take the job themselves. In the first Labour government, Ramsay MacDonald was Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary.
The Prime Minister's role grew out of that of First Lord of the Treasury, so the PM is historically from that department. Originally the First Lord had overall responsibility for managing the business of the Treasury, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer concentrated on issues of taxation. But with the PM role turning into a general function, that distinction stopped being made.
The last occasion on which the PM was also Chancellor seems to have been 1880-82 when Gladstone did both. That also happened in 1873-74. Sir Robert Peel did both jobs in his stillborn first government of 1834-35, and so did Canning in his brief government. The last long-term PM to be Chancellor was Spencer Perceval.
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Jun 1, 2021 19:26:07 GMT
The last PM-Chancellor was actually Stanley Baldwin for the first three months of his first government from May to August 1923. He was trying to get Reginald McKenna to come back to politics to take the job and when that failed he appointed Neville Chamberlain. During those three months Sir William Joynson-Hicks the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (there was no Chief Secretary in those days) sat in Cabinet; an arrangement not repeated once a separate Chancellor was appointed.
|
|
|
Post by michael2019 on Jun 1, 2021 19:56:14 GMT
There's nothing to stop a Prime Minister giving themselves personal responsibility for one of the major departmental Ministries. They do so if it's fundamental to their role as PM. For instance all Prime Ministers in recent years have been Minister for the Civil Service. During the Second World War Churchill was also Minister of Defence. In addition some Prime Ministers have not had enough confidence in their senior party colleagues and decided to take the job themselves. In the first Labour government, Ramsay MacDonald was Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary. The Prime Minister's role grew out of that of First Lord of the Treasury, so the PM is historically from that department. Originally the First Lord had overall responsibility for managing the business of the Treasury, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer concentrated on issues of taxation. But with the PM role turning into a general function, that distinction stopped being made. The last occasion on which the PM was also Chancellor seems to have been 1880-82 when Gladstone did both. That also happened in 1873-74. Sir Robert Peel did both jobs in his stillborn first government of 1834-35, and so did Canning in his brief government. The last long-term PM to be Chancellor was Spencer Perceval. Prof Vernon Bogdanor notes: "The title 'Prime Minister' was for long a mere courtesy title. It seems first to have been used satirically by Jonathan Swift during the reign of Queen Anne. Walpole, often regarded as the first prime minister, vehemently denied that he was held any special role over and above that of the king's other advisers. The term 'prime minister' was not used in an official document until 1878, when the preamble to the Treaty of Berlin stated that the Earl of Beaconsfield, the ennobled Disraeli, had attended as 'First Lord of the Treasury and Prime Minister of her Britannic Majesty'. The title was not used in any other official communication until, in December 1905, it finally received royal recognition when a warrant of Edward VII addressed to the Earl Marshal, declared that the Prime Minister had precedence after the Archbishop of York." And he also notes: 'I think it' a damned bore', Lord Melbourne cried, upon being informed, in 1834, that he was to be called to the Palace to form a government; he was, he said, 'in many minds what to do'. But his secretary, 'a vulgar, familiar, impudent fellow', to quote Greville, from whom the story has come down to us, persuaded him to accept. 'Why damn it, such a position never was occupied by any Greek or Roman, and if it only lasts two months, it is well worth while to have been Prime Minister of England'. (sic) 'By God, that' true', Melbourne replied --- I'll go!" www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/british-prime-ministers-from-attlee-to-blair His Gresham College lecturers on political subjects (political parties, PMs, important politicians, key elections etc. etc.) are well worth viewing on youtube and entertaining and well delivered! Particularly his series on those that were important figures who in his words politicians "who have made the weather" (but weren't PM) - including Sir Keith Joseph, Tony Benn, Enoch Powell, Roy Jenkins e.g.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jun 1, 2021 22:45:06 GMT
There's nothing to stop a Prime Minister giving themselves personal responsibility for one of the major departmental Ministries. They do so if it's fundamental to their role as PM. For instance all Prime Ministers in recent years have been Minister for the Civil Service. During the Second World War Churchill was also Minister of Defence. In addition some Prime Ministers have not had enough confidence in their senior party colleagues and decided to take the job themselves. In the first Labour government, Ramsay MacDonald was Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary. The Prime Minister's role grew out of that of First Lord of the Treasury, so the PM is historically from that department. Originally the First Lord had overall responsibility for managing the business of the Treasury, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer concentrated on issues of taxation. But with the PM role turning into a general function, that distinction stopped being made. The last occasion on which the PM was also Chancellor seems to have been 1880-82 when Gladstone did both. That also happened in 1873-74. Sir Robert Peel did both jobs in his stillborn first government of 1834-35, and so did Canning in his brief government. The last long-term PM to be Chancellor was Spencer Perceval. I have long supposed that governments appoint ministers for three completely separate reasons. 1. To find a job for a person they owe a favour to or need the support of or fear might stab them. 2. To Grandstand a position, policy initiative or fashionable public desire. 3. For historic or traditional reasons. I would contend that 10 ministers of consummate competence could do all the real political work necessary in government and each have considerable free time as well. And that 10 ministries may well be too many in any case. That civil servants, policy drafters, lawyers and bill drafters do most of the real work and should probably do even more of it. Ministers are there to take decisions and to give broad instructions, to oversee, to control and to manage. It should be done a lot better and it should also take up far less time. Most managers and I imagine most ministers, do far to much detailed work and process work; far too little deep water thinking and planning; and are to involved in detail because they do not know how to delegate and don't like doing it.
|
|
|
Post by michael2019 on Jun 1, 2021 22:57:11 GMT
There's nothing to stop a Prime Minister giving themselves personal responsibility for one of the major departmental Ministries. They do so if it's fundamental to their role as PM. For instance all Prime Ministers in recent years have been Minister for the Civil Service. During the Second World War Churchill was also Minister of Defence. In addition some Prime Ministers have not had enough confidence in their senior party colleagues and decided to take the job themselves. In the first Labour government, Ramsay MacDonald was Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary. The Prime Minister's role grew out of that of First Lord of the Treasury, so the PM is historically from that department. Originally the First Lord had overall responsibility for managing the business of the Treasury, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer concentrated on issues of taxation. But with the PM role turning into a general function, that distinction stopped being made. The last occasion on which the PM was also Chancellor seems to have been 1880-82 when Gladstone did both. That also happened in 1873-74. Sir Robert Peel did both jobs in his stillborn first government of 1834-35, and so did Canning in his brief government. The last long-term PM to be Chancellor was Spencer Perceval. I have long supposed that governments appoint ministers for three completely separate reasons. 1. To find a job for a person they owe a favour to or need the support of or fear might stab them. 2. To Grandstand a position, policy initiative or fashionable public desire. 3. For historic or traditional reasons. I would contend that 10 ministers of consummate competence could do all the real political work necessary in government and each have considerable free time as well. And that 10 ministries may well be too many in any case. That civil servants, policy drafters, lawyers and bill drafters do most of the real work and should probably do even more of it. Ministers are there to take decisions and to give broad instructions, to oversee, to control and to manage. It should be done a lot better and it should also take up far less time. Most managers and I imagine most ministers, do far to much detailed work and process work; far too little deep water thinking and planning; and are to involved in detail because they do not know how to delegate and don't like doing it. How long does the average minister last in their job? 2 years?
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Jun 2, 2021 0:19:01 GMT
There's nothing to stop a Prime Minister giving themselves personal responsibility for one of the major departmental Ministries. They do so if it's fundamental to their role as PM. For instance all Prime Ministers in recent years have been Minister for the Civil Service. During the Second World War Churchill was also Minister of Defence. In addition some Prime Ministers have not had enough confidence in their senior party colleagues and decided to take the job themselves. In the first Labour government, Ramsay MacDonald was Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary. The Prime Minister's role grew out of that of First Lord of the Treasury, so the PM is historically from that department. Originally the First Lord had overall responsibility for managing the business of the Treasury, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer concentrated on issues of taxation. But with the PM role turning into a general function, that distinction stopped being made. The last occasion on which the PM was also Chancellor seems to have been 1880-82 when Gladstone did both. That also happened in 1873-74. Sir Robert Peel did both jobs in his stillborn first government of 1834-35, and so did Canning in his brief government. The last long-term PM to be Chancellor was Spencer Perceval. I have long supposed that governments appoint ministers for three completely separate reasons. 1. To find a job for a person they owe a favour to or need the support of or fear might stab them.
2. To Grandstand a position, policy initiative or fashionable public desire. 3. For historic or traditional reasons. I would contend that 10 ministers of consummate competence could do all the real political work necessary in government and each have considerable free time as well. And that 10 ministries may well be too many in any case. That civil servants, policy drafters, lawyers and bill drafters do most of the real work and should probably do even more of it. Ministers are there to take decisions and to give broad instructions, to oversee, to control and to manage. It should be done a lot better and it should also take up far less time. Most managers and I imagine most ministers, do far to much detailed work and process work; far too little deep water thinking and planning; and are to involved in detail because they do not know how to delegate and don't like doing it. Patronage has always been an important tool of government. It would be of great advantage if there was a way of exercising it (which is necessary so the government can get things done) without handing over power (which I've always thought was why in principle the honours system is a Good Thing.) PS while agreeing with your broad thrust, the other reason managers don't delegate is because there is often a shortage of people able, willing, and of the correct rank, to be delegated to. It helps if the organisation is set up on the basis that staff should exercise initiative and from the word go everyone expects and hopes to be given delegated power, and those in authority are expected to delegate, but if those attitudes aren't part of the overall ethos and the staff full of people imbued with the ethos it's bloody hard for any manager to work that way. I don't think regular re-shuffles help ministers either; I imagine it's hard to do that thinking and planning when shifting from one department to another every couple of years, with little control over which department you get. Far easier to throw yourself into the process work and detail, if only to get the background you need to do that thinking.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 2, 2021 16:26:55 GMT
There's nothing to stop a Prime Minister giving themselves personal responsibility for one of the major departmental Ministries. They do so if it's fundamental to their role as PM. For instance all Prime Ministers in recent years have been Minister for the Civil Service. During the Second World War Churchill was also Minister of Defence. In addition some Prime Ministers have not had enough confidence in their senior party colleagues and decided to take the job themselves. In the first Labour government, Ramsay MacDonald was Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary. The Prime Minister's role grew out of that of First Lord of the Treasury, so the PM is historically from that department. Originally the First Lord had overall responsibility for managing the business of the Treasury, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer concentrated on issues of taxation. But with the PM role turning into a general function, that distinction stopped being made. The last occasion on which the PM was also Chancellor seems to have been 1880-82 when Gladstone did both. That also happened in 1873-74. Sir Robert Peel did both jobs in his stillborn first government of 1834-35, and so did Canning in his brief government. The last long-term PM to be Chancellor was Spencer Perceval. At one time it was very common. I think I'm right in saying that until, and including, Peel's brief first administration in 1834-35, every PM in the Commons was also Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was only when the PM was in the Lords that the roles were divided.
When Peel returned to power in 1841, even though he was in the Commons, he gave the job to Henry Goulburn (who had previously done it in the Wellington government 1828-30). This was a real departure from settled political practice up to that time; but the next PM, Russell, also in the Commons, also gave the job to someone else and this has been the practice ever since with the rare exceptions noted by David Boothroyd above.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 2, 2021 16:38:17 GMT
I have a question for the forum (prompted by discussion on another thread to the effect that parties' support for FPTP or PR is based on self-interest).
I have heard it said that as the Labour Party struggled to establish itself in British politics it advocated PR, but on becoming one of the 'big two' it embraced FPTP instead; and that conversely the Liberals abandoned FPTP in favour of PR as they became a relatively minor party. In particular, I have been told that the two parties' change of heart on the subject fell in the exact same year, 1927.
If true, this is pleasingly neat (besides offering strong support for the self-interest argument). But is it true, or is it just a political urban myth I've picked up from somewhere?
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jun 2, 2021 16:58:01 GMT
I have a question for the forum (prompted by discussion on another thread to the effect that parties' support for FPTP or PR is based on self-interest). I have heard it said that as the Labour Party struggled to establish itself in British politics it advocated PR, but on becoming one of the 'big two' it embraced FPTP instead; and that conversely the Liberals abandoned FPTP in favour of PR as they became a relatively minor party. In particular, I have been told that the two parties' change of heart on the subject fell in the exact same year, 1927. If true, this is pleasingly neat (besides offering strong support for the self-interest argument). But is it true, or is it just a political urban myth I've picked up from somewhere? In 1912 the Labour Leader newspaper held a mock PR election among its readers with the ballots to be returned to Lord Avebury at the House of Lords. Instructions noted that you could get more than one ballot in an envelope!
|
|
|
Post by Peter Wilkinson on Jun 2, 2021 16:58:30 GMT
There's nothing to stop a Prime Minister giving themselves personal responsibility for one of the major departmental Ministries. They do so if it's fundamental to their role as PM. For instance all Prime Ministers in recent years have been Minister for the Civil Service. During the Second World War Churchill was also Minister of Defence. In addition some Prime Ministers have not had enough confidence in their senior party colleagues and decided to take the job themselves. In the first Labour government, Ramsay MacDonald was Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary. The Prime Minister's role grew out of that of First Lord of the Treasury, so the PM is historically from that department. Originally the First Lord had overall responsibility for managing the business of the Treasury, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer concentrated on issues of taxation. But with the PM role turning into a general function, that distinction stopped being made. The last occasion on which the PM was also Chancellor seems to have been 1880-82 when Gladstone did both. That also happened in 1873-74. Sir Robert Peel did both jobs in his stillborn first government of 1834-35, and so did Canning in his brief government. The last long-term PM to be Chancellor was Spencer Perceval. At one time it was very common. I think I'm right in saying that until, and including, Peel's brief first administration in 1834-35, every PM in the Commons was also Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was only when the PM was in the Lords that the roles were divided. When Peel returned to power in 1841, even though he was in the Commons, he gave the job to Henry Goulburn (who had previously done it in the Wellington government 1828-30). This was a real departure from settled political practice up to that time; but the next PM, Russell, also in the Commons, also gave the job to someone else and this has been the practice ever since with the rare exceptions noted by David Boothroyd above.
Interestingly, the Wikipedia article on Lord Palmerston states that he was offered the Chancellor of the Exchequer post both by Perceval in 1809 and Canning in 1827 before each then took it themselves. Instead, Perceval made Palmerston Secretary at War, and Palmerston stayed in that post until 1828, a few months after Canning's death. Of course, Wikipedia is not always infallible.
|
|