Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Blaming the civil service for not being able to polish ministers’ turds while knowing that they aren’t allowed to defend themselves is pretty weaselly blameshifting.
Do you want to discuss boring politics? (23 Viewers)
- Thread starter mrtrench
- Start date
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
Don’t be stupid. The unelected civil service isn’t there to debate the elected government. This is a strange response because the permanent security to the foreign office wrote a letter in response to this was: ‘resign if you don’t like it’.
Governments are elected to deliver their manifestos and they vote on laws with all the other elected MPs. It is not the role of unelected officials to frustrate the government of the day.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
The civil service is absolutely there to debate government. They made an entire show about it in the 80s
Do you know what the civil service actually is?
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
That’s not what he’s said at all. Even in other interviews he’s stated that conclusions for various meetings will have written before the meeting even takes place by the cabinet office. This isn’t normal behaviour in any organisation.
Have you interacted with the source material? Cummings has specifically called out the ministers and civil service involved in the procurement of PPE during COVID.
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
Simply not true. Their stated purpose is to provide ‘impartial’ advice and support the government implementing their priorities. Even if it were true, who gave them this power? They weren’t elected and they can’t be removed from their posts.
The 80s is also a poor example to use given how transformative the Thatcher years were.
How can you give impartial advice to someone without debating them?
mmttww
Well-Known Member
"Every week in London and across Britain, people openly marched demanding a second Holocaust."
asking people to take anything said in that article as credible or genuine is nuts. Bloke has gone off the reservation and resorted to writing clickbait for a paycheque. Come on!
asking people to take anything said in that article as credible or genuine is nuts. Bloke has gone off the reservation and resorted to writing clickbait for a paycheque. Come on!
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
Is this a serious question?
I’ll humour it anyway. With a quick google search, here’s a neat table showing the differences (attached).
On the specific issue I raised, 300 civil servants were trying to lobby the minister to take a specific course of action and to promote a specific viewpoint. It wasn’t impartial advice and ultimately, breaching the civil service code. So the permanent secretary was right to tell these civil servants that if they didn’t like it, they could always resign and give up their gold plated pensions.
Their job is to implement the will of the government who was elected by us.
Attachments
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
When do you think the civil service changed in your opinion?
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
Have you ever thought about the implications are of the following chants regularly heard at these protests?
“From the river to the sea”
“From London to Gaza, globalise the intifada!”
Or regular calls for jihad and ‘allahu Akbar’ on the streets.
Even the merchandise you see people wearing at the marches has the Palestinian flag over the shape of Israel. These people aren’t calling for a two-state solution. For example, Hizb ut-Tahrir is a group regularly in attendance and they are a proscribed terrorist group in many Middle East countries.
There are many well meaning people at these marches but anyone denying that there is some dark and sinister undertones at these protests is either naive or hasn’t been paying attention.
Before we continue, I don’t want to get drawn into a wider debate about the Palestine/Israel conflict.
This is a bizarre hit and run, but to suggest that the tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of British people who marched for a ceasefire in Gaza were actually calling for a "second Holocaust" is clearly insane.
But you don't want to get drawn into a wider debate...
mmttww
Well-Known Member
Don't refer to articles as 'interesting' when they post inflammatory sh*te on the subject, then. FFS!
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
There’s a lot more to the article than the one quote you picked out in a separate issue.
Particularly when you’re wrong that there because there are people from groups that are proscribed terrorist groups (in other countries) at these protests who have, frankly, genocidal intent and don’t even hide it in what they say.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Israel has, frankly, ethnic cleansing intent and doesn’t even hide it in what they say.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
To go back to the actual inquiry where are people getting the full detail of the report from, I can't find it anywhere online. Or are people just asserting things without knowing what the inquiry will cover?
What I am keen to known is how this inquiry is going to differ from the multiple other enquires, most significantly the Jay report, and what is going to happen in the several years until the report is completed? There's many recommendations from the Jay report that have yet to be implemented despite promises by both the previous and current governments, is that all now put on hold for years?
Seems to me there is a danger that either everything gets put on hold until this new inquiry is completed or, if the recommendations from the Jay report are implemented, the results of this new report are in danger of being dismissed, at least impart, as 'we've already taken action'.
Think before I start celebrating this victory I need a bit more detail as this has the distinct smell of spending years, and tens of millions, kicking the can down the road.
What I am keen to known is how this inquiry is going to differ from the multiple other enquires, most significantly the Jay report, and what is going to happen in the several years until the report is completed? There's many recommendations from the Jay report that have yet to be implemented despite promises by both the previous and current governments, is that all now put on hold for years?
Seems to me there is a danger that either everything gets put on hold until this new inquiry is completed or, if the recommendations from the Jay report are implemented, the results of this new report are in danger of being dismissed, at least impart, as 'we've already taken action'.
Think before I start celebrating this victory I need a bit more detail as this has the distinct smell of spending years, and tens of millions, kicking the can down the road.
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
Suppose that’s true, does it make it right for people on UK streets to call for the same thing? Two wrongs don’t make a right.
It was one quote by Dominic Cummings and frankly, doesn’t invalidate what he said because is at least partly true.
If there were large scale pro-Israel protests specifically calling for global holy war and calling for the eradication of the Palestinians… I’d want them them arrested.
With respect, I don’t fancy seeing global conflicts play out on British streets.
mmttww
Well-Known Member
You find it interesting, I don't. It's an opinion piece from the off with no attempt to be balanced or to cite evidence to back up some big claims it makes.
and it's written by someone who's shown no integrity or decency in the way he handled his business so debating its content seems like a giant waste of time.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
It depends on where you think free speech should be restricted if at all. I don’t agree with either side to be clear.
As for Cummings, I agree with parts of the speech promoting science and technology, I disagree with other parts (eg ‘fake schools, fake exams etc etc’). What he’s written on the US is comical given that the Trump regime is now cracking down on free expression in ways no president previously dared.
I dunno, the piece gives strong ‘we’ve had enough of experts’ vibes to me.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
That seems unlikely while we're supplying arms to one side, training their troops and sending our own armed forces to the region to support them.
Cummings is an unelected civil servant who alienated nearly everyone he worked in during his time in government, and now - shock! - believes that everyone else was the problem and sacking the unelected civil servants who hated him would fix everything. He failed to display any kind of effective leadership during the first historic test of the Johnson premiership and crashed out in the most humiliating and public way imaginable, torpedoing public confidence in the government during a public health crisis. Since then the chip on his shoulder has become the size of the Angel of the North, and he's reduced to firing out tired variations of the same Substack posts he was posting years ago, pockmarked with the conspiracy-adjacent garbage, pseudo-intellectual Reddit-speak and thinly veiled xenophobia that plays well on the remote corners of the internet where he's still taken remotely seriously.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Go and have a look at the civil service code
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
There is nothing particularly democratic about supreme executive power given to a minister not directly elected to his / her position
Must have been all the NPCs' fault
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
And this fundamentally shows his problem. He sees other actors as NPCs and not agents with their own goals and motivations. So no wonder he can’t navigate them. There’s a certain type of overly online person who loves chatting politics online but could not do the very basics of the job of taking people with you IRL. I should know I am one, but at least I have the self awareness not to get involved.
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
Far from it. He’s argued that the civil service prevents real expertise because people will ‘zig zag’ across departments for short periods of time (2 years).
This point I can identify with because I have first hand experience. I deal with HMRC as part of my job and the people rotate roughly every 2 years, are not experts in the field so when I ask detailed questions I get the old ‘I’ll get back to you on that’ and subsequently sent a gov.uk link I’ve already read and understood.
To go off a slight tangent, there was a scenario last year where the business I work for and a supplier of ours separately received completely contradictory advice from the same HMRC team. It causes problems for businesses trying to follow v complex regulations.
It’s ironic because these same civil service people would probably have frustrated a Corbyn government. After all, do you think a Labour cabinet minister proposed cutting the winter dual allowance or someone random in the treasury?
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
100% - he was a like a jilted bride for the duration of the Tory government. He’s on a v different crusade now.
Would many people disagree with his assessments on Boris though?
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
I have and it doesn’t say anywhere or anything about debating government policy with the government and/or frustrating the implementation of their programme.
It’s apparent that the concept of ‘impartial advice’ has been muddled.
You can have principled opposition to this, absolutely. The people calling for Jihad and ‘global intifada’ almost definitely do not share your values and have their own sinister intentions… It isn’t a two state solution either.
Don’t believe me? Most of the same groups are protesting the military actions v Iran too.
Boris ran rings around him. Carrie ran rings around him ffs!