advertisement


The Premiership of Mary Elizabeth Truss.Sept 2022 - Oct 2022

She's a bit robotic but without the charisma of a robot from what I've seen in the last few days.
 
Leadership donations revealed.
"Truss registered 21 donations to her campaign, in cash and transport costs. The largest single sum came from Fitriani Hay – the wife of James Hay, who has a luxury goods empire and is a former BP executive. She gifted Truss £100,000. "
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ations-including-100k-from-wife-of-ex-bp-exec
Mrs Hay cast her bread upon the water and it came back buttered. Do we know if any Russians payed to play scrabble with Liz?
 
She's a bit robotic but without the charisma of a robot from what I've seen in the last few days.

I think I'd rather have Marvin the Paranoid Android as PM. Charismatic as hell compared to the LQ. He has a brain the size of a planet too, although I doubt the Tories would dare let him use it. . .

John

edit: coupla days ago I was musing - if only the Queen had a deadly right hook; a real shame I got the wrong Liz.
 
Last edited:
On the plus side it could be entertaining & I may get a tax cut;)

The contest was less dumb & dumber but more grim & grimmer.

The fuel crisis is pretty unsolvable in the near term so we need forward planning with renewables & probably nuclear.

A pox on everyone who voted Tory & Brexit, a minor slap with a leather glove to those still moaning about Starmer. Get the Tories out, the sooner the better.
It wasn’t *just* the Tories and Brexit that got as to where we are. We are where we are because of things outside our control, but there are also things that are within our control that should also be considered. We are part of that narrative
 
Jonathan Portes on Twitter suggests that the sacking of Tom Scholar is an unprecedented departure from the idea that the Civil Service is regarded as politically impartial:

'Sacking a PermSec on day 1 - so not because of personal incompatibility or job performance but for ideological reasons - is unprecedented and contravenes basic principles of UK governance.'

Do we want a country where the expertise, experience and continuity of an impartial Civil Service is exchanged for politically-appointed placemen?
It's an interesting question. You could argue that the role of an impartial civil service is to enact the policies of the democratically elected government, and that it's not unreasonable that the government should make a few staffing decisions to see that that happens.

I like Portes but it's not clear what "basic principles of UK governance" are being "contravened" here, unless its the unspoken principle that the civil service represents an autonomous and unelected branch of government in its own right, charged with ensuring continuity in the face of democratic change. And if that's the case I'd like someone to say it, and preferably put it before a constituent assembly, so that we can decide democratically if we're cool with that. I'm not, personally. It's a bit Sir Humphrey, isn't it?

I think we also need to distinguish between experts and civil servants. Not to denigrate either, but I think a lot of the problems in the early days of Covid followed from one being presented as the other, and nobody quite knowing which was which or what it was reasonable to expect from either.
 
It's an interesting question. You could argue that the role of an impartial civil service is to enact the policies of the democratically elected government, and that it's not unreasonable that the government should make a few staffing decisions to see that that happens.

I like Portes but it's not clear what "basic principles of UK governance" are being "contravened" here, unless its the unspoken principle that the civil service represents an autonomous and unelected branch of government in its own right, charged with ensuring continuity in the face of democratic change. And if that's the case I'd like someone to say it, and preferably put it before a constituent assembly, so that we can decide democratically if we're cool with that. I'm not, personally. It's a bit Sir Humphrey, isn't it?

I think we also need to distinguish between experts and civil servants. Not to denigrate either, but I think a lot of the problems in the early days of Covid followed from one being presented as the other, and nobody quite knowing which was which or what it was reasonable to expect from either.
I think he is saying that had Scholar been sacked for failing to enact the policies of the government, that would have been fine. But he was sacked for no such reason. He was sacked for his beliefs, as perceived by the government. This is not how government works in the UK - the civil service advises, but ultimately does the government's bidding (at least in theory).

So, the main point is his sacking represents a departure from political norms. I don't think Portes is saying that the Civil Service enacts, or should enact, continuity for the sake of continuity - that would clearly contradict the rationale for having democratically elected government.

Now, there is a debate to be had about whether the UK system is better than the US system (which AIUI basically recruits a new Civil Service with each change of government), but that's not the point here. The point is that the Truss government has acted as if we had the US system when we don't.
 
I think he is saying that had Scholar been sacked for failing to enact the policies of the government, that would have been fine. But he was sacked for no such reason. He was sacked for his beliefs, as perceived by the government. This is not how government works in the UK - the civil service advises, but ultimately does the government's bidding (at least in theory).

So, the main point is his sacking represents a departure from political norms. I don't think Portes is saying that the Civil Service enacts, or should enact, continuity for the sake of continuity - that would clearly contradict the rationale for having democratically elected government.

Now, there is a debate to be had about whether the UK system is better than the US system (which AIUI basically recruits a new Civil Service with each change of government), but that's not the point here. The point is that the Truss government has acted as if we had the US system when we don't.
One good thing about these appalling right wing arseholes is that they've been stress-testing the norms like mad. Results are in, and in turns out: we cannot rely on the norms. I'm not sure the norms are great in and off themselves but the larger problem seems to be that they're largely unwritten. I'd like to see a few things in writing, and one of those things would be a very clear specification of the relationship between government and the civil service.

Personally I think it's reasonable that an elected government has a hand in staffing. There are obvious downsides but the downsides of the current system are also obvious. Exhibit One is the Home Office: if the left got in I'd want that department razed to the ground and the earth salted. Everybody fired and replaced with random members of the public. Then possibly the Treasury.

Liz is doing the right thing here, but in the wrong direction. If we don't like it, let's get some written rules in place.
 
It's an interesting question. You could argue that the role of an impartial civil service is to enact the policies of the democratically elected government, and that it's not unreasonable that the government should make a few staffing decisions to see that that happens.

It think it's more a question about what impartial means in the context of the Treasury. I mean he is obviously going to do what the ministers want, but what about, say, predictions about the economy? Scholar is a mainstream economist so he is going produce mainstream predictions that will be politically embarrassing for the government if they crack on with Truss's plan.

Does this mean they can recruit a *politically right wing* economist to the civil service?

Is it Scholar's fault that the governments ideas concerning tax cuts are outside the mainstream?

Can he sacked because the government is so right wing economically that they reject his mainstream views as left wing?

Although typically with economics there so much scope for disagreement that you can fit any view into a suitably loose fan chart :)
 
Personally I think it's reasonable that an elected government has a hand in staffing. There are obvious downsides but the downsides of the current system are also obvious.
I'm no expert here, but the government can appoint Special Advisors, who are basically temporary, politically-appointed civil servants. And the Civil Service has a load of published protocol about conduct etc.

That said, to my mind there is still a question: to what degree is the Civil Service, as it is currently constituted, an establishment stitch-up? I don't think I am as convinced as you that there is a need for radical change, but I'm open to persuasion.
 
I'm no expert here, but the government can appoint Special Advisors, which are basically temporary, politically-appointed civil servants.

Not really though because the Special Advisors are inherently political and so distinct from the civil service. It's a way for ministers to bring politically framed policy advise into government without "tainting" the civil service.

At least that's the theory. Lots of people are dubious about their increased use over the last few decades.
 
Not really though because the Special Advisors are inherently political and so distinct from the civil service. It's a way for ministers to bring politically framed policy advise into government without "tainting" the civil service.

At least that's the theory. Lots of people are dubious about their increased use over the last few decades.
I'm not saying there isn't a difference between Civil Servants and SpAds. I'm saying that if ministers want partial advice, the current system allows it via SpAds - there is no need to go sacking actual Civil Servants. [Adopts haughty voice] That's not how we do things here.
 
Charles literally has to drag her by the hand to bring her in. Out of her depth. You do wonder why these people think they have what it takes to lead a country.

 
It think it's more a question about what impartial means in the context of the Treasury. I mean he is obviously going to do what the ministers want, but what about, say, predictions about the economy? Scholar is a mainstream economist so he is going produce mainstream predictions that will be politically embarrassing for the government if they crack on with Truss's plan.

Does this mean they can recruit a *politically right wing* economist to the civil service?

Is it Scholar's fault that the governments ideas concerning tax cuts are outside the mainstream?

Can he sacked because the government is so right wing economically that they reject his mainstream views as left wing?

Although typically with economics there so much scope for disagreement that you can fit any view into a suitably loose fan chart :)
Yes, context is important, and as you say that includes the scope for disagreement that economics provides - and also the commitment it seems to invite to particular positions. I’m taking it for granted here that “Treasury brain” is actually a thing: that is, that the Treasury, as an institution, is typified by a certain way of thinking that tends to weigh on the decisions of ministers and affect their implementation. It’s not hard to imagine, is it, given what we know about economic debate in the wild: it’s certainly more plausible than the idea that all the key personnel are radically open to different ways of looking at things and flexible enough to start doing things that everyone previously agreed were not just wrong but bonkers, the week before.

I think it would be a concession to realism to admit that political shifts sometimes entail shifts in understanding and practice that not all individuals can be expected to accommodate: that sometimes you need the right person for the job, someone who gets what you’re trying to do and understands how to do it. Other things being equal, a right wing economist is likely to be better at implementing right wing economic policies than a more orthodox one. We could say, well, that might not be for the best but that would be to give the civil service a kind of restraining role they don’t officially have. Or we could say, that’s not fair on the left wing guy who expected to keep his job. But if the goal is optimal implementation of policy then that’s something that could be sorted out by rethinking and formalising appointment procedures and career pathways. Not saying any of that would be easy, just, again, that reliance on norms isn’t really working.
 
I'm not saying there isn't a difference between Civil Servants and SpAds. I'm saying that if ministers want partial advice, the current system allows it via SpAds - there is no need to go sacking actual Civil Servants. [Adopts haughty voice] That's not how we do things here.

Sorry, yes that's what I meant to say.
 
It's an interesting question. You could argue that the role of an impartial civil service is to enact the policies of the democratically elected government, and that it's not unreasonable that the government should make a few staffing decisions to see that that happens.

I like Portes but it's not clear what "basic principles of UK governance" are being "contravened" here, unless its the unspoken principle that the civil service represents an autonomous and unelected branch of government in its own right, charged with ensuring continuity in the face of democratic change. And if that's the case I'd like someone to say it, and preferably put it before a constituent assembly, so that we can decide democratically if we're cool with that. I'm not, personally. It's a bit Sir Humphrey, isn't it?

I think we also need to distinguish between experts and civil servants. Not to denigrate either, but I think a lot of the problems in the early days of Covid followed from one being presented as the other, and nobody quite knowing which was which or what it was reasonable to expect from either.
As ever, the politics come from economics. Some time ago Truss started taking advice from Patrick Minford. A neoliberal to whom the only problem with neoliberalism is that we haven’t had enough of it. For these people finding someone to blame for their own half century of abject failure is paramount

“One of the things that is so sad about the Treasury is that it has lost the capacity to model the economy and any interest in doing so.” https://www.theguardian.com/busines...st-behind-new-pm-fiscal-plans-patrick-minford
 
I'm no expert here, but the government can appoint Special Advisors, who are basically temporary, politically-appointed civil servants. And the Civil Service has a load of published protocol about conduct etc.

That said, to my mind there is still a question: to what degree is the Civil Service, as it is currently constituted, an establishment stitch-up? I don't think I am as convinced as you that there is a need for radical change, but I'm open to persuasion.
I don’t think there’s a stitch-up as such there’s just bound to be some institutional inertia and I think there should be ways to counter that, and one way would be for elected representatives to choose who they want to implement their policies. I’m no expert either so I don’t really know what that would involve, I’m sure there are legitimate objections, but I’d like to hear them voiced explicitly, so that they can be distinguished from less legitimate objections. I think in times like these we want bodies like the civil service to save us from the nutters and while that’s understandable it’s also not good for democracy.
 
As ever, the politics come from economics. Some time ago Truss started taking advice from Patrick Minford. A neoliberal to whom the only problem with neoliberalism is that we haven’t had enough of it. For these people finding someone to blame for their own half century of abject failure is paramount

“One of the things that is so sad about the Treasury is that it has lost the capacity to model the economy and any interest in doing so.” https://www.theguardian.com/busines...st-behind-new-pm-fiscal-plans-patrick-minford
It’s mental that he’s been resurrected but he’s not wrong about some things - borrowing, chiefly - and by all accounts he’s not wrong that Treasury orthodoxy would be an obstacle to correcting longstanding mistakes.
 


advertisement


Back
Top