Coronavirus: Cummings Attended Meetings Of Key Scientific group

[WATFORD zero]

Surely these people are representing the government when they attend the meetings. If not then can anyone attend?

They do NOT represent the Government in any shape or form. They are POLITICAL ADVISORS appointed by the POLITICAL PARTY and give information to their POLITICAL EMPLOYERS as to the best way to meet their POLITICAL AIMS.

They have absolutely nothing to do with the running of Government or Government departments, Parliament or Parliamentary committees, Advisory groups, Technical groups and Technical committees (or Scientific committees etc etc) who report from their areas of expertise to the GOVERNMENT.

Are you starting to see the issue ?

 

[Triggaaar]

Bearing in mind Cummings reputation and involvement, hand on heart, do you think he is there to purely learn or do you think he is there to see how it can be manipulated?

Honestly, I have no idea. I guess his first priority will be what's best for him. Whether that's making the govt. look good or something else I don't know. And I don't know what he'd consider makes the government look good: having a low final death toll, or getting the economy going again? Maybe a combination of both. Or maybe it makes the government look good to simply follow the scientific advice.

Regardless of what Cummings could be doing, I'd say it's no surprise that the government want someone there, which makes this a bit of a none story at the moment. That of course could change when some scientists, upset by the rising death toll, leak how Cummings has manipulated the meetings for personal gain.

 

[Jim D]

They do NOT represent the Government in any shape or form. They are POLITICAL ADVISORS appointed by the POLITICAL PARTY and give information to their POLITICAL EMPLOYERS as to the best way to meet their POLITICAL AIMS.

They have absolutely nothing to do with the running of Government or Government departments, Parliament or Parliamentary committees, Advisory groups, Technical groups and Technical committees (or Scientific committees etc etc) who report from their areas of expertise to the GOVERNMENT.

Are you starting to see the issue ?

So, they are political advisers who advise a political party who happen to be the government. Therefore, they attend these meetings and advise the political party (who are also the government). I don't see an issue unless they misrepresent the views being discussed at these meetings.

 

[WATFORD zero]

So, they are political advisers who advise a political party who happen to be the government. Therefore, they attend these meetings and advise the political party (who are also the government). I don't see an issue unless they misrepresent the views being discussed at these meetings.

I'm afraid that if you believe that The Conservative and Unionist Party and The Government of the United Kingdom are one and the same, I really wouldn't know where to start explaining.

Sorry

 

[Jim D]

I'm afraid that if you believe that The Conservative and Unionist Party and The Government of the United Kingdom are one and the same, I really wouldn't know where to start explaining.

Sorry

You could be right. I always thought that the leader of the political party that had an overall majority in the house of commons became prime minister, and therefore head of the government. If this isn't the case then I probably missed a nuance about what the government really is, and who leads it.

 

[WATFORD zero]

You could be right. I always thought that the leader of the political party that had an overall majority in the house of commons became prime minister, and therefore head of the government. If this isn't the case then I probably missed a nuance about what the government really is, and who leads it.

Sorry, that was a bit short, put it down to the lockdown.

It's not a nuance about Governments and leaders, it's far more fundamental to the whole relationship between political parties and government. I'll give a simple example relating to an MP (who could be from any political party - hence coalitions).

When an MP is first elected to Parliament they will get a Political Office, with employees of the Political Party to manage their political responsibilities, diary, meetings etc.

If later, they are then appointed a Minister of the Government (and these are often sitting MPs from the majority party, but not always - see Coalitions, and not always MPs - see Baroness Evans of Bowes Park), they will be appointed a Private Office with Civil Servants that are employed by the Government. This goes for all junior ministers and not just the Cabinet.

These two offices have completely different roles and responsibilities. The Private office are responsible for all of that Minister's work as a Government official. They are responsible for who that minister meets, organising and minuting those meetings, and can use Government buildings for meetings. One of the critical things they have to do is to ensure that all these things are only done for the Minister's work as a Government official. They ensure that the Minister doesn't meet anyone who could influence them from a political perspective, or use any Government facilities for non Governmental purposes. These people in their Private Offices are all Government representatives who have undertaken significant security clearance and training to ensure they stay completely objective in their work for the Government. This is because no Government employees (civil servants) or facilities should be used for Political purposes.

If the Minister wants to do political work (which they will have to regularly), the employees of their political party organise who they meet, where the meetings take place, minuting etc. This ensures that Government facilities won't be used for political purposes. Political Advisors are appointed by the Political Party and are part of the Ministers political team. The two offices do not share anything except for an overview of the MPs/Ministers diary. (And, as you can imagine that has to be strictly limited).

This is just an example of the fundamental split between Government and Political Party then operates across the Whole of Government. (As background and to complicate it more, you may want to also spend some time differences between Parliament and the Government, why Parliament is the supreme authority in the UK, not the Government and the implications of that ).

Hopefully this will go some way to explaining why many people think Political Advisors shouldn't be attending SAGE meetings.

Wikipedia is your friend

 

[WATFORD zero]

Sorry, forgot SPADS appointed by Party, paid by Government. IIRC it changed under Blair and I thought it was bloody dodgy at the time!

 

[Jim D]

Sorry, forgot SPADS appointed by Party, paid by Government. IIRC it changed under Blair and I thought it was bloody dodgy at the time!

So, was Alistair Campbell a SPAD? Whatever the case I don't see why they shouldn't attend - as long as they don't misrepresent the discussion and therefore mislead the PM about the way the thinking is going. As far as being paid by the government is concerned I would have thought that would make them part of it. They aren't Civil Servants so they aren't supposed to be impartial, and they report back to the minister that appoints them - in this case the PM.
If the implication is that they are leading Sage by the nose into a particular way of thinking (and against the opinions of the group) to get them to make an announcement that is contrary to scientific belief but meets the way the PM wants to go then that's a different matter (although I would expect that a number of scientists would break ranks and complain - as it could ruin their reputations). I suspect that we'll need to wait and see how this goes as there is certain to be leakage if decisions are taken that run contrary to general scientific thought.

 

[Bakero]

The involvement of the prime minister’s chief political adviser, Dominic Cummings, in meetings of the scientific group advising the UK government’s response to the coronavirus has left other attendees shocked, concerned and worried for the impartiality of advice, the Guardian can reveal.

One attendee of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) said they felt Cummings’ interventions had sometimes inappropriately influenced what is supposed to be an impartial scientific process.

A second Sage attendee said they were shocked when Cummings first began participating in Sage discussions, in February, because they believed the group should be providing “unadulterated scientific data” without any political input.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...tings-worried-by-presence-of-dominic-cummings

 

[WATFORD zero]

So, was Alistair Campbell a SPAD?

Yes he was a SPAD.

Whatever the case I don't see why they shouldn't attend - as long as they don't misrepresent the discussion and therefore mislead the PM about the way the thinking is going. As far as being paid by the government is concerned I would have thought that would make them part of it. They aren't Civil Servants so they aren't supposed to be impartial, and they report back to the minister that appoints them - in this case the PM.
If the implication is that they are leading Sage by the nose into a particular way of thinking (and against the opinions of the group) to get them to make an announcement that is contrary to scientific belief but meets the way the PM wants to go then that's a different matter (although I would expect that a number of scientists would break ranks and complain - as it could ruin their reputations). I suspect that we'll need to wait and see how this goes as there is certain to be leakage if decisions are taken that run contrary to general scientific thought.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough with my explanation of why information is not freely passed between Government bodies and Political bodies, but surely you must be able to see the potential problems with corruption, undue influence, cronyism, security clearance, etc etc with no segregation of the two bodies.

This possibility of 'misinterpretation' is already covered in the Government's own rules on SPADS which doesn't allow them to transmit the advice from the meeting back to the PM for that very reason.

'nor may officials’ advice be transmitted to Ministers via Special Advisers'

https://www.civilservant.org.uk/spads-homepage.html

It's almost as if the Government had already thought of this situation, put rules in place to stop it happening, and are now breaking those rules.

So, If these two aren't Government officials or scientists and can't contribute anything to the meeting, and aren't allowed to legally transmit advice back to the PM.

Why are they there ?

 

[drew]

It beggars belief that people can see no problem with a political adviser attending Sage meetings, especially as it appears from comments made to the Guardian, that he is getting too involved. If the Government need representation then there are plenty of ministers that could sit in and observe. We are not at war with another country so there should be more transparency with these meetings, at least we should know who these scientific experts are that the government are apparently relying on.

It is worrying that Johnson is reported not to have attended 5 consecutive COBR meetings whilst this pandemic was developing.

 

[RossyG]

It beggars belief that people can see no problem with a political adviser attending Sage meetings, especially as it appears from comments made to the Guardian, that he is getting too involved.

Well if it turns out that the scientists recommended the Swedish approach to Covid and Cummings overruled them and insisted on a lockdown then I for one won’t be happy.

It is worrying that Johnson is reported not to have attended 5 consecutive COBR meetings whilst this pandemic was developing.

Agreed. We need Boris leading from the front. The more involved he is the better. Thank goodness he’s back tomorrow.

Nicola Sturgeon also bunked off all those COBRA meetings. I expect the Scots will be asking about that, too.

 

[Bakero]

Well if it turns out that the scientists recommended the Swedish approach to Covid and Cummings overruled them and insisted on a lockdown then I for one won’t be happy.

Surely you won't be happy be happy if Cummings overruled them in any way

 

[nicko31]

Hmmmm

[tweet]1254315149135151104[/tweet]

The plot thickens....

https://bylinetimes.com/2020/04/22/palantir-coronavirus-contract-did-not-go-to-competitive-tender/

 

[nicko31]

It is worrying that Johnson is reported not to have attended 5 consecutive COBR meetings whilst this pandemic was developing.

He hasn't actually worked much since Christmas...

 

[RossyG]

Surely you won't be happy be happy if Cummings overruled them in any way

The trouble with experts is they don’t seem to agree.

I’m wondering if, contrary to my original stance, the Swedish experts are right and ours are wrong.

 

[clapham_gull]

The specific problem with Cummings being there is that he fancies himself as a data scientist (which he isn't) and surrounds himself with actual number crunchers who unfortunately believe they can apply their trade to any discipline and get better outcomes than the respective experts.

To put it simply, if Cummings and their ilk were successful at betting on the football, they'd convince themselves they are better than footballers.

He is part of a worrying trend (see Trump) where a hunch outweighs an actual scientific background.

 

[narly101]

Is this not the Coronavirus **** thread?

 

[RossyG]

Hmmm, seems he did interfere after all.



Not impressed.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

Hmmm, seems he did interfere after all.

View attachment 122921

Not impressed.

On the face of it, I am glad he interfered. Most countries have used lockdown. The jury is out on its overall effectiveness over time, but in the short term it undoubtedly saved lives.