- Oct 17, 2008
- 14,501
- Thread starter
- #21
Stroke of genius IMHO. A bloke practically nobody has a bad word against, with a proven record and understanding of the criminal justice system.
[Politics] Cabinet ministers changing roles…
- Thread starter jcdenton08
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
It is difficult to expect a career politician to be an expert on agriculture, foreign policy, whatever - that is the remit of the civil servants and the expert advisers. Certainly though, I agree that ministers should not be swapped round every five minutes (unless they completely cock it up, like Kwateng) - FFS eave the minister in position long enough to get a decent understanding of what he/she is supposed to be doing.
Greg Bobkin
Silver Seagull
- May 22, 2012
- 16,035
You would THINK it would be a good idea, but I've seen numerous people from the other 'side' slating him/Labour for it since it was announced. Same as Partick Vallance.
Thing is, if the Tories had done that (leaving Cameron aside) they would consider it a masterstroke! It's one of the many reasons I find politics so awful.
Plus, he’ll be really handy if anyone needs their shoes repaired or wants a spare key cut.
This.
I heard Nihal interview him a few months ago. Sounded absolutely fantastic.
Which people from the other side (labour) criticised Vallance? A pal of mine did her post doc in his research group. He's an absolutely scrupulous bloke. As far as I can see, politics is fine often, when labour does it, and sometimes when the Tories do it
The thing is the Tories have debased and degraded the rubric of HMG so badly over the last several years we all now imagine tomfoolery at every turn is how government works.
It may take some time before people realise that Labour know what they are doing. Assuming this is the case (it may not be - time will tell).
Isn't this what Cummings was planning before he was kicked out by BoJo, essentially bring in experts and professionals to run the different departments of Government. As dislikable as he was, i thought his opinions on the way Government was poorly run and what it needed were interesting.
- Jul 10, 2003
- 27,766
It's part of the whole concept of people being trained to lead, and leading regardless of the area they're leading.
I have seen it in business time and time again and occasionally it works. If the individual is a natural leader, they will be very good at listening to and motivating the people a level below who actually understand what they're doing. (I was never taught to lead so always stayed within my area of expertise - wimp
)
This has been the principle of Government for the last couple of hundred years and generally it has worked. Government ministers were promoted because they were capable of taking advice from people who really knew what they were talking about and actually ran the country (the Civil Service) and then using that advice to put their political aims into action (with a few exceptions).
Then came Johnson and his cabal. As you remember, Him, Cummings, and his team, Gove, Braverman, Truss, Kwarteng, Sunak, decided they needed no advice from anyone (see Britannia Unchained) and were cleverer than any of the experts who have spent whole careers being good at what they do so would push ahead with whatever was their best idea that morning and here we are
From the first two days in power, it appears Starmer is going back to a more traditional approach.
And that's just my view and definitely not from people who are actually in the Civil Service
I have seen it in business time and time again and occasionally it works. If the individual is a natural leader, they will be very good at listening to and motivating the people a level below who actually understand what they're doing. (I was never taught to lead so always stayed within my area of expertise - wimp
)This has been the principle of Government for the last couple of hundred years and generally it has worked. Government ministers were promoted because they were capable of taking advice from people who really knew what they were talking about and actually ran the country (the Civil Service) and then using that advice to put their political aims into action (with a few exceptions).
Then came Johnson and his cabal. As you remember, Him, Cummings, and his team, Gove, Braverman, Truss, Kwarteng, Sunak, decided they needed no advice from anyone (see Britannia Unchained) and were cleverer than any of the experts who have spent whole careers being good at what they do so would push ahead with whatever was their best idea that morning and here we are
From the first two days in power, it appears Starmer is going back to a more traditional approach.
And that's just my view and definitely not from people who are actually in the Civil Service
Last edited:
- Jul 10, 2003
- 27,766
I have to say I've never seen the terms SPADS and Subject Experts in the same sentence without a 'v' in the middle
Last edited:
- Jul 10, 2003
- 27,766
No, the exact opposite. He wanted his self appointed SPADS to have authority over the Civil Service
Although to be fair to him, complete **** though he was, he know how to control marketing and run a campaign. Rishi could've used him
Cummings is brilliant.
Apart from his decision that we must leave the EU at any cost.
He's a disruptor. You employ disruptors. But you either accept their plan, or not. Lazy fatboy Johnson didn't understand the rules.
Absolutely spot onIt's part of the whole concept of people being trained to lead, and leading regardless of the area they're leading.
I have seen it in business time and time again and occasionally it works. If the individual is a natural leader, they will be very good at listening to and motivating the people a level below who actually understand what they're doing. (I was never taught to lead so always stayed within my area of expertise - wimp
This has been the principle of Government for the last couple of hundred years and generally it has worked. Government ministers were promoted because they were capable of taking advice from people who really knew what they were talking about and actually ran the country (the Civil Service) and then using that advice to put their political aims into action (with a few exceptions).
Then came Johnson and his cabal. As you remember, Him, Cummings, and his team, Gove, Braverman, Truss, Kwarteng, Sunak, decided they needed no advice from anyone (see Britannia Unchained) and were cleverer than any of the experts who have spent whole careers being good at what they do so would push ahead with whatever was their best idea that morning
From the first two days in power, it appears Starmer is going back to a more traditional approach.
And that's just my view and definitely not from people who are actually in the Civil Service
- Jul 10, 2003
- 27,766
Absolutely spot on
It's simply what I'm told by people far brighter than the kids from Easthill yoof club
BrightonCottager
Well-known member
There were 16 ministers for housing and planning from 2010 until the last GE. None of them appeared to know or care anything about the subjects. They were 'advised' by their special advisers (often from a right wing think tank based in Tufton Street) and briefed and and counselled by the professional civil servants whose job it is to try to deliver their wishes while pointing out the foreseen and unforeseen consequences.
It's interesting that Starmer has appointed ex Tory Secretary of State for Housing (and planning) Nick Boles as his planning guru. Boles previously tried and failed to introduce more certainty into the planning system by copying the US style of zoning, but admitted defeat when developers and his own party decided that they rather preferred the more flexible discretionary system we have had here since the early 1900s.
It's interesting that Starmer has appointed ex Tory Secretary of State for Housing (and planning) Nick Boles as his planning guru. Boles previously tried and failed to introduce more certainty into the planning system by copying the US style of zoning, but admitted defeat when developers and his own party decided that they rather preferred the more flexible discretionary system we have had here since the early 1900s.
Greg Bobkin
Silver Seagull
- May 22, 2012
- 16,035
I meant the Tories/Reform/RW antivax nut job 'side', H. Not Labour. Even for THIS country that would be a bit early for a revolt...Which people from the other side (labour) criticised Vallance? A pal of mine did her post doc in his research group. He's an absolutely scrupulous bloke. As far as I can see, politics is fine often, when labour does it, and sometimes when the Tories do it